Information debunking the "Truthers" about 9/11

The following information is stuff that I've run across as time has gone on, and I would like to submit it here as what I view to be the truth in the hopes that it may shed some light on what appears to be an already beat-to-death topic. But, since I already posted I would start this thread, here it is.

Okay - truthers. Where do I begin. Some of the claims they have made have been outlandish, to be sure. The first of which is

Al-Qaeda didn't plan and execute the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. Our own government did it. They staged the plane crashes and filled the twin towers and other buildings in the WTC complex with explosives to destroy them.

On this first topic - a lot of "truthers" like to state that they believe the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives, there "being no way planes could make the buildings fall."

An incident they use is in 1945 when a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. 1) B-25 carries less than 1,000 gallons of fuel. A standard operating load was around 590-610 gallons. A fully-loaded 757 carries 24,000 gallons of jet fuel to travel across the US. 2) The B-25 hit the Empire State Building head-on, just to the right of a load bearing column, luckily minimizing damage to the structure. 3) Both of the 9/11 jets flew into the buildings canted at an angle (which would take out more floors than if they were to hit head on). 4) The B-25 bomber was flying at around 200 miles an hour - the 757s were moving twice as fast and weighed more.

Furthermore: the Empire State Building is comprised of thick steel girders and limestone. The WTC towers were a design that, at the time was considered to be revolutionary design - meant to be flexible in high winds. The chief building support was a central core of steel girders that was used to house elevators, heating and AC systems, and other systems needed to operate the buildings. This lack of the girder and support system of the Empire State Building gave the WTC 40,000 more square feet of office space per floor. The rest of the construction was all glass, concrete, drywall and lightweight steel trusses used to house the windows on the outside.

- B-25 bomber weighed last, traveled slower, had less fuel than 757s
- WTC Towers weigh less, more flexible, less support than Empire State Building

The next topic that I've seen on here as well as in other places - "The fire from the jets could not have melted the steel in the building."

Okay - a fire in a high rise is sort of like a chimney... After the two planes crashed into the towers - they shattered the windows on both sides of the building and the winds were allowed to come in from the sea. These winds fed the flames of the tons and tons of combustible material in the buildings. The thousands of gallons of jet fuel began to burn creating an effect similar to that found in a blast furnace. One book made a fairly humorous remark "You know - the kind they use to melt steel into girders?" The main idea here is that the fire really never had to get hot enough to melt the steel, it only had to weaken them enough to shift the weight support of the buildings out to the steel truss beams which were never meant to support the building in the first place.

Steel begins to lose its structural integrity at 600 degrees celsius and at about 1,000 degrees, retains only abotu 10 percent of it. The final reports estimated the fires in the buildings reached at least 1,000 degrees celsius or 1,832 degrees farenheit.

- High Rise building create a chimney effect - containing heat and intensifying it.
- Windows shattered out of the buildings let wind/oxygen in to fuel the fires.
- Fire was about 1,000 degree celsius, steel begins to weaken at 600 degrees and at 1,000 retains 10 percent of its original structure....

Well, that's all fine and good - but the next topic brought up is how it seems that there are "secondary explosions" that occur just before and during the collapse of the buildings. I would like to point out that the building had a lot of floors in it. As the floors above began to collapse, a lot of air was pushed out of the floor below. So - as the weight of the building began to succumb, the floors released their air - creating what looked like explosions.

The last topic I'll hit, unless someone comes at me with more is this:

The Pentagon wasn't hit by a jet, it was hit by a cruise missle. The so-called evidence of this event is some time-lapse photos from a security camera pointed at a parking lot next to the crash site. Due to the fact the photos are several seconds apart. Photo 1 shows nothing. Photo 2 shows a blur. Photo 3 shows an explosion. Please note, these photos are from a security camera recording 1 frame per second of a jet travelling 780 feet per second.

I am open to discussion on this - I know I'm fairly late stepping into this topic and expect to hear about it shortly, but I want the truth to be know. Our government does not simply 'create' terrorist attacks to promote wars and such. I think that is the definition of paranoia.

One more thing - for the mods - if this is outside of the established bounds for what should be discussed (conspiracies, scandals, coverups) I will be more than willing to take it down.

I agree with most everything you have said... It is pretty strange that people will ignore the obvious when dealing with this tough issue (the atrocities of 9/11)

Be warned though..you will likely have many posters in this forum flat-out disregard all of the valid points you make in your posts, and they will focus in on the fire temperatures you stated.

