Is there anything about 9/11 left to debunk

[Jeffrey Orling]

Can you name any unfounded false assertions that are out there that as of yet have not been debunked?

What constitutes a debunk? When those who make the false claim admit their error? Or simply when the error has been demonstrated?

 

[cloudspotter]

Can you name any unfounded false assertions that are out there that as of yet have not been debunked?

What constitutes a debunk? When those who make the false claim admit their error? Or simply when the error has been demonstrated?

Have you read this Jeffrey?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-guide-to-debunking.1886/

 

[Mark Barrington]

Can you name any unfounded false assertions that are out there that as of yet have not been debunked?

What constitutes a debunk? When those who make the false claim admit their error? Or simply when the error has been demonstrated?

I think cloudspotter's response addresses the 2nd and 3rd question. As to the first question, it's really too open ended to be useful. There are still lots of unanswered questions about the events of 9-11, which is expected in such an unprecedented event involving so many complex elements, architecture, engineering, how humans work in concert under unusual situations, even basic sciences like the physics of collapsing structures. The nature of a large event like this in the physical world is there will be unknowns.

When people hypothesize specific theories to provide an explanation of these unknowns, then you can apply logic and science to see if the theory (conspiracy or not) fits the facts and is possible to carry out without creating other implausible anomalies (missing passengers, etc.) I don't think it's possible to come up with a Grand Unified Theory of 911 conspiracy debunking. You can only address specific things as they come up. I think this site does a great deal to debunk a lot of the more popular conspiracy theories, but I think the possible number of them is probably combinatorially large. And they continue to spring up. Often they are the same as previously debunked theories, but there can often be just enough variation on the theme to require further explanation. I think a public service is done by a very specific unbiased exploration. I'm glad someone does it, I'm not sure I'd have the patience. My hat is off to Mick, who seems to have an almost infinite supply of patience. OK, finite but large.

I don't think 911 debunking will ever be a finished project. In my opinion, anyway.

 

[Alienentity]

9/11 was a far more complex series of events than the JFK assassination, yet conspiracy theories abound regarding the latter.
Many basic facts about the JFK killing are still poorly understood, 50 years later.

Most conspiracy theorists do not accept the 2 bullet, 1 rifle hypothesis for example, even though modern ballistic tests and recreations have shown that it is physically possible.

With 9/11 there are many conspiracy theorists who do not even accept that any jets hit the towers, pentagon or the ground in P.A. And they don't accept there were any bodies found, or passengers on the planes. How do you dispel these beliefs? As the saying goes 'You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.'

 

[Mick West]

I was on a radio show with Jason Bermas, and it was hosted by a conspiracy theory enthusiast. I was quite surprised by their lack of knowledge - both of them repeating things that were debunked years ago, and unaware of many details.

Some beliefs are simple incredulity - like I was explaining how flight 93 ended up underground, and they just flat rejected the idea as incomprehensible.

Maybe things like that require willingness to put in a bit of time to try to understand, and generally they don't see it as worth their time.

The majority of 9/11 believers simply ignore all the debunkings.

 

[Alienentity]

The majority of 9/11 believers simply ignore all the debunkings.

I believe that's true. I do know a few people who've stopped believing in the myths, but not until they've discovered how untrue most of them are.
The real value in these discussions and forums, I think, is to share thoughtful skepticism and make it as accessible to the casual public as possible.

 

[Mick West]

I believe that's true. I do know a few people who've stopped believing in the myths, but not until they've discovered how untrue most of them are.
The real value in these discussions and forums, I think, is to share thoughtful skepticism and make it as accessible to the casual public as possible.

It works a lot better in person. It's quite a challenge to simple get people to look at things online.

 

[TWCobra]

As a pilot, the reported speed of UA175 of 510 knots still needs to be determined if it was actually possible. The only people who can answer that are probably Boeing.

I wasn't aware until recently of the FDR data from the Egypt Air 990 crash in November 1999. The aircraft is recorded as reaching 485 knots at 17,000 feet whilst pulling 2.5G and with severe twisting loads on the tail plane caused by split elevators.

The EAS registered in this state is approx 463 knots.

This is a pointer to a very strong airframe, but not proof it could reach the EAS of approx 509 knots that the radar analysis says it did.

Other speed analyses available have the aircraft travelling at 473 knots or 472KEAS; still very fast but much more likely considering the data from EA990.

The other thing to note was that the 509KEAS was only recorded at the very terminal phase of the flight and so was only a brief loading.

