Video: 9/11 Myths Debunked

Excellent video here -- Popular Mechanics' James B. Meigs explains 9/11 and debunks many widespread conspiracy theories.



aired on 9/11/07 on FOX News Channel.

Thats the worst debunking ive ever seen. Does Fox News really think "debunking" is bringing in one guy stating some false truths?

There is plenty of scientists who believe its impossible for planes to take those buildings down. Here is one: Journal of 911 studies with Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01 (pdf).

That site is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. Their conclusion in the above report:

"Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center,
and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since
the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy
needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought
down by explosives or cutter charges."


[edit on 11-9-2007 by Copernicus]

thank god for Faux news to explain all the theories away.

This makes me sick! SICK!

Let me point out the fact that they began to attack the 'crazy C.T.ers' before they even went into anything...as usual.

1. Myth - Fire melts steel;
POP.MECH response: The buildings were so weakened, and all the top heavy weight, all the fires, caused the collapse.
my comments; Those towers were friggin huge! even if they were weakened uber badly...would the collapse have happened so fast, 10 seconds=complete collapse? Fires buring under 1 hour, straight down? wouldn't there have been a gradual collapse? Why wasnt there huge sections breaking off of the towers first? Well, you know...

2. Myth - Wtc7 brought down with explosives;
POP.MECH response: You only saw it from the north side...the other side was heavily damaged from the towers coming down on it...(showing a small picture of the base of a building)
My comments: Doesnt dismiss the fact HOW it fell. 47 stories in under 10 seconds, has never happened. You cant use that excuses three times! and how many many others knew it was going to come down, Larry Silverstein, (remember the clips of the firefighters saying: theres a bomb in the building, start clearing out!...etc) again; buildings that collapse due to structural failure/fires, dont collapse like wtc7 did. PERIOD!

3. Myth - Flight 93 was shot down;
POP MECH. response: There is no evidence!
My coments: I agree! there is no evidence of a shoot down order, rumsfeld said they DID shoot it down...maybe a mistake....he is pretty stupid!

4. Myth - Cellphone calls were faked. They don't work on planes...
POP MECH. response: Well mostly all calls were from flight phones...and cellphones CAN work sometimes.
My comments: I disagree...the cellphone call(s) were suspicous...but again; this is a weak agruement and really isnt anyones point of focus, due to the other meaty points that actually suggests a cover-up of some kind. The likelyhood of these calls would be very LOW! VERY LOW!

Other notes: They say 'SCIENTIFIC FACT' many times. Its a package! Scripted and tailored for the average un-informed joe, with a big cheese face smile, so you feel good and can scream something like 'UNAMERICAN LIBERAL WACKO NUT CASE FAR LEFT' at the next conspiracy theorist you hear talking and feel smart!

Also, who the hell dubbed the popular mechanics 'experts' the experts on a terrorist attack??? Why are these the ONLY friggin people they always prop up on television and in the view of the mainstream? Isnt there a more credible expert on the gov't side?? Surely there are more then the 3 same guys! Popular mechanics is just a magazine, right? not the new offical scientific branch of the gov't >?

My question is:

If there is no Conspiracy, why are "they" trying so hard to "debunk" them? If the theories are so crazy, why do we have news shows "debunking" them at all? If their story could hold water on it's own, why the need to have a plethora of TV specials "debunking" 9/11 myths?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks": Shakespeare

Griff -

You complain because the conspiracry theories are not discussed.....then you complain when they are.

You can't have it both ways (though most CT'ers try too) if you are actually looking for the truth.

Originally posted by ferretman2
You complain because the conspiracry theories are not discussed.....then you complain when they are.

When have I complained when they aren't? Oh, you mean like the news not showing WTC 7 falling in 6.6 seconds or the commission totally ignoring 7? I see what you mean.

I don't complain when they are discussed. I complain when they are "discussed" by a guy sitting there telling me I'm crazy because he says so.

