1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    [WORK IN PROGRESS - add suggestions to the thread, and I'll incorporate them]

    9/11 conspiracy theories are not going to go away, even though they have largely been debunked in quite some detail. There are always going to be people new to the theories who are simply no familiar with the rebuttals, or have rejected the rebuttals on spurious ground.

    Debunking is not about picking a "side" of an argument, and trying to argue for that side. It's about identifying and exposing bunk in the evidence surrounding that argument. If, for example, someone claims that a 767 could not fly above 500 knots, then you'd need to explain how it can. Debunking is about these individual pieces of evidence.

    The challenge to the debunker of 9/11 conspiracy theories is to find a way to communicate with the believer. Simply saying "you are wrong" is generally not going to work. Even explaining why they are wrong is probably not going to cut it. You really need to provide an alternate (genuine) explanation for something if you want them to actually realize they were wrong about something.

    And pretty much all the ground has been covered already, in excruciating detail. There are many sites dedicated to 9/11 debunking, and it's interesting to think about why they fail. Here I'll list some of the more useful sites that can be most effectively used to understand various things that happened on 9/11. Many of these sites reference each other, and it's a bit messy. I'll try to structure this page better over time. Much as I don't want to start comprehensive 9/11 specific site, if I can't find a well structured list, I'll try to do something here. I'm really hoping though that I'll be able simply to boil things down to a short list of go-to sites.

    I've added archive.is backups to the individual pages, and made local mirrors where possible.

    911 Guide (http://archive.is/jcXn4) - One of the better structured sites - provides brief lists and descriptions of the various claims, with a brief explanation of the problems with the claims, and then links to more detailed discussions of those claims.

    WTC7Lies (http://archive.is/2wncY) - An excellent site, but a bit unstructured, and with many broken links.

    Debunking911.com (mirror)- a nice list of topics on the left, but articles are somewhat rambling and cover many points.

    JREF Forum: Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://archive.is/ywn01) - A useful, if rather unstructured collection of links

    9/11 Myths, and the old site. Cover various things in depth and with good focus.

    AE911Truth.info - focusses on the claims of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    Popular Mechanics: Debunking the 9/11 Myths - Has a useful topic key at the bottom of the page for the major topics.

    Debunking the 9/11 No-Planes Theory - Debunks the more fringe theory that no planes hit the WTC towers.

    9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - Very detailed look at all the evidence around Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  2. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 1
  3. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member


  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Rather poor navigation, even if it does contain some useful info, it seems hard to find.

    ETA: It's a lot better if you expand all the dates on the right. Pity they did not just make a big list of all the articles.
  5. Clock

    Clock Active Member

    • Like Like x 1
  6. Mackdog

    Mackdog Active Member

    RKOwens4 youtube channel is a good one.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  8. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    Cjnewson88 has a nice collection of videos presenting a reconstruction of all flights, syncing with several available audios from the day, among other stuff.

    Coincidentally he just joined metabunk today. :)

    And a site linked at his videos descriptions, about AA77 and pentagon, has so much information that I never saw before. It's great.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If you can debunk something, then start a thread and debunk it. Just focus.

    And please read through these threads:
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    I never knew that. Thanks. :)
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

  12. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Yes. Shatter it into fragments.

    Isn't the question "What can a fast airplane do to a building?"

    The energy involved (KE) = 0.5*M*V^2, where M = 180,000 Kg (the weight of a Boeing 767-300ER) and V = 250 m/sec, and is therefore 563 billion Joules, or equivalent to 1.35 tons of TNT.

    You have to imagine that NONE of that energy goes anywhere else (because it cannot). Now imagine.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    The problem is that both ways are disputed by CTers.

    - Why didn't the strong airplane "bounced"?
    - Why did the weak airplane damage the building?

    My picture (together with hundreds of other examples) shows that the airplane is weak. What my be difficult to explain is that both structures are very strong, and when two strong structures collide, both will sustain damage.

    If you send the WTC flying at 500 MPH into a hailstorm, the damage will be similar. ;-)
  14. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yes....but a radome (IN the sense of commercial airliners) is not constructed of aluminium. It is a composite of various materials that are 'transparent' to radio signals...or "RADAR").

    THIS because the weather-radar antenna apparatus is housed, there. The REST of the airplane (in reference to the events of '9-11') HAD a huge amount of mass, and energy.....

    MASS 'plus' VELOCITY = 'ENERGY'.

