Talk:9-11 conspiracy theories/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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)

Time for a re-do[edit]

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)

Since the time that you wrote this, the article has so much more information that it might even be practical to make more on the topic. Leoesb1032 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not biased enough[edit]

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: / 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: / 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: / 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)


This entire site is a pathetic attempt to promote rational, clear headed, objective, critical thinking. — Unsigned, by: / 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..... Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 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 So coming from hir, pathetic is praise. --CogitoErgoRaraSum (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki leaks[edit]

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)

Added LIHOP and MIHOP[edit]

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 04:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ronan Point and Fred Dibnah[edit]

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. (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Barrie Zwicker[edit]

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)


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)


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)
Basically, because it's 9/11 and not 9-11. Also, you broke a few redirects. Peter Urist for Mod! 02:16, 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)

Only one question, I haven't seen addressed.[edit]

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: / 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...— Unsigned, by: / 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: / 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?
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)

grammar problem.[edit]

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)

No mention of the mossad guys?[edit]

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.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 09:57, 15 May 2012‎ (UTC)

No plane theorists?[edit]

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. Oniontalk/edits 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. Oniontalk/edits 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)

Bomb Dog consistency[edit]

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: / talk / contribs 23:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Complete tripe[edit]

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: ‎ / 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)

double standard[edit]

"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: / 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.--Green mowse.pngGodotIz a sekret Kristian 15:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
How much you say something has no effect on whether it's a double standard. (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New York Times story[edit]

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 •TCE 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)

What do you think of this image RW?[edit] - (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)

1.12 Space beams! rebuttal is high-priority[edit]

. 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)

Building design for decommission[edit]

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)? (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. (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Molten Steel[edit]

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.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 01:59, 23 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Why use explosives?[edit]

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!

Lenoxus (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Section: Neoconservative Plot[edit]

I removed the section that contained goats did it, Elvis did it and readers of this site did it because this is weird and insulting to families affected by 9/11. If anyone wants to change it back, please leave a message here first. Leoesb1032 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If I had lost a loved one to 9/11, I'd be a lot more insulted by all the people claiming conspiracies about it, rather than a few silly jokes on some website. I honestly don't see how anyone could find that offensive. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Empire State Building Incident[edit]

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)
I went ahead and added some of the energy statistics to the pile. Zero (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

is there a high def video of an airplane hitting buildings[edit]

All I saw up to this date are the heavily edited murky images with the airplane represented by 3x4 pixels. Those videos do not match the standards in the news industry in 2001. Saying "6 frames of the footage of the plane hitting the pentagon" proves nothing because if you actually look at that footage (with your eyes, rather than listen to "experts") you will only see a fast small projectile that is much smaller than the plane. So, those 6 shots actually disprove the official theory. Let me repeat this. Please provide a link to an hd video showing the airplane hitting the building. I expect the image quality similar to those produced by National Geographics.. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

The only video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon came from a security camera with a very low frame rate. On the other hand, eyewitness reports were unambiguous, what with the plane parts all over the place (including inside the building) and the low approach over a nearby highway. As for the NYC strikes, the only footage of the first plane came from a documentary filmmaker at a time when HD gear was well out of the range of anyone who wasn't a TV network or George Lucas, and a lot of the ENG gear in 2001 that would have caught the second plane was still SD. (Hell, it would appear that even now a lot of local stations haven't upgraded their field equipment.) You certainly won't find any home video recordings, since no one had home OTA HD recording equipment then. So, I guess you're going to keep having to be insane. EVDebs (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Not good enough. One single proof has been demanded. All terrorist attacks must take place in HD if they are to be held credible. Moon landings & holocausts too. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Answer, if the planes were drones then anything less than total destruction would not do,similarly,if the terrorists could be proven to be persons traceable and with links to CIA or ISI etc then it would not do. The planting of explosives has another factor, building 7 and the pentagon, 7 housed much in the way of records in many agencies including enron and cia and nsa. Now if a plane was meant to have hit 7, it would be strange to have just hit 7 and then that was all, the same with the pentagon, the dod announce a 2.3 trillion dollar hole, they cannot find it all, after the event that is irrelevant as they are given more. Now again, you can;t hit just that or even just that and wtc 7, if there is a huge scale attack it gains the goals of hiding a monetary loss,destroying records and getting war support to invade a land for oil and drugs. 7 was not hit, but there was another plane consider a potential that never got in the skies, and 7 was really the only other building capable of being hit in that bunch. This i point out is JUST HYPOTHESIS and i simply add this as a way to show reasoning. There is and always will be,legitimate reasons to blow up and strike with planes. It very much depends on your view. If you ask "why? in a terrorist activity would......" then the answer is to ensure damage and loss of life, not the most compelling reason. If however you say "if this conspiracy theory is true then why......" you must imagine in the concept of if it WAS a conspiracy,because if it was there are many good reasons to do both. Only if you assume official truth then ask a conspiracy question can you come up with a ridiculous answer. You must use the correct thought process for the right question. We may as well say why would they use planes as terrorists in EVERY attack have previously used bombs or guns, never suicided planes. Ergo past precedent would argue why they would.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Sure. We can provide HD video for you provided you have a time machine to fling an HD Digital Camera back to the time of impact. The standard was adopted around 1996 and went into broadcast use in 1998 (or so) but the cameras were still either very rare or the size of studio cameras. It is not a thing common enough for it to be there.Zero (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Comments[edit]