 

[hamishsubedei]

Is there anything that has actually been 100 percent debunked. A lot of it is quite comical . Thermite spheres from fly ash or burning steel wool, molten steel is aluminium lmao,

 

[Mick West]

Is there anything that has actually been 100 percent debunked. A lot of it is quite comical . Thermite spheres from fly ash or burning steel wool, molten steel is aluminium lmao,

Often a 100% debunking is impossible, as there always exists a possibility that somehow something happened, and left no evidence. For example, the "pools of molten steel" is based purely on a few eyewitness accounts, there's no actual evidence to support it, and the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But you can't PROVE a lot of the theories are false, so they linger on.

A lot of debunking is simply pointing out there's no evidence to support a particular theory. Unfortunately that is not enough for the naturally suspicious.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Is there even consensus on debunked items? I haven't noticed that the AE911T pitch and bullet points and so forth have changed an iota since 2009 and surely many of them have been "debunked"

I did my own fact checking of one of their claims and something I've heard Gage say with my own ears... the distance that steel from the towers was found. Claim 600' actual distance 441'. Simple to do with a to-scale map of the site which includes the World Financial Center. I sent Gage the "evidence" and he never responded and continues to "lie" about this

I attended a 9/11 event and Gage spoke and said that the dust from the building being pulverized in mid air was 4-12" thick for "miles around" the WTC site. I told him he was exaggerating and no where was it that thick and even a few blocks to the east on Broadway it was less than an inch. He still repeats the lie.

I'm thinking that debunking doesn't get retractions from those who float lies and misinformation. The parrots then keep parroting... it's not THEIR finding... they are just regurgitating information from what they believe is a credible source who vetted the information they convey as fact. Obviously Gage or whomever told him those "facts" did not vet the info. So.. did THAT person make it up or make a mistake. Was it an attempt to deceive or not? I think those 2 Gage claims are mean to shock and awe his audience toward accepting his thesis. Non CD could simply not produce this!

 

[Alienentity]

Is there even consensus on debunked items? I haven't noticed that the AE911T pitch and bullet points and so forth have changed an iota since 2009 and surely many of them have been "debunked"

I did my own fact checking of one of their claims and something I've heard Gage say with my own ears... the distance that steel from the towers was found. Claim 600' actual distance 441'. Simple to do with a to-scale map of the site which includes the World Financial Center. I sent Gage the "evidence" and he never responded and continues to "lie" about this

I attended a 9/11 event and Gage spoke and said that the dust from the building being pulverized in mid air was 4-12" thick for "miles around" the WTC site. I told him he was exaggerating and no where was it that thick and even a few blocks to the east on Broadway it was less than an inch. He still repeats the lie.

I'm thinking that debunking doesn't get retractions from those who float lies and misinformation. The parrots then keep parroting... it's not THEIR finding... they are just regurgitating information from what they believe is a credible source who vetted the information they convey as fact. Obviously Gage or whomever told him those "facts" did not vet the info. So.. did THAT person make it up or make a mistake. Was it an attempt to deceive or not? I think those 2 Gage claims are mean to shock and awe his audience toward accepting his thesis. Non CD could simply not produce this!

Funny thing is you can more or less debunk both those claims per CD just by the fact that actual CD's don't
a) pulverize huge amounts of concrete with explosives
b) throw structural steel hundreds of feet outside the footprints!

If anything these 'facts' support the gravitational collapse hypothesis.

 

[hamishsubedei]

It wasnt a typical controlled demolition but how does gravity cause the pulverization of 90,000 tonnes of concrete and how does falling steel due to gravity throw itself hundreds of feet laterally ? Has there been any peer reviewed debunking ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

9/11 was a far more complex series of events than the JFK assassination, yet conspiracy theories abound regarding the latter.
Many basic facts about the JFK killing are still poorly understood, 50 years later.

Most conspiracy theorists do not accept the 2 bullet, 1 rifle hypothesis for example, even though modern ballistic tests and recreations have shown that it is physically possible.

With 9/11 there are many conspiracy theorists who do not even accept that any jets hit the towers, pentagon or the ground in P.A. And they don't accept there were any bodies found, or passengers on the planes. How do you dispel these beliefs? As the saying goes 'You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.'

Not to get off topic, but the JFK comparison with 911 here has to be discussed for a moment.

You may or may not know that the Zapruder film was suppressed. That is the one that shows JFK's head moving back and to the left after being shot in the head. Was it a coincidence that this 26 second film was not shown to the American public when we were being told that JFK was shot from the right rear?

The film was not shown to the public until 1975, about 12 years after the assassination, and that probably would have never happened if it wasn't for a subpoena by Jim Garrison to obtain the film for the Clay Shaw trial in 1969. Life magazine fought that subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court but they had no grounds to deny it. Life also told us in 1963/64 that the film showed JFK was turning around and looking to the back and that is likely when he was shot in the throat. The film showed no such thing.

So it isn't a "conspiracy theory" that we were being misled about what happened to JFK. It is a reality. Not much different than being told WTC 7 came down by office fires and then finding out later that those responsible for the report on it omitted items that would make their initiation hypothesis impossible.