    (I might not be "understood" here....but think of a "missile".....HIGH ENERGY, with explosives on-board. Of course, the only "explosives" available on a commercial airliner were the Jet-Fuel....).

    Too late to include....but? The term in the first sentence that referenced "RADAR" is something that, perhaps, not everyone knows about. HERE is a link to be looked at, for further understanding (There are more, of course):


    I WOULD also like to add....in reference to the above? The development of RADAR dates back to WW2:

    Last edited: Feb 10, 2015
  15. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    I had previously written (KE) = 0.5*M*V^2.

    The V squared has enormous implications. It is why depleted uranium flechettes need no explosives.

    The energy of the impact must have been shared equally by both plane and tower, and with 5/16" thick sheet steel box sections and four inch floors to fight, the aircraft lost the battle. Initially at least.

    Someone, maybe here, has calculated the KE lost as the plane entered as 2.5% of the total.

    I think that signifies easy entry without any risk of bouncing off.
  16. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I think this needs to be further explained, to the "on-line audience".

    To use the term "depleted uranium flechettes"? Most readers might not understand (and I KNOW!!!! I write stuff here, and forget that there is a VERY large audience of readers who aren't cognizant of the technical points or scientific specifics!! ....OF what I type!).

    From what I understand...."depleted uranium", or "DU" is a VERY dense metal....after it is no longer radioactive (or maybe it still is??) BUT is a VERY effective, high-density metal to use at the tip of a warhead (or missile)? Am I close to the truth, here??

    (ETA? Actually....just went to google....Here:
  17. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Yes, but not here, I think.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    What that picture fails to illustrate is what happened to the hailstones. They of course were shattered into dust or even melted by the energy of impact. Both radome and hailstone "lost".

    What it does illustrate well is that only those areas actually contacting anything will suffer damage. Now Note that most of the exterior wall of the towers are windows.
    Energy goes into the columns that get hit. A first order calc then would be to note the mass of aircraft, aluminum, fuel, possible engine and wheel assemblies, etc., through a section of the aircraft in line with a column. A column of x width then will be impacted by a mass of aircraft through a x wide section of the plane. If the energy contained in that section is greater than the energy required to snap the column then the column will snap.

    Think of a bullet, soft lead, traveling at mach 1 or so. It contacts a hard steel plate and contains enough energy to punch right through it creating a hole the same as the cross section area of the bullet. If the steel were a rod of less width than that of the bullet then the rod would be snapped through and the bullet would become two, or more, separate pieces. Would anyone expect the pieces of that bullet to be robbed of all forward velocity by being cut in half on contact with that rod?

    Back to aircraft. Now we note that the contact with columns is tearing the plane into pieces. Those parts that hit glass we can treat as if they lose next to no momentum and enter the building at similar velocity as they were a split second before contact. The parts that hit column, if they contain enough energy to punch through a column, will continue into the building with a velocity that is dependant upon whatever energy was in excess of what was required to snap through the column.

    THE ONLY pieces that will, or can, simply stop at the perimeter, are those that have less energy than required to snap through a column. Same goes for that bullet I wrote of. Slow it down and it will mash on the steel plate, maybe dimple it. Slow it down sufficiently and hit a steel rod and the bullet will mash against the rod too.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Note that CT's often speciously describe a jetliner as a hollow thinly sheeted, aluminum tube. That's extremely inaccurate of course. It weighs 100+ tons so of course the first thing to note is that the wheels and wheel assemblies must be able to support that weight. Of course it has to land so it had better be able to withstand vertical and horizontal forces involved in decelerating that mass as well. Second, the engines must be made of materials strong enough to withstand the forces involved in accelerating that mass from zero to take off velocity in a few seconds. At that point the wings must be constructed strongly enough to also support the entire weight of the aircraft and forces generated in changing its altitude and direction. What of that actually 'tube'? Well, it must be strong enough to support you and around 100 other people, your luggage, the seats you sit in, the hydraulic machinery etc.