The other day while reading this article I discovered disrespectful snark saying that goats did 9/11 as did readers of this site. I believe that this is disrespectful and hurtful to families of 9/11 victims. I think it should be removed immediately as to not make people feel bad. There are so many jokes on this website it is going to be life-altering if it is taken down. Also note, no conspiracy theorist ever said goats did it so if anyone disagrees don't write it makes fun of conspiracy theorists. Leoesb1032 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree-
  1. This is disrespectful and insulting to victim's families. Leoesb1032 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree-
  1. Goat. EVDebs (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
What does that mean!? Leoesb1032 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You'll have to hang around RW more. EVDebs (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. I don't think it's particularly offensive. It ridicules conspiracy theorists, not victims. Kimberly (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. lol. You appear to be at the wrong website sunshine. --DamoHi 01:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As seeing nowhere else to put this, i would just like to make what i think will for sure, be a temporary addition, 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. This statement is indicative of a biased view. I wholeheartedly agree with the idea,but then we don't see the same from OVB'S i will give 2 examples. The passport (Satam al Suqami, something i have been working for 2 months, and the final piece when edited would prove beyond doubt that the passport could not be where it was when it was as it was,if it came from american 11. The theory that if transponders went off the planes are not trackable is akin to saying,if a plane broke US airspace it need only cut its transponder and it will be invisible. In days of multiple planes in the sky,then what if attacks came along standard flight paths from south america or canada? This is just an example. I don't, for multiple hard researched and tested reasons,believe the official story. Clearly this is a page devoted to debunking. And, you can hardly allow all truth postings. However, i would suggest that you consider that already i could debunk the debunk in at least 50% of the material you have, it doesn't make it wrong,it is just spin. My point is, i think among your mods you should have a truther, who will vet you, and truther statements and vice versa. There must be a statement of intentional bias,or a real attempt to be simply factual.As it stands,there is much that is actually deceptive.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 18:35, 19 August 2013‎ (UTC)

WTC 7[edit]

In your article on 9/11 conspiracies the sheer amount of disinformation, cherry-picking of facts, and out and out LIES, are astounding.

However, I will ask a simple question and request a rational answer. If it is supplied, I will never question the official story again.

To wit:

One element of 9/11 that is conspicuous by it's absence on your absurd page is the issue of WTC7's collapse. Simple put: how does WTC7 collapse at free-fall speed, symmetrically into it's own footprint without the use of explosive charges, which is the only way to cause all support beams to fail simultaneously. Admitted by NIST, by the way. The laws of physics were not suspended on that one day, were they?

Without simultaneous failure there cannot be free-fall speed, nor symmetrical collapse. Even NIST'S Shayam Sunder admitted that. In fact, the long awaited "Final Report" on the collapse of WTC7 doesn't address the collapse at all, but ends at the "initiation of collapse." Even then Sunder explains that the way the collapsed is presented has a very low order of probability.

Okay, agents, the ball is in your court.

