Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
I know that many of the people who know how to do this are busy whitewashing, but making the claims side-by-side seems like the best organization. I might try to figure it out eventually, so anyone who wants something funny should watch for the first wave of failures.--MountainTiger 16:54, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Time for a re-do
I think that this page should be thoroughly expanded as currently is it somewhat incoherent. I would get to work on it but I have two 4000 word essays due in soon! check out 9/11 Myths wiki JAStewart 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Not biased enough
Why are lunacies such as creationism and conservatism treated so harshly by this wiki, while the 9/11 conspiracy theories are given what looks like a legitimate debate? We should be harsher on people who pedal this bollocks. Each of them is exactly as stupid as Andrew Schlafly. — Unsigned, by: 86.147.173.223 / talk / contribs
- Not biased enough? the page takes each point and rebuts it. What did you want? Legitimate debate is the best way of undoing conspiracy theorising. Conspiracy theory theorists love supposedly unanswerable "evidence" that they present - all it needs is someone to answer it in a coherent manner, with counter-argument and evidence against their claims and rhetoric. I'd prefer that to saying "they're all wrong and stupid LOL" another reason we haven't given this page the snarky treatment is that whoever wrote it didn't want to write jokes about 3000 people dying. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
no one is right here 3000 people died and they heard the thud when they hit the ground and if u think the goverment or anyone could of made that up then u should find out if u were dropped on ur headwen u were little i know there is freedom of speech but people died do nu think they said sure ill let the government kill me even though i have family so i dont care wat u say u should shut the fuck up — Unsigned, by: 67.183.175.35 / talk / contribs
- It's strange how utter failure to grasp fundamental vocabulary, grammar, writing style, cognitive consistency, context, logic, or spelling can actually enhance a person's communication skills. I'd be more bevildered if xie'd written this in something resembling educated English. --CogitoErgoRaraSum (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, I found someone else who uses gender-neutral pronouns. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 01:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly biased. Just think about it - this wiki has no second thoughts of blaming, for example, Stalin of murdering millions of people by "accident" or any other governments, but starts foaming at it's mouth at a mere mention that "Great Protectors of Democracy and Freedom" can do something like that even on a much lower scale. What was the difference between you and Conservapedia again..? — Unsigned, by: 92.49.4.203 / talk / contribs
- The difference between 9/11 conspiracy theories and the Holodomor is that the Holodomor has actual evidence supporting it. WarlordFred (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Pathetic
This entire site is a pathetic attempt to promote rational, clear headed, objective, critical thinking. — Unsigned, by: 70.102.136.132 / talk / contribs
- He's right damn it! I have wasted my life. AceDrumcode 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- And I like how ey were able to back up that statement with actual, factual reasoning and examples instead of just tossing shit around. Oh wait..... The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is sort of nobly pathetic to be trying as hard as we do to promote rational, clear-headed, objective critical thinking in a world that increasingly seems to be dominated by the likes of 70.102.136.132. So coming from hir, pathetic is praise. --CogitoErgoRaraSum (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki leaks
The late 2010 wiki leaks stuff will no doubt corroborate all the 91/11 conspiracy theories. Actually it's strange that they didn't release that stuff first. Please note that there are elements of humour and sarcasm in the preceding message.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Added LIHOP and MIHOP
Added the differentiation between MIHOP and LIHOP hypotheses. I couldn't figure out where this kind of addition would go, since most of the topic is debating specific (usually MIHOP) points.— Unsigned, by: Uriel-238 / talk / contribs
[edit] Ronan Point and Fred Dibnah
There should be some mention of the Ronan Point disaster (which was undoubtedly caused by bad design).
Have the likes of Fred Dibnah been asked their opinion on the subject?
Most people would assume that 'tall buildings in city centres' would be designed so they could be ecommissioned at the end of their lifespans causing minimal damage to buildings in the neighbourhood. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Barrie Zwicker
CBC interview with Michael Enright. here's the audio link.
In Canada, Zwicker has drawn comparisons to Michael Moore with respect to his viewpoints, and his approach to documentary making. He was the first from the mainstream press to go public with his opinion that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an "inside job", when, on January 21, 2002, he stated that he wanted the media to ask the following questions:
- Why didn't the president give any orders for 140 minutes after the first plane had been hijacked?
