Debunk the conspiracy theory?

[Patrick Brown]

This site has a go: http://www.debunking911.com/

Here's a few thoughts in respones:

Molten Metal: www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

There were a few reasonable ideas in this section although most of it comes down to pure speculation. There are also certain parts which are complete red hearings.

Thermate:

This chap suggests that we all think thermate/thermite was used and just thermate alone. Apart from the fact that the author is rather offensive to the reader he also seems to think he has more answers and evidence than anybody else.

Most people that have read and watched the evidence will conclude that if explosive devices were indeed used to bring down the twin towers and building 7 then a selection of devices with specific properties would have been used. It’s rather odd that the author doesn’t mention shape charges!

Is the liquid Aluminium:

There is far to much speculation about what the substance seen pouring from the tower is. The key point here is temperature. It is possible that temperatures did get high enough to melt aluminium but it’s also possible that thermate was used on the joints of the trusses (steel floor joists). I did think that they may have used it where the trusses join the outer skin although I think it’s more likely that the thermate was used on the joins to the core columns mainly because they would be easier to set / lay. Haven’t seen any plans of WTC but from the images in the documentaries structural access would seem to be easiest from the elevator shafts. Also worth noting that they would have calculated how many to cut so as to keep a degree of structural integrity. Themate would have probably been used on many of the columns. Once the thermate had done it’s thing the core as well as the remaining trusses would be cut with shape charges and then the incendiary devices used to start the cascade of the skin (walls). Without the core fully supporting the skin it would just collapse once the cascade had begun.

Another very important point while on the subject is the squibs which are seen a long way from the cascading outter skin in certain video footage. These low laying squibs may in fact have been caused by the collapse of the core. The core is being cut and collapsed before the outer skin cascade has begun. So as you watch the outer cascade run through the floors another cascade is taking place for the core but it is a second or two ahead of the outer cascade. The core was very very strong and rigid so it’s very difficult to believe it could just disintegrate without a large number of trusses and columns being compromised.

Our author asks:
[snip]
Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Lets also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns.
[/snip]

The answer is simple: The perpetrators wanted to minimise the number of audible explosions so thermate, which is a chemical reaction which melts metal, was used. After the structural integrity was compromised more conventional explosives were used to start the domino effect.

As for using themate on the steel columns you need to understand that lengths of vertical steel where probably bolted together. You would only need to weaken the joints of the columns as shape charges placed close to the weakened area (above the area) would finish the job. (I’ll do some research on how the columns were constructed and add any info I find to this post)

The destruction of the twin towers was, if you believes the conspiracy, designed to cause maximum shock. It took about an hour from impact to collapse for each tower. This was just the right amount of time for everybody to tell their friends by mobile and get in front of a TV set. So once the structures were weakened the dramatic collapse could be started by the flick of a switch. How many of us remember saying or thinking “this is like a Hollywood movie but it’s not a movie it’s real”. The collapse was engineered to shock and without the structure being weakened the towers probably wouldn’t have fallen even if several planes had hit each tower. Also how many of you remember building 7 coming down?

The unconscious connection between Americas emergency telephone number and the date is also obviously contrived. The fact that the events all unravelled early in the morning when people were still gearing up for the day after the stress of travelling to work was probably chosen to maximise the shock factor.

It’s worth mentioning that no steel structure sky scrapper had ever fallen due to a fire before the collapse of the twin towers and building 7.

There are many eye witness reports as well as video footage which prove that there were indeed very large explosions before both buildings collapsed. The best evidence being the video footage shot by Rick Siegel in his documentary ‘911 Eyewitness': http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm .

Yes just speculation (?) like our debunker’s tedious examination of the molten metal.

Oxygen Generators on planes:

I can't see why he mentions this. I suppose he’s trying to suggest that they may have added to the intensity of the fire therefore supporting his claims that the fire was the cause of the molten metal. I haven’t heard anybody else mention oxygen generators and our author doesn’t go anywhere after mentioning them. Is this just literally a desperate attempt to add fuel to the intense fire theory? There is no evidence that any of the buildings experienced intense fire. Yet this is the official reason for the buildings collapse including building 7 which wasn’t even struck by a plane.

Possible reason for continued burning of debris:

In this section our author tries to blind us with science in an attempt at convincing us that a series of complex chemical reactions were taking place under the rubble. This might have been convincing if it wasn’t for the small matter of no plane crashing into building 7. It seems probable that a 110 storey building with fires around floor 80 would upon collapsing extinguish any fires!

The conspiracy theory of large quantities of thermate continuing to react after the collapse is still very plausible at least as much as the idea of a chemical reaction. The continued burning of the debris was probably also helpful to who ever took the gold bullion with an estimated value of 160 billion dollars!

Please note the figure of 160 billion is taken from the documentary ‘Loose Change, the Second Edition’.