So, it's a simple question. Show me how that's possible.— Unsigned, by: Profjoey / talk / contribs 18:36, 30 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Fire. Also, buildings that are controlled demolitions don't plunge at free fall speed. It's not possible unless you suddenly open a pit larger than the size of the building below it, such as a sinkhole. Similarly, Popular Mechanics's digest of the report says there was no simultaneous failure, it was sequential. Zero (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
So, let's see. 20-story gash in the side of the building and fires throughout. Visible structural weakening (at least by those who knew what to look for at the time). In other words, damage consistent with having a frikkin' 100-story skyscraper fall directly on it. Why exactly do we need to assume controlled demo? EVDebs (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


I think that the bold "rebuttal"-s are unnecessary and intrusive. Am I the only one? This is not a side-by-side article.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it make sense to put it into SBS form? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


Anyone think this's good enough for cover? I think so. Anyone has any comments? --The Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉|G̕͡a̵͘͜z̴͞e͏̴̧͞ ͏̀͠͞u͜͢ņţ̛ơ̶͜ ̶̢̛̀t̴͢h̢̛͠҉è̸̛ ̨́a̸͟b̴̧̀̕͡ý̨͠s͡s͟͠͝ 14:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Bush allowed 9/11 to happen rebuttal[edit]

To be clear, I'm talking about this:
Rebuttal: It is known that Bush received a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." on August 6, 2001, but this memo discussed the threat in a general way and made no mention of the specific individuals who carried out the 9/11 attacks.[38] Nevertheless, the existence of this memo, Bush's reported flippant response "You've covered your ass, now" and the fact that it was not declassified until years later contribute to the aura of foreknowledge and coverup.
This doesn't seem like much of a rebuttal to me; in fact, it reinforces the claim it claims to refute. And it's not even complete, there were several more warnings we ignored. Also, with the suspicious insider trading, I think it's irresponsible to group the claim that there was foreknowledge of 9/11 with ludicrous ideas like the "holographic plane".

MykalOfDefiance (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) There are going to be 'many, many scenarios' explored and presented to senior officials, ranging from 'this appears to be a present possibility/what policy should be adopted' to 'rather unlikely/nothing we can do about it.' (2) There will always be 'comments and responses' which have no particular significance at the time (GB probably meant no more than 'You have brought my attention to this, point noted and passed on') which acquire unintended significance in the context of later events ('Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan' is the usual example.) (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Mykal, the phrase "hindsight is 20/20" seems pretty apt right now. What about all the other "warnings" that they may have received? I'm willing to bet that the "warnings" your pages list are a small fraction of the total amount of intelligence law enforcement constantly received and still receives to this day. Why do you feel the intelligence referred to in your pages was enough to encourage law enforcement to take action? We know now that 9/11 was going to take place, but how could law enforcement have known that those specific pieces of intelligence were pointing to such an event and that they needed to take action before September 11th? Why do you feel the intelligence would have been persuasive enough to convince law enforcement of its veracity? Why do you feel it was specific enough that law enforcement could have acted upon it quickly enough to prevent it from happening?
Your "warnings" may seem convincing now, but that's because we know what took place now. Before 9/11, the "warnings" would have been lost in a sea of intelligence, along with who knows what else. What you're implying is that law enforcement took the time to sift through all this intelligence to find those few vague warnings, came up with a convincing profile for a large-scale attack that would take place soon, and chose not to or were persuaded not to act upon it because high-up officials in the government wanted to exploit the deaths of thousands for their own personal gain.
I'm sorry, but for you to convince me of that, you'll have to do a lot better than finding patterns in intelligence after the fact. Anyone can predict a disaster after it happens. WarlordFred (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


There is no mention to a frequently quoted part of the 9/11 Commission Report:

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

If who financed it is not of practical significance, what is? Such a ridiculous claim from officials is the kind that fuels people anger and doubts regarding 9/11. And it's quite legitimate. (Last I heard, money is of much significance to government and anyone in power!) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

From what I understand, the plan cost somewhere on the order of $250-300k to pull off. Chump change. Any one of millions and millions of people could have sold their condo to raise that little money. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 13:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's a nice counter. Zero (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Burning Jet Fuel is more than hot enough to melt Carbon Steel[edit]

It's amazing both towers stayed up as long as they did.

The factual data is surprisingly hard to find, but it's there. You really cannot trust anything you read in a forum or on wikipedia, it needs to come from a reputable source-

Jet-A1 aviation fuel, a *type* of Kerosene (Kerosene, or Kerosine, is a family, not a single chemical), burns at 2000 degrees Celsius.

Carbon steel will liquefy and flow at approximately 1400 degrees Celsius, and will be severely weakened well below that temperature.

I think a lot of the misconception comes from (possibly uneducated) american readers seeing '2000 degrees' and mistakenly thinking this means '2000 F' - about 1000 C - whereas of course it actually means '2000 degrees C'.