You can't have it both ways (though most CT'ers try too) if you are actually looking for the truth.

If you are actually looking for truth, there would have been a disscussion and not a lecture. A lecture is one sided and very biased. A true discussion is not.

There's a huge difference. Hopefully, you can see this.

reply to post by ready4truth

The fire didnt melt the steel..it weakened it to the point of failure....Melt is tossed around too much I think.

Griff a question for you since this up your alley. I saw something the other day that said that WTC 7 was basically a trussed supported building anchored at the bottom. The diagram showed three trusses. What was the safety factor built into this building? I have not seen that stated anywhere. If it was only supported by three trusses, and one failed, do you think it was possible for the others to carry/redistribute the load? Are trusses known to fail easily if they are damaged? In our training, we are taught that truss roofs are not to be trusted if they are damaged, because if one goes they all can go. But we are not taught anything about truss supported buildings...and it has been a LONG time since my engineering classes.

Ready....cell technology was good to 50,000 feet and 93 only got to 44,000 feet tops....Why is the posssiblity of the cell calls low? I personally think that that whole argument is reprehensible..It cheapens the last contact that family members had with thier loved ones and proves nothing.
How do you know that buildings such as WTC7 dont collapse that way? What is you expertise in that area if I may ask? I dont know of any buildings that were purposefully demo'd by having another buildings debris crash into it. No data to prove that it should'nt have fallen that way. As for the bomb comment, from personal experience, lots of things are said in the heat of the moment when not much is known about what is going on. Just because bomb was mentioned does not mean that there was a bomb.

Originally posted by Griff
My question is:

If there is no Conspiracy, why are "they" trying so hard to "debunk" them? If the theories are so crazy, why do we have news shows "debunking" them at all? If their story could hold water on it's own, why the need to have a plethora of TV specials "debunking" 9/11 myths?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks": Shakespeare

co-sign 100%. They obviously realize nobody is buying it (by nobody, I mean NOT the majority) so it's mad scramble to make up an excuse.

Originally posted by six
Griff a question for you since this up your alley.

I'll try to answer if I can.

I saw something the other day that said that WTC 7 was basically a trussed supported building anchored at the bottom. The diagram showed three trusses.

I believe you are correct. They had to truss over the Con Edison Station I believe.

What was the safety factor built into this building? I have not seen that stated anywhere.

Safety factors are hard to figure out without knowing the design. This would mean having the construction drawings.

As far as safety factors, in designing a building they are incorporated into the factored loads (loads that have been multiplyed by a safety factor...usually 1.4 for dead loads and 1.7 for live loads). Then on the other side of the equation, you multiply the ultimate strength by a reduction factor (usually 0.85 or 85% of the ultimate strength). So, you have the safety factor built in on both sides. So, say my loads are 100 dead and 200 live. The factored load would be 100(1.4) + 200(1.7) < 0.85 (ultimate strength). If that doesn't make sense, I'll try and reword.

If it was only supported by three trusses, and one failed, do you think it was possible for the others to carry/redistribute the load?

Depends on what safety factor was designed into it. Say the FS is 2. Then you have 3 trusses that can carry the loads of 6 trusses. If one fails, then you still have 2 trusses that can support 4 truss worth of load. If the FS was 1.5, you'd have 3 trusses able to support 4.5 worth of load. If one is missing, then you still have 2 trusses supporting 3 truss worth of load.

Safety factors are usually above 1.5 , especially for highrise buildings.

Are trusses known to fail easily if they are damaged?

Depends on the damage.

In our training, we are taught that truss roofs are not to be trusted if they are damaged, because if one goes they all can go. But we are not taught anything about truss supported buildings...and it has been a LONG time since my engineering classes.

Truss roofs are made of smaller members than a building being held up by trusses I would imagine. Also, it has been a long time since my engineering classes too. But, I'm studying for my PE and has brought alot of it back. I just wish I could figure out "moment distribution method" again.