It is like that with some of the posters on this forum. The baby gets thrown out with the bathwater more often than any real attempt to "deny ignorance."

reply to post by mf_luder

Have you researched this topic on ATS? My guess would be, no you haven't.

If anyone takes an interest in this thread you are going to find some of your statements challenged, specifically about the temperature of the fires. Also, people will probably bring up the subject of the Windsor Tower in Madrid which burned over many floors for over 17 hours straight and which did not collapse. They will also bring up the speed of the WTC tower collapses, which were close to free fall speed.

I'm not really taking you to task for your post, because on the face of it, the post is fine and the arguments reasonable sounding, as they would be if a person were just coming into the whole discussion. Sometimes people who have been kicking this topic around for a while forget that there are people, both debunkers and truthers, who are coming into the discussion for the first time. If that is the case then I have nothing else to say, except go to it.

On the other hand there are people with an ulterior motive, who post like beginners wanting to discuss, when their agenda is really to engage the innocent in a disinformation exercise. Your post has a flavor of that. I hope that you are simply not well informed, rather than not well intentioned.



[edit on 29-7-2008 by ipsedixit]

Heh, I appreciate your concern and I too dislike when people are two-faced, but believe you me, I am no disinformation agent - I'm just a guy who thinks that it would be preposterous to blame our government for such atrocities against its own people. That, to me - takes a level of paranoia I could never hope to reach.

Yeah, I will admit - I haven't gone through every single thread on this subject there is on ATS, which I probably should - but there are so many of them. I would just like my piece to get out there.

mf_luder , You should probably spend your time in a more useful manner such as gardening or moisturizing the dirt with your saliva. You by your own admission are ignorant of all the facts and yet you want to engage in a debate centered on a conclusion you have already come to without reading up on all the other ATS 911 threads at your disposal.

You strike me as a shallow individual devoid of compassion attempting to engage in a debate with people who have passionate feelings about a very sensitive subject all for the sake of getting your jollies off.

May you know peace.

I debated whether or not to grace you with a response.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

However.

I didn't say I wasn't going to look at all of the previous postings - I said I haven't as of yet. I wanted to place my views out to generate discussion - not insults. If you feel this is beyond you - discussion - then feel free to refrain from posting on my threads in the future. I've seen your posts in other threads and until now considered you to be someone of at least a slight degree of intellect.

I debated whether or not to grace you with a response.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

However.

I didn't say I wasn't going to look at all of the previous postings - I said I haven't as of yet. I wanted to place my views out to generate discussion - not insults. If you feel this is beyond you - discussion - then feel free to refrain from posting on my threads in the future. I've seen your posts in other threads and until now considered you to be someone of at least a slight degree of intellect.

reply to post by mf_luder


I can't disagree with anything you have posted here.... and there were many documentaries that aired which explained in a logical way, why things happened the way that they did. they were pretty technical but they also had diagrams and everything, they also made references to the differences in the planes that you also mentioned as well as the velocity, amount of fuel a jet plane carries, etc.

reply to post by mf_luder


Thanks for your response to my post. I do believe what you say. I've discussed this subject for over a year now on ATS and seldom get into lengthly discussions and battles over it anymore, but I wanted to include some links that might be helpful in giving you a reasonable account of a large segment of "truther" opinion

Your thought about blast furnaces is an interesting one, but if you look into how a blast furnace operates you will realize that it is a highly controlled burning environment the success of which depends on a series of chemical and physical events that are carefully managed, quite unlike the WTC fires. Here is a link discussing blast furnaces:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website has a video presentation called "How the Towers Fell", which can be watched online at the following URL. The link to the video is in the left margin of the page.

www.ae911truth.org...

911 Press for Truth is a great video which follows the story of the relatives of some victims of the 9/11 attacks in their effort to get the Bush administration to give them answers to questions about 9/11. The video goes on to examine aspects of the attacks of concern to the 9/11 truth movement. It's an excellent introduction to the topic and a good short cut into the subject matter.

Google Video Link

Oil Smoke and Mirrors is a very good video discussing the phenomenon of "peak oil" and it's relationship to 9/11. The experts interviewed in this very well produced video are heavy hitters, not wild eyed kids. One man whose business it is to give advice to corporations on economic trends makes the wry understatement that "We are very interested in what really happened on 9/11 . . ."

Google Video Link

Originally posted by mf_luder
I debated whether or not to grace you with a response.

Grace... now theres a concept.

Maybe before you go after your kicks you should look at the outside lines of the box. After a quick google search I can find many articles stating the air in NY was safe to breath after 9/11. 110 stories of asbestos covered debris floating in the air. How safe do you really think it was to breath that stuff?

In shanksville penn. their was a stripmining scar in the earth. the USGS has photos you can view on google image of that site in 1997. The only difference between that spot in 97 and in 01 was a crater in the middle of it. How did the crater get there? The US government says fight 93 crashed there. And never mind the fact that it is smack dab in the middle of a stripmine.

With in the first hour of the 911 attacks we not only knew it was Osama (who the US still says remains at large) but we had passports of terrorists that survived the crashes.

In the following weeks after 911 we had anthrax attacks to keep the people n a state of fear and as soon as it was learned that the anthrax was american made the story was dropped like a hot potato. Then came the DC sniper which was scary for a moment but after they were caught the story was again dropped. Can you even remember both their names without googling?

Inside the WTC and pentagon events of 911 their are all sorts of flaws in the official story.

here is a september clues link You can also find the video series on youtube google video and really anywhere else on the web where people share videos including here on ATS. Their are about 8 parts to the series each one around 10 minutes long.

You can watch it with your mind frame and either accept or deny some of the psychical facts they point out...

Your choice.

I think the facts speak for themselves, we have been overthrown by Aliens - they look like us - talk like us - but they are not us.
after all what honest American would not be offended by such blatant disregard for common sense and facts to make this NIST statement valid speaks volumes.
video.google.com...

We Lose or we have lost already..... apathy drugs lack of honest people. its all about stealing for a living I guess -- cuz, I for sure don't make enough to go around - that's for sure -- so have to do without -- for things you should just have.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by BornPatriot]

[edit on 30-7-2008 by BornPatriot]

Originally posted by mf_luder
Steel begins to lose its structural integrity at 600 degrees celsius and at about 1,000 degrees, retains only abotu 10 percent of it. The final reports estimated the fires in the buildings reached at least 1,000 degrees celsius or 1,832 degrees farenheit.

Not only ridiculous, but impossible. Do the grates on your gas stove weaken or melt from a much hotter blue flame when you cook on them?

The Killer Fires Theory is Pure Fantasy

The simple facts of temperatures:

• 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
• ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
• ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame.)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler. 
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC. 
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

911review.com...





[edit on 30-7-2008 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by mf_luder


Here is a paper that uses facts and math to explain why the towers fell and support your conclusion.

I also challenge anyone to read it and still believe their had to be secondary explosives in the buildings.

"Truthers" meet the truth

reply to post by Cool Hand Luke

He should send all his "facts and math" to NIST, because even they can't explain the collapse of WTC 7!

reply to post by GoldenFleece


If / when the report comes out.... will you be able to dismiss the math so eloquently as you have done so with WTC 1 &2 ?

P.S. //// I am still waiting for your response with the 40 smoking guns thread that you abandoned.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


While I try to do some more searching for you, here's a noodle scratcher.

Google Video Link

It is odd that you have picked all of the points made by fringe truthers and fail to concentrate on what the core questions .

1) prof. jones and scholars for truth findings
2) engineers for truth now statements and findings
3) missing evidence and the white wash lies of the commision
4) the complete stand down of Military
5) Why has not a single person been fire demoted or jailed?

it is easy to debunk the statements from the idiots on the fringe who think they are smart enough to add to the proof or disproof but concentrate your response of those 5 i mentioned and get back to me.

at that time ill be happy to debate with you

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

If / when the report comes out.... will you be able to dismiss the math so eloquently as you have done so with WTC 1 &2 ?

P.S. //// I am still waiting for your response with the 40 smoking guns thread that you abandoned.

IF/when the report comes out? So you also have doubts that seven years later, there will ever be a report? Join the club. We're still waiting for the proof that was promised by the White House of Osama bin Laden's involvement! Evidently, it wasn't enough for the FBI or Justice Department to charge or indict him! (FBI: "No Hard Evidence Connecting bin Laden to 9/11") We're also waiting for the government to release just one of those 80+ videos they confiscated within minutes of whatever hit the Pentagon.

So Mr. Professional Debunker who only posts from 8-10 on weeknights, if Osama bin Laden didn't do it, who did? Saddam Hussein? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Al-CIAduh? The tooth fairy?