Jet-A1/JP8 (same thing) properties:

Shell Aviation if you want to ask them in person:

767's carry 90,000 litres of Jet-A1:

Carbon steel:

— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Thanks for this. I've been trying to sort out good sources for temperatures of burning and melting. I'll try to integrate these with the article. Zero (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This Video[edit]

Was it edited?— Unsigned, by: TemplarJLS / talk / contribs

Doubt it. He's known for making huge slip ups in speech anyway. Zero (talk - contributions) 09:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
"Conspiracy" doesn't mean "the government did it", it means a group conspired to perform the action. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 05:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

From the Onion... Brilliant[edit]


We should take a quote from this video and put it on this page somewhere. — Unsigned, by: Alsto003 / talk / contribs

Na, it's pretty old. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't care, it's still brilliant. Alsto003 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Alex

Thermite and its cousin, one that ignores the laws of gravitation.[edit]

I've recently been re-acquainted with a piece of "evidence"* that thermite can ignore the shit out of the laws of gravitation. Apparently, this thermite has null gravity properties, as it goes sideways, rather than down, per the *law* of gravity. I find it an interesting theory, as my own direct and personal experience in such matters and a double digit clearance, with enough alphabet soup after it makes the POTUS ill informed, finds zero evidence of such bullshit on rye and called a Reuben. It's shit on rye. Sorry, but no, there will be no NDA violating evidence to support the bullshit on rye being just that. I have no desire to join Manning over something so fucking retarded.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Us physicists discovered how to ignore the law of gravity decades ago. It's the same with perpetual motion. That said, it's a pretty closely guarded secret, and we're all implanted with chips that will kill us if we spill how it's done. C'est la vie. - Grant (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You damn hacks, we alchemists had it centuries ago and passed it down through our secret temples and the illuminati! I bet not a single one of you has walked 30 miles in the pouring rain to gather phlogiston...Kids today... King Skeleton (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Get with the times, old man! Seriously, who uses phlogiston these days? That stuff stinks. - Grant (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Bleh, phlogiston is only good for breathing a lot in real fast for a quick buzz. Still, phlogisticated nitrous air is far more fun. Still, I'm amazed that anyone thinks that the US can keep a secret, something it's failed to do throughout the entire history of the nation. Even the Manhattan Project had leaks, with precise design plans arriving in the USSR pretty close to immediately. It's even more interesting that Manning never managed to find this secret information, as he had the clearance and access to have trivially done so if any such secret actually existed. But, reason isn't really the strong suit of a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Reality isn't as well, for that matter. The hologram bit is also humorous, as anyone who could manage to create such a splendid white light moving hologram would be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A couple more claims[edit]

What about the "truck hitting concrete wall" analogy? And what about the claim the towers went through the building shortly before the building "exploded"?

Also, a similar claim made: The plane started to blow up before it hit the tower (basically the planes were edited in/holograms, depending on who you ask)--サトセレ (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Two more:

Something about "frail aluminum destroying steal buildings"

And: A violation of Newton's Law of Motion I don't kow what the fuck this claim is talking about, but I'll show where i heard about it with a time stamp

I think that the biggest question, however is how the fuck I got that video from a video of Freddie Mercury's last interview.--サトセレ (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

¶ I will add this to the comment (presently the second segment) that lots of people were not inside the WTC on Sept 11th for a variety of reasons: One more reason: Tuesday, Sept. 11th, 2001, was Primary Election Day in New York. A good many WTC employees who were both NY residents & US citizens might well have gone to the polls in the morning, when the wait is shorter than in the evening. (Bernard Sussman)

This is mostly a question of mass and speed (kinetic force). A 2 megagram (metric ton) truck even at 100 kph is not going to cause as much of problem as a piece of hardware flying seven times as fast and 70 megagrams. Zero (talk - contributions) 03:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


They're the nuttiest, yet they're also the most common. Why is that? Is it because they don't understand basic physics?--サトセレ (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing through the Big Lie means that you're smart and in control, and that there's someone out there who can be bought to justice for what happened. They're persistent because ceasing to believe you're smarter than everyone else requires admitting that everyone else was actually smarter than you. King Skeleton (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Bollyn (Maybe Others?)[edit]

Bollyn is one of the bigger names in the Truther industry and has written several books on the subject. He's also way off in batshit conspiracy land, usually combining several of the theories together. Might it be a good idea to have a short blurb on him and his contributions to the woo? Or maybe a short blurb of the main players? --Castaigne (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Article presents a conspiracy theory as dogmatic truth with no evidence[edit]