    Sure its a thin aluminum tube.:rolleyes:
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. JarheadJim

    JarheadJim New Member

    MANY years ago I read an article in a science-based periodical (Modern Science, Popular Science, Scientific American, etc. but I don't remember exactly which one) which went into great detail (more so than the Popular Mechanics article) regarding, rather specifically, how the physical construction of the WTC actually aided in it's collapse.. It described WTC 1 & 2 as (internally) resembling a box of Saltine crackers, basically an outer shell containing 4, separate, internal "stacks" of floors with the individual crackers representing the floors themselves.. Those floors, it said, were attached to both the outer shell & the central (steel) columns with L-shaped ALUMINIUM brackets (melt point @ 1221 Fahrenheit).. And it was the heat-softening, and subsequent failure, of these brackets which caused the pancaking effect.. Perhaps someone with better web-search skills than I could find this article and link it here..
  21. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    This is not true, the floor joist seats were STEEL welded to the perimeter and and core structures.
    I doubt that a decently researched documentary would make such a claim and suspect that you perhaps misremember. If it did, then it's not a good resource.
    I have no idea what article you are refering to, but I like the idea of floors as crackers.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Alan Sanderson

    Alan Sanderson New Member

    Is this site for debunking 911 only? . . . in that you are only interested in articles or facts that help do that? For example, if something were to jar your thinking so that you began to see some truth in the fact that the buildings might have been demolished, would those facts be allowed here?
  23. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    please read the posting guidelines.

    Metabunk debunks bunk. We dont care where the bunk comes from. Bunk is bunk.

    as far as your question, which is off topic, you can start a new thread any time you would like. Following the posting guidelines. At Metabunk we examine specific claims of evidence. Conjecture, speculations or threads that try to argue a point simply by "this doesnt look right to me" claims, will be thrown into Rambles. Evidence of the claim must be provided.

    If you have evidence of a specific claim you may start a new thread.



    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. OneWhiteEye

    OneWhiteEye Active Member

    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  25. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    You need to manage your "Conflict of Interest" ;)
    More seriously - I'm sorry that high profilers from those earlier days esp R Mackey are not around to bring their understanding up to date. Some aspects - like the causal attribution to tilt - are not strictly accurate. However very few would pick the blemishes. He is still way ahead of current Szamboti who hasn't moved at all IMO but....
  26. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    some help here pls, is this Bld 7 or wtc 1 or 2 ? all my picture searches leave me unsure

    I getting a headache trying to find work just where & when this is \

    Thanks in advance D


  27. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    I think less likely WTC 1/2 as I do not recall they ever having heavy fire at near ground level. The area is also littered with papers which suggests after at least one tower has fallen. Given the relatively relaxed onlookers, I would think its between 1 and 2 collapsing.
    Frankly, looks more like #5, maybe #3, not sure from what direction though.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Attached Files:

    • 111.JPG
      File size:
      49 KB
    • 1a.JPG
      File size:
      83.6 KB
  29. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 2
  30. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    my headache soothed thanks to all:), bld 5 or 6 explains why i had no seen or recognized it prior as not much mentioned about these.
  31. letlibertyring

    letlibertyring New Member

    Just thought I'd post this video which includes footage of WTC 7's south face as the face is being hit with debris, as well as it's side and top. Pretty interesting and not sure many have seen this.

    I attached a small gif of the particularly rare shot.


    Attached Files:

  32. vodking

    vodking New Member

    I once saw somewhere two other studies that were done on building 7 that are not the NIST report. There were links to them and I read some of one of them. Now I can't find these anywhere. Anyone know of these studies and possibly have the links? Thanks!
  33. benthamitemetric

    benthamitemetric Active Member

    You can find the expert reports prepared by the plaintiffs in the Aegis Insurance litigation here, and you can find a report prepared by the defendants' expert witnesses here. The latter was never filed with the court for procedural reasons but has been independently republished by its principal author.

    There are also at least two textbooks on disproportionate collapse that I've come across that discuss the collapse of World Trade Center 7 at length. You can find them here and here.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. vodking

    vodking New Member

  35. 311hwr

    311hwr New Member

    only just woken up, but i think your figure of 1.35 tons of t.n.t. is out by a factor of at least 100.

    1 ton t.n.t.= about 4,000,000,000 joules, cant find my calculator but around 135 tons of t.n.t.
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  36. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Weight and speed of the plane was overestimated. Here is my take on UA175 from years ago:

    I used 116,000 kg instead of 180,000 kg, and 243 m/s instead of 250 m/s. AA11 was slower.

    I find 3.42 * 10^9 J = 3420 MJ

    One kg of TNT is 4.18 MJ - I thus get 3420 MJ / (4.18 MJ/kg) = 818 kg of TNT. Less than a ton.

    For AA11:

    120,660 kg and 208 m/s -> 2610 MJ -> 624 kg of TNT
  37. 311hwr

    311hwr New Member

    thanks, i used jazzies 563 billion joules , wildly out, but he got the 1.3 tons right, according to his weight and speed.