 

[Bill]

We need a facepalm smiley.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

It wasnt a typical controlled demolition but how does gravity cause the pulverization of 90,000 tonnes of concrete and how does falling steel due to gravity throw itself hundreds of feet laterally ? Has there been any peer reviewed debunking ?

The same way if you drop a bag full of dishes from 12 feet onto a concrete floor all the dishes are shattered. If you do it 100 times the shattered dishes turned to pretty darn small bits.

Short answer...millions of collisions.

No steel was thrown... it fell away...tipping from as much as 1,100 feet high.

 

[hamishsubedei]

sure but if i get a stack of 110 plates and drop them the top 20 plates onto the lower 90 it won't smash pulverising them into dust while not slowing down at near free fall speed

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Not to get off topic, but the JFK comparison with 911 here has to be discussed for a moment.

You may or may not know that the Zapruder film was suppressed. That is the one that shows JFK's head moving back and to the left after being shot in the head. Was it a coincidence that this 26 second film was not shown to the American public when we were being told that JFK was shot from the right rear?

The film was not shown to the public until 1975, about 12 years after the assassination, and that probably would have never happened if it wasn't for a subpoena by Jim Garrison to obtain the film for the Clay Shaw trial in 1969. Life magazine fought that subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court but they had no grounds to deny it. Life also told us in 1963/64 that the film showed JFK was turning around and looking to the back and that is likely when he was shot in the throat. The film showed no such thing.

So it isn't a "conspiracy theory" that we were being misled about what happened to JFK. It is a reality. Not much different than being told WTC 7 came down by office fires and then finding out later that those responsible for the report on it omitted items that would make their initiation hypothesis impossible.

Tony,

We are misled by official, corps and people who can get away with it because they have no ethics and some unstated agenda... Pols lie all the time. Witness your guv Mr Christi. His story is probably both a conspiracy before and a cover up after.

The BP oil spill or the Fukushima were conspiracies after the fact to cover up incompetence and stupidity, greed and so forth. And either of these can serve as a template to explain the "behavior" of the authorities on and after 9/11. Neither BP or PETCO conspired to create the tragedies... only to cover and conceal and escape accountability for their facilities and their design features.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

sure but if i get a stack of 110 plates and drop them the top 20 plates onto the lower 90 it won't smash pulverising them into dust while not slowing down at near free fall speed

The first period of drop of 12 stories in tower 1 did not completely pulverize the concrete. And there is no evidence that it did. What happened is that those slabs in their fall of about 150' began the process and broke apart into large chunks. But the time they had been through million collisions they chunks were abraded into fine particles the size of sand.

Check out stone crushers or industrial tumblers.

The duration of the collapse was more like 2x what a free fall collapse would have been so it WAS being slowed by having to destroy 91 floor slabs connection to the frame.

Here is a chart for Free Fall motion with no air resistance... Note the velocity and time relationship.

 

[Mick West]

Not to get off topic, but the JFK comparison with 911 here has to be discussed for a moment.

You may or may not know that the Zapruder film was suppressed. That is the one that shows JFK's head moving back and to the left after being shot in the head. Was it a coincidence that this 26 second film was not shown to the American public when we were being told that JFK was shot from the right rear?

The film was not shown to the public until 1975, about 12 years after the assassination, and that probably would have never happened if it wasn't for a subpoena by Jim Garrison to obtain the film for the Clay Shaw trial in 1969. Life magazine fought that subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court but they had no grounds to deny it. Life also told us in 1963/64 that the film showed JFK was turning around and looking to the back and that is likely when he was shot in the throat. The film showed no such thing.

So it isn't a "conspiracy theory" that we were being misled about what happened to JFK. It is a reality. Not much different than being told WTC 7 came down by office fires and then finding out later that those responsible for the report on it omitted items that would make their initiation hypothesis impossible.

The JFK film was "suppressed" because it shows his brains exploding. What is shown in the film is still consistent with the official story. (There are threads to discuss that though. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jfk-headshot-warning-contains-gore.2051/ )

The omitted items in the NIST simulation do not make collapse from office fires impossible.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Isn't JFK stuff Off Topic?

 

[Mick West]

Isn't JFK stuff Off Topic?

Yes, which is why I pointed to the other threads. However one could argue about the government having a tendency to cover things up, which leads to difficulty debunking things.

One can also point to the longevity and evolution of the JFK conspiracy theories as evidence for the likely longevity and evolution of the 9/11 theories.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

It seems that agreeing facts which is (I assume) are the core of debunkery may be a fool's errand. I been writing for years that the "debate" begins by stipulating to the facts. And that never happens... Each sides claims their own facts. and the debate has no foundation