The article presents a popular conspiracy as true: namely that there was a conspiracy among members of a secret society called Al Queda and its enigmatic and dangerous leader Bin Laden who conspired to hijack planes and fly them into the twin towers. Does anyone else find it ironic that this conspiracy theory is presented with literally no citation to credible evidence? If you are going to present a conspiracy theory on an article where you rebut other conspiracy theories from a rationalist pov, shouldn't you at least cite some evidence in support of your own theory? Are we just supposed to accept the story of the Bin Laden/AlQueda conspiracy theory on faith? Why doesn't the article cite any proof to back its conspiracy claims?LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That BON's video[edit] Thoughts? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, thoughts about what? I know what thermite can do, but the capabilities of thermite do not mean that thermite was used. --Castaigne (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reminiscent of religious nuts dismissing overwhelming proof in an embarrassingly naive fashion[edit]

I urge you to look over every "rebuttal" and think of a way it could be invalidated. If you allow yourself an objective look, you will see the alternative explanation is both more likely and requires fewer assumptions (see Occam's razor). Of course, each side has absolutely ridiculous arguments repeatedly used, but some of the arguments in this article are pretty much as crazy as saying humans and apes cannot be related, because you are classy and apes aren't. For example, the fact that not every individual considered "bad" by conspiracy nuts was warned about the plan is in no way a worthy argument. What do you think would happen if hundreds knew about the plan in advance? Discrediting eyewitnesses, experts and alleged co-conspirators AFTER the event is no problem at all. You can simply delude the majority of the people into automatically dismissing any rational argument, replacing it with arguments of ridiculous assumptions, highly improbable conditions and fantastical details. If someone were to predict the event, it would be a different story entirely, as the most comfortable theory, probably ahead of the truth, would be believing in psychic abilities.

There is so much wrong with this article. If an entire website of self-proclaimed rational though is going to blindly dismiss one conspiracy theory over another (the Bin Laden conspiracy theory), it should at least use arguments of substance. While it should not even be affected in the slightest by the stigma surrounding the series of phonetics "con spi ra cy", automatically believing that a rational theory that a conspiracy has taken place is analogous with "bullshit", the least it can do is rationally argue for such a primitive and irrational stigma, especially considering this domai's name.

Do you have any specific things that you think should be edited, or are you just ranting? --Castaigne (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Metal Fatigue??[edit]

The section on "The Towers Fell in their own Footprint" talks about metal fatigue several times. Is this term copied from Truther claims? It seems incorrect - sky-scrapers would not normally be affected by fatigue (cyclic, low-level stresses).

Isn't everything affected by fatigue? At any rate, the term is used once in describing a truther theory and once in discussing it. PacWalker 14:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Couple of new items[edit]

I went to an event in Denver today that had a booth of 9/11 truthers (along with many other religious organizations, including three atheist booths) and ran into two claims I've never heard of before and wonder if they're worth debunking in the article.

  • Aluminum Doesn't Rust (there is no context for this, they just show a piece of metal with rust on it)
  • The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (I think our section on the ESB taking a hit would lend a few words).

One more thing, do we have a picture of the scarred side of WTC7 to put into the article somewhere? Zero (talk - contributions) 05:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

LOC unattributed Ground Zero photos, September 11, 2001 - item 196.jpg - 250px and this link around 22:00. I still hope to find some better pictures. Zero (talk - contributions) 07:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Aluminium does oxidize, but it's protective: you only get a really thin surface layer. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Cover (sticky)[edit]

Resurrecting nomination for cover. Article is still good. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You didn't have to pull a thread out of the archives to re-nominate this for a cover article.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
On the plus side for the nomination: 1. a fun read that takes you through a lot of crazy. 2. It's got some good wit. 3. Moderately well referenced. Ikanreed (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's no opposition, I'll gold this. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You really should give it at least a week for people to look it over, contemplate it, etc - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note future tense. :P Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The content is all there.
  • There are grammatical infelicities that really need someone going over the whole thing sentence by sentence before proceeding.
  • The external links pile needs serious culling and/or digestion into being proper article references.
  • Lots of overlinking in the article.
  • The format is hard to get into. Would side-by-side work any better? - David Gerard (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree.
  • Probably true; will work on it.
  • Agree. I'll try to incorporate some of them into the article.
  • I don't see the overlinking. Yes, random words are linked, but it's not insane.
  • The format's mostly fine for me, and SBS wouldn't work unless we grabbed longer quotes from truthers, which'd be a hella. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 12:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I like that format. It would require someone to flesh out all of the claims, but not as significantly. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 14:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Another question: Should it be 9-11 or 9/11? Inconsistent between title and text. FuzzyCatPotato of the Biased Handstands (talk/stalk) 12:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to call DISPLAYTITLE or something to make the slash behave as a title... right? WalkerWalkerWalker 12:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Not in mainspace. 9/11 works fine. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 12:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Duh. Well ummmmmm Talk:9 is a rather silly affair to be having subpages of. : P WalkerWalkerWalker 13:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Heh. You're right. I vote for change to 9-11. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 13:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The article is happily at 9-11, but I've put a DISPLAYTITLE on to make it look like 9/11 - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't gold it before you've fixed the fucking problems - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just advertised it on the RW Twitter, official Facebook and unofficial Facebook, asking for comment - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