The last ‘youtube’ video clip on the links page of the site is rather disturbing. Take a look: http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm Here’s a direct link to the you tube site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2MZwxJRYI&eurl= It’s make our author seem somewhat racist! If you watch the clip you will note that the debunking 911 site is listed at the end of the clip so we might conclude that our author was involved in the making of that video clip! Doe’s that clip seem to suggest tolerance?

Our author then goes on to attack Steve Jones and other members of the ‘Scholars for 911 Truth’ group: http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm Some of the stuff our author mentions may well be true but I don’t see what’s purpose the image at the very bottom of the page serves other than being a cheap shot. Steve John is as far as I know a religious man but so what. Bush and Blair go to church apparently and then make decisions to invade countries causing death chaos and destruction as well as fuelling racial hatred. Perhaps were beginning to see the mind-set of our author?

Some of the evidence put forward to explain the collapse of building seven was quite interesting: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm There is one major problem with our authors evidence. The fire could have been started in building 7 deliberately and even the hole which we’re told appeared in one side of the building after the collapse of the twin towers.

When the twin towers fell there was a great deal of dust which would be expected. In those seconds of chaos someone could simply flick a switch and blow a hole in the side of the building set off a series of incendiary devices to start fires. There’s a hole in the side of the building and there are fires raging which we are told explain the buildings collapse. How the hole got there and how the fires started is not known anything offered as evidence can only be speculation. So the collapse of WTC 7 is more ambiguous than we first thought conspiracy or note.

We do have the famous video clip of Larry Silverstein:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Pull is apparently a demolition term and does seem rather damming more so because the official story is that the building fell because of the fires. Watch clip (24 seconds): http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=Larry +Silverstein

The sound of explosions before the collapse of the twin towers seems to be the strongest evidence of a conspiracy. Building seven is also pretty damming.

[Patrick Brown]

Just repaired a few broken links in my initial post.

[ian neal]

Hi Patrick and welcome

You find a whole list of sites that have sprung up in the last year in response to the 9/11 truth movement that attempt to debunk the myriad of claims and evidence put forward by the 9/11 truth movement and then you will find other sites that seek to debunk the debunkers.

Many of these you will find referred to in our critics corner. A bit like the range of posters you find in this critics corner, you will find the debunking sites vary a lot in quality. A few have some important, well informed things to say. Most IMO do not.

What I will say is that whilst not everything that has ever been said by 9/11 truth campaigners stands up to rigorous scrutiny, most of the core evidence does and despite the persistent efforts of some very dedicated debunkers, they have failed to move me one inch from my belief that "when taken in totality the evidence overwhelmingly supports the need to reopen 9/11".

Let there be a new expanded and independent inquiry and let the evidence fall led where it may

[Patrick Brown]

Hi Ian and thanks for the welcome.

I would like to make the 911 theory a hobby as I think a consistent team effort can help formulate and substantiate the available evidence(I won't bother to use the other word i.e. conspiracy as most agree that seems more aptly to apply to the official story). I have downloaded a ton of vids from Google etc and have probably heard most of the evidence. I'm sticking at 99% certain the twin towers and building seven we're and 'inside job'. I'm always looking for evidence to debunk the '911 theory' as even though the evidence is damming it's so hard to believe.

I'm constantly struggling with the speed the towers fell, less than 10 secs according to most reports. If the science is correct then the speed of collapse alone should be enough of a reason to reopen the 911inquiry! The only problem I have with the science regarding the collapse in that the mass that is falling in increasing over time. I'm no mathematician or scientist and I get all the stuff about a body in 'free fall' falls as fast and maybe even slower than the collapsing towers.

Building 7 is another 'kettle of fish' although we could speculate that Silverstein did have it demolished and the changes were set that day as an insurance fiddle. Silverstein would pay people off to keep their mouth shut. What I'm saying is that Silverstein called in a team to attempt a 'controlled' collapse and they just got lucky considering the limited time they had to set the explosives. Hmm no I'm not convinced either but it's easier in someways to believe the official story.

The thing is it all starts to get like the 'Rabbit Hole' from the Alice in Wonderland / Matrix and you start reading about Astrotheology the Illuminati etc and it all starts to get a bit much! I always come back to the simple truth that something fishy went down on September 11th 2001. But I'm still struggling for clarity and perhaps a bit of support. Hey I can't even get my friend to watch '911 Mysteries' and 'Loose Change'!! Another person said “well those towers were designed to fall like that”!!

Even if you ignore 911 why did the EPA allow people back into Manhattan when they knew the air pollution from the 'attack' was like poison, even weeks / months after? But hey Bush and the Mayor went to ground zero so what's going on? See what I mean about 'Rabbit Hole'!

[Disco_Destroyer]

Cheers for pointing me here and good responses

[Patrick Brown]

Some anecdotal info about the construction of the steel columns from 'chek's' post here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=30444#30444