- Why didn't he make a statement in the first 165 minutes after the first plane got hijacked?
- Why did not a single American Air Force plane make a single interception during these two hours?
Civic Cat (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Ag
At the least. Maybe Au in time. Tytalk 02:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Never make a chemical elements joke in my presence again. ADK...I'll deceive your autobiography! 02:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- So... Tytalk 02:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Count me in for 'argentum at the least' also. Peter Urist for Mod! 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- So... Tytalk 02:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] 9-11
I think we should move this page to "9-11 conspiracy theories", as slashes don't look good in MediaWiki URLs. Any objections? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 01:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've never really seen anyone write it as "9-11" though. Is the URL's look that important? Sam Tally-ho! 01:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 01:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's fine - only the talk page is broken in that way. Peter Urist for Mod! 01:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I did it. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 02:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- ¿¡Por qué?! Sam Tally-ho! 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bet you a
{{half stale cookie}}it will get reverted within 24 hours. It wasn't really a problem. Peter Urist for Mod! 02:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)- If it doesn't matter either way, then why care if it's changed? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 02:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bet you a
- ¿¡Por qué?! Sam Tally-ho! 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I did it. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 02:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's fine - only the talk page is broken in that way. Peter Urist for Mod! 01:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 01:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Should be 9/11. How it looks on the page is kinda more important than how it looks in the URL. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 02:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lies, blatant lies. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did I say? Peter Urist for Mod! 03:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- You people and your shitty fucking slahes. HYPHENS FOREVER!!!!!!11111111oneone. Flinttalk to me :D|see my shit 03:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Would 11.9.2011 conspiracy theories be an acceptable compromise then? Peter Urist for Mod! 03:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm willing to settle for that. Fluckedtalk to me :D|see my shit 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wait -- 2011? STOP TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY!!!!!!11111ONEONE. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 03:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- My God! They're everywhere! Peter Urist for Mod! 03:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nah. The event and ensuing conspiracy theories are almost exclusively known as 9/11. And you better watch out, Fallacy. When I'm elected president, I'm making hyphens a federal crime. If I catch one in your possession, you'll be in some deep trouble! Sam Tally-ho! 03:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hyphens, a federal-crime? Are you insane? 1/4 of all Mexicans will have part of their name criminalized! Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 03:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- He'll solve immigration and terrorism at a stroke! Genius! There's still time to join the GOP race, I believe. Peter Urist for Mod! 04:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hyphens, a federal-crime? Are you insane? 1/4 of all Mexicans will have part of their name criminalized! Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 03:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wait -- 2011? STOP TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY!!!!!!11111ONEONE. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 03:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm willing to settle for that. Fluckedtalk to me :D|see my shit 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Would 11.9.2011 conspiracy theories be an acceptable compromise then? Peter Urist for Mod! 03:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- You people and your shitty fucking slahes. HYPHENS FOREVER!!!!!!11111111oneone. Flinttalk to me :D|see my shit 03:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- What did I say? Peter Urist for Mod! 03:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Only one question, I haven't seen addressed.
I want to start off by stating that I am not claiming that anything other than the standard "terrorists crashed planes into the towers" event happened on 9/11. I'm not claiming that any of the conspiracy hypotheses (I refuse to let them have the word "theory" for obvious reasons) happened. I only have one question that, to date, I have not seen brought up, and would like a rational explanation for it. Anyways...
Okay, the planes hit the towers, and the fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel frames sufficiently to cause a collapse. Something like 650 degrees Celsius steel loses half its strength, if memory serves me correctly. Okay, so big holes in the towers, fire burning at 650 degrees. How is it then that there are pictures and video of people standing in the smoking holes left by the planes, shouting out for help? Did all the fuel flow down into the structure while still on fire, leaving the actual impact holes cool relative to the parts of the structure that burned at higher temperatures? Would the heat not rise up along the path that the fuel flowed down, or would there be enough space for it to rise up to the highest points in the towers? I'm 100% certain there's a clear-cut logical explanation, I just can't see it, probably due to a lack of knowledge on some subject or another. So, enlighten me, so that when I speak to one of these "truthers," as you call them (they are common in my area, sadly), I can provide a proper refute to them. — Unsigned, by: 207.119.117.230 / talk / contribs
- I wasn't aware there were such pictures, actually. Can you give a link? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 04:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to link to this site, here's the picture I had shown to me... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1hole1.html— Unsigned, by: 207.119.117.230 / talk / contribs
- I think you are suffering from a case of pareidolia. Pi 3:14 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I admit there is a possibilty of that, but it does look a LOT like a person standing there. Enough to cast at least some doubt on pareidolia being the explanation. — Unsigned, by: 207.119.119.134 / talk / contribs 06:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Looking alot like something" is what pareidolia is all about. I find it interesting that they name the file woman_wtc.jpg—somebody seems to have been extrapolating more than a little beyond the limits of what they can reliably determine. The page promises that "several people can be seen standing in the hole, looking out." I can only see the one: the one that they highlight. Pareidolia often relies on the the resemblance in question being pointed out before it is easily seen (and cannot be unseen). Without this priming, I think most people would just conclude that the claimed person is entirely consistent with being just another collection of bent metal. Peter Blessed are the cheesemakers 07:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm... I hadn't thought of it that way. This is why I asked. Perhaps this explanation should be on the actual page, then?
- "Looking alot like something" is what pareidolia is all about. I find it interesting that they name the file woman_wtc.jpg—somebody seems to have been extrapolating more than a little beyond the limits of what they can reliably determine. The page promises that "several people can be seen standing in the hole, looking out." I can only see the one: the one that they highlight. Pareidolia often relies on the the resemblance in question being pointed out before it is easily seen (and cannot be unseen). Without this priming, I think most people would just conclude that the claimed person is entirely consistent with being just another collection of bent metal. Peter Blessed are the cheesemakers 07:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I admit there is a possibilty of that, but it does look a LOT like a person standing there. Enough to cast at least some doubt on pareidolia being the explanation. — Unsigned, by: 207.119.119.134 / talk / contribs 06:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are suffering from a case of pareidolia. Pi 3:14 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to link to this site, here's the picture I had shown to me... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1hole1.html— Unsigned, by: 207.119.117.230 / talk / contribs
- I would also say that if it is in fact a person (the proportions look a little odd but not unreasonable), it's possible they could have come over from an area that hadn't collapsed yet and had been protected from the initial fireball. However, those were big fn fireballs. It is highly unlikely that it presents any argument one way or the other for what exactly hit the building, leading us via Occam's Razor back to a plane impact. In other words, exactly what is to be gained by holding this up as evidence of anything except for one extremely unlucky person who got to fresh air the hard way before dying in the collapse is more or less nothing. EVDebs (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
[edit] grammar problem.
we say
- If people driving near the Pentagon who apparently were witnesses of the plane actually saw it, it would have blown them off
-blown them off what? — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
- Blown them over? Blown them off the road? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 05:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] No mention of the mossad guys?
As I understand it a number of spies supposedly saw the event and drove away. That does not mean it involved them, but from what I did read it sounds like the most substantiated trope about the subject.
[edit] No plane theorists?
Should we just dismiss them as retarded or should we actually try to disprove them?
Also, this might be helpful. Best debunking I've seen so far. Mr. Anon (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- If they think that there where no planes involved, then debunking them is trivial - one photo would do the trick. Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 17:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Photoshopped, all of them. Nihilist 17:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Silly me, I forgot that all photographs ever made that would happen to disprove a conspiracy theory are actually creations of the Illuminati photoshopping department. I guess we could try a good ol' debunking, why not? It probably won't take up much space or effort. Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 17:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nico Haupt is probably the pre-eminent (read: most loony) no-planer. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Silly me, I forgot that all photographs ever made that would happen to disprove a conspiracy theory are actually creations of the Illuminati photoshopping department. I guess we could try a good ol' debunking, why not? It probably won't take up much space or effort. Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 17:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Photoshopped, all of them. Nihilist 17:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Bomb Dog consistency
Someone needs to reconcilet these two statements:
"Not only would these explosives have to be laid at night in secret, they would also somehow be able to beat animals specially trained to detect them."
"Even if all bomb dogs were still present, their presence would either be ineffective (i.e. not able to already detect explosives being planted in the pillar), or weren't able to stop a rushed-job where sufficient explosives were somehow added overnight without being detected."
No reason to leave weak spots laying around.— Unsigned, by: 66.26.92.174 / talk / contribs 23:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Complete tripe
Where to begin? This article truly is a complete disaster.
Perhaps at the very beginning; "If you're going to put anything truther-ish on this page, you'd best be prepared to provide impeccable citations. Trust us, we've seen all the truther arguments before, so don't be trying to pass off some fringe article from 2002 as new information. We will find out."
Curious then that this article is replete with entire oceans of "rebuttal" text without a single citation, source, or even footnote.
If it is to be demanded of "truthers" to provide impeccable citations for their theories and/or arguments, then the same must be demanded of those defending opposing viewpoints.
One example is the rebuttal made thusly "Rebuttal: It is very likely [Larry Silverstein] was indeed simply going to a dermatologist appointment"
Says who? According to what? No source, no citation.
Another glaring example is under the False false flag operations section, where Operation Northwoods is mentioned: "... a plan to blow up drone planes as part of a false flag operation to justify the invasion of Cuba is a precedent for a 9/11 false flag...his plan was proposed by a few members of JFK's Department of Defense...and it didn't even involve killing anyone"
Again, no sources, no citations. In fact, even Wikipedia has bothered to take references from the actual files. Indeed the plan was proposed and agreed upon by " a few members of JFK's Department of Defense", the US Joint Chiefs of Staff no less. The plan proposed the murder of numerous groups of Cubans and Americans to further the desired public mindset.
But instead of mentioning any of this, the scant few sentences of piffle are used dishonestly as ammunition against the associated "truther" argument.
Another problem is when actual citations are made, but it does not back what has been stated in the article. One example of this is: "The above four people were already on record as wanting a "new Pearl Harbor" as a reason to mobilize the US armed forces into the Middle East in a new hot war. However, the "new Pearl Harbor" quote was in reference to modernizing the military and had nothing to do with declaring a war."
Reading the source shows that it was in fact in reference to an event that would require the declaration of war, a prerequisite to increasing military spending and expansion.
Overall, this article is lacking in sources to back up some of the nonsensical "rebuttals" mentioned, and perhaps less of the overly tongue-in-cheek references.
And of course, last but not least, the premise of the article is wrong in the first place. Morg197 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- The authorities have been notified of your whistleblowing and will be coming for you shortly. Please remain where you are. EVDebs (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the article could have no citations. That's why I've already pointed to this as a better debunking. If someone can merge parts of Muertos' debunking into the article, that would be great (along with citations that he uses). Mr. Anon (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's not any better for debunking. Lots of statements like "This has been verified as genuine." without any more explanation or source, and assertions like "clear, absolute, and unequivocal" just to try to be more convincing. If you have to tell someone that something is "clear, absolute, and unequivocal", that means it's likely not "clear, absolute, and unequivocal". — Unsigned, by: 71.213.214.244 / talk / contribs
Oh dear me, the sceptic "COINTELPRO" site. This looks completely promising. One of the best parts:
"I can find no sources of such an event -- that is sources that do not occur on conspiracy web sites themselves. If the event did take place, it is not surprising, considering Osama bin Laden has many, many family members, something on the order of 54 brothers and sisters alone -- most of which have completely disowned him. Many also own or are a part of major businesses, construction companies, oil companies, etc, so it is not very surprising that rich business men meet with rich business men -- believe it or not, it is a very common occurrence"
Believe it or not, it would be entirely common for Bin Laden's family to meet Bush's family, after all both are rich. Nothing suspicious at all. The source of course being an 2004 Washington Post article which does not support the site author's position. Morg197 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- What is really funny is, the truthers never examined what happened to the Chief JCS when he suggested the Northwoods operation. He was replaced with someone who was sane.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] double standard
"Note to contributors: If you're going to put anything truther-ish on this page, you'd best be prepared to provide impeccable citations." but if you're supporting the popular story, you don't need impeccable citations.... — Unsigned, by: 71.213.214.244 / talk / contribs
- Not really a double standard, we say much the same thing to Creationists, to Fad Diet proponents, Birthers, Moon Landing Hoax. Ohhhh, wait, that's not what you meant.--
GodotIz a sekret Kristian 15:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- How much you say something has no effect on whether it's a double standard. 68.170.224.17 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Empire State Building Incident
The points raised in the article are entirely correct but there are a couple missed and/or need emphasis. The article states that the B-25 is a smaller slower plane, which is right but that's just scratching the surface. The B-25 weighs about 19,000 lbs empty, the 757/767 weighs some 170,000 lbs empty. What was the B-25 doing? It was lost in the fog, critical on fuel, looking for a place to land- it was flying at loiter speed, which for a B-25 is somewhere a bit over 100 knots. It wasn't flying nears top speed trying to demolish a building. And all the fuel, baggage and passengers on the 9/11 planes weigh a bunch. Probably carried 4000 gallons of fuel at between 6-7lbs per. So add 25,000. About 100 passengers with luggage, probably 20,000 there. So we've got about 10 times the weight moving at 5 times the sped. Now realize that calculating the difference in kinetic energy released upon impact of these events isn't linear as the energy is multiplied mass times velocity. So we've got 50 times the energy released upon the structure- which, being concrete jacketed over iron, doesn't need the fireproofing the WTC had,which was knocked off by the 50x higher force. Since it was lost in fog low on fuel the B-25 incident didn't see a prolonged blaze using its fuel as an accelerant either.Batvette (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Useful details, could certainly be worked into the article. Have at it. Oh, also, Ek=1/2mv2, so 250 times the energy. ₭£€‡₦怇₮ 05:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that correction, I just knew the diffence was "a ****load". Would you call that difference in formula "exponential", logarithmic, or? (In regard to the difference not being a sum, or multiplied, but something like the Richter scale or how RF power is expressed in db)Batvette (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit] New York Times story
The paper of record has a story claiming that the CIA was warning Bush about an Al Qaeda plot months before the infamous August memo - back as far as May. The writer says top bods at the CIA were so incensed at the administration's failure to do anything that they considered quitting so it wouldn't happen on their watch.
I'm not sure whether we want to mention this yet as it's one story from one writer who's just stating what he claims he saw in memos that haven't been officially released. If it's true, though, it will certainly bolster the "Bush let it happen" claims, although I'm still on the side of "Bush was an idiot" theories. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's been a while since the question was asked, but, why not? The memos were essentially "Al Qaeda is planning an attack on a US target". Nothing specific, nothing even general, just suggestions that an operation against a US target would occur within the next six months or so. The majority of Al Qaeda attacks were bombings against US embassies abroad, with one bombing at the WTC some years prior. So, there was no sense of another domestic attack or even what region of the world an attack would occur in.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] What do you think of this image RW?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zhIa3Unc6Hs/TqqjA0kQf6I/AAAAAAAAAD4/59pXYNzm9EI/s1600/121107truther-911DummiesRaveFlyer-Front.jpg -86.25.6.221 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Asthetically unpleasing, putting the words "FBI" or "CNN" after a claim does not count as a reference, mostly debunked years ago, unlikely things happen. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 16:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- So I went to that site to find out at least one reference. The site doesn't even have a search engine to search for "northwood", nor does it appear even if you expand the page entirely. Conclusion: outdated bull-kaka. Also, why bother with the Youtube logo, when it wasn't even around before 2005? --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Same old story, same old song and dance, my friends... EVDebs (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 1.12 Space beams! rebuttal is high-priority
. Dr.Wood is the Truther's best shot; because she is lean on theory and heavy on evidence . . then the recent pbs documentary by the (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) also is consistent with her, and they are not refuted on this page either . . she has gotten the leanest coverage relative to her case's importance; I would help refute her, but besides a plague of nitpicking, the only thing I could find fatally irrational, was someone suggesting their own gov could do that and then try taking them to court -- as if that would be possible! LOL ;) .PhT (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
==I didn't do it, and there weren't any witnesses, and if I ever get my hands on the guy who ratted me out you're DEAD, you hear me?!== Maytree (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- One can only call the space beam theory the biggest load of hogwash in the history of hogwash. A review of Doctor Wood's hogwash suggested microwaves, lasers or antimatter weapons. Antimatter weapons are still a dream with no hope for a prototype device in sight, it takes too much energy to begin to form positron beams and a rather generous sized accelerator to do it in. Microwaves, maybe. If they were in the terawatt range or higher. Of course, beam divergence and the inverse square law means that the emitter would be somewhat noticeable, as the device would by necessity be large and close to the target, hanging about, larger than a 767 and hanging in precisely the way a brick doesn't hang in the air. Lasers, nothing yet in the power range, again, terawatts or greater. Deforming a missile casing or heating a mortar round in flight into premature detonation is one thing, blasting a building is totally another thing and one then has to consider the plasma plume blocking the incoming laser radiation from striking the target once any penetration has begin. Of course, if we had such wonderful weapons, we'd not need to have a anti-missile missile system that Washington keeps wanting installed. Reality is reality, the laws of physics won't yield based upon the wishes for Star Trek technology that still doesn't exist.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Building design for decommission
Given that New York is 'very built up' and 'tall buildings' are probably designed for when they will eventually come down - has the collapse been considered by demolition expert talking heads?
Should there be a mention of Ronan Point (explosion leading to partial building collapse)? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- For those who can't be bothered to look it up, Ronan point was a classic case of cheap 60's multi-storey building designed by an architect after watching someone build a house of cards. A resident on on of the lower floors had an oopsie when making the tea which led to a minor gas explosion which blew out the load baring wall. Just like a house of cards.
- So, yes, the parallels with the WTC are clear and obvious, or not. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
To what extent #are# buildings designed with 'eventual taking down' in mind?
[1] is also relevant. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Molten Steel
I don't know whether there was molten steel versus aluminum versus something else. I'd like to respond to the question about how you could find extreme temperatures deep in the pile long after the collapse.
1. Heat production is proportional to the reacting volume, while heat loss is proportional to surface area.
If there were a way for air to get to the bottom of a huge pile of flammable debris, it could get hotter than an open flame.
2. The gravitational potential energy of the twin towers would be (if this is right):
1,500,000 tons of building times
1,300 feet high times
0.4, if that's the relative height of the center of gravity times
2000 pounds in a ton times
0.3, the number of calories in a foot-pound divided by
9, the number of calories in a gram of oil divided by
1,000,000 grams in a ton of oil equals
The energy content of 52,000 (metric) tons of oil.
If that energy were distributed evenly, it would only heat things up a few degrees. If it was concentrated in bending or sliding areas, those areas would heat up the most. Just as only the brakes heat up when you use them on a long downgrade. Check my physics, but I wouldn't be surprised to find high temperatures at the bottom of such a gigantic collapse.
[edit] Why use explosives?
I would add this to the article but it's not clear where to put it, and it should be rearranged/rewritten/expanded/contracted anyway. In short…
Apart from all the problems regarding means and opportunity to plant hidden explosives in the buildings, there's also the question of motivation. Presumably, a "hypothetical" situation in which jetliners hit the buildings and no bombs were involved (i.e., the real situation) would have caused some damage, killing many people and searing into the minds of Americans an image of two buildings attacked by terrorists. So why would the conspirators bother with bombs in addition to jetliners? (Conversely, why bother with jetliners in addition to bombs?)
Truther answers vary. Only a few of their arguments actually suggest relevant differences between the known scenario and what they imply as a "bomb-free" one: namely, that the towers fell straight down into their own footprints (as opposed to sideways, or just the tops flying off by themselves) and that their speeds approached free-fall. In short, we are supposed to believe that the conspirators would not have accomplished their goals without the buildings falling quickly and straight down.
This point does not apply to non-controlled-demolition conspiracies, but the CD hypothesis has managed to dominate to the point of being synonymous with trutherdom. Why? Perhaps because controlled-demolition hypothesis offers more hope of an un-dismissible smoking gun than the mere LIHOP argument ever could. Ironically, though, it is almost the least plausible of the theories (though space-beams and hologram-planes show us that one can always find a wealthier stash of crazy somewhere else).
Addendum: Of course, the "Why?" problem is not an ironclad argument even if it has no answer, because sufficient evidence in favor of bombs would confirm that bombs indeed had been planned. If C-SPAN captured footage of Ultra-Sane Representative Jones suddenly meowing like a cat, the fact that no one can provide a rational reason for his doing so would not somehow disprove the assertion that Jones meowed. Maybe the conspirators just like planting bombs.
In fact, maybe the purpose of the bombs was because it would draw in the conspiracy-theory crowd like moths to a flame, and the inevitable post-attack "truth movement" would be unable to resist making themselves look ridiculous by constantly talking about something as absurd as redundant explosives!