ehhhhhh ... let's gold this - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Jet fuel can't melt dank memes. Now a major motion cover story! - David Gerard (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


I see no need to keep 9/11 separate; the page is pretty short, and bringing it here would let us contrast reality with fiction. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 12:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Any reason? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I think they're probably pretty mergeable, actually - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
May I? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we should keep them separate for now and work to expand the 9/11 article a bit. Zero (talk - contributions) 06:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That's only an argument if by "we" you mean "you" - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Larry Silverstein[edit]

His family were all missing from the Towers that day.

"After a last-minute breakdown in the front-running bid, Mr. Silverstein’s team won by a hair. His son, Roger, and his daughter, Lisa, were working for him in temporary offices on the 88th floor of the W.T.C. north tower. Regular meetings with tenants in the weeks immediately following their July 26, 2001, takeover of the building were held each morning at Windows on the World.

But on Sept. 11, Roger and Lisa Silverstein were running late. Meanwhile, Mr. Silverstein’s wife of 46 years had laid down the law: The developer could not cancel an appointment with his dermatologist, even to meet with tenants at his most important property. If the attack had happened just a little later, Mr. Silverstein’s children would likely have been trapped at Windows. As it was, Silverstein Properties lost four employees in the attack, two of whom had just recently been hired."

Maybe add this to the piece and say that they were all extremely lucky? I actually came to this page to see if the whole family thing had been debunked, but I guess your reasoning will be the same as for just him. (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible image addition[edit]

It might be too technical, but I like it [2] 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yas WalkerWalkerWalker 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
eh, meh - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Molten metal, small-yield nukes, and the funny thermodynamics of corium[edit]

Surely there's a nutter out there saying this... Maybe? WalkerWalkerWalker 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Free fall speed" of the collapse[edit]

I never found any convincing explanation of the speed of the tower's collapsing, which is almost free fall speed.

(i'm familiar with, but not fluent in Newton's laws.)

i think a lack of explanation regarding that part convinces many people that there is something more going on. it's the only part which still makes me doubt if there isn't something to some conspiracy theories.

i know you cannot prove a negative, and it's not easy to explain physics to laymen. but there's got to be some way to explain this part at least roughly.

shouldn't the collapse not have been slowed down by the material present beneath the collapsing part on the top? or if not sufficient to completely slow the collapse, maybe enough so that it would not have accelerated as much as by a free fall? both cases would result in a longer time between start and end of collapse. (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How are you judging what free fall speed would be relative to what it was? It's a big structure. Are you sure you're not just over-estimating the speed by trying to judge by eye? For example, look at this: [3]. You can clearly see, at the start of the collapse, that there are pieces falling faster than the collapse. So there, your fears should be assuaged. Further, as the collapse continues, remember that the bottom edge of the dust cloud is not the advance of the collapse, but the advance of the debris cloud caused by the collapse, which would naturally proceed at freefall speeds. In any case, what resistance the structure could provide would only last the first few moments, as when the collapsing structure slammed down on lower floors the stress would be way, way beyond what is was ever designed to handle. (If this seems strange, remember that thje impact on your foot when you run is four times greater than the impact when you're walking and many times greater than standing still - momentum matters).
See, easy to explain. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
What is freefall speed? 9.81m/s^2 minus air resistance. The time it took for the top section to "hit the ground" would have been a bit over eight seconds (8.1 or so). According to the video I have of the collapse, it took well over 9 seconds. Near freefall speeds? Not even close on a gravitational timescale. Zero (talk - contributions) 19:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
So you guess the amount of time, didn't take into account air resistance, but it feels wrong because it took an extra second longer in your approximation (neither measured)...therefore it's understandable to think conspiracy. Is this a joke or is this kind of sloppy thinking normal for conspiracy theorists? Is the conspiracy involve changing gravity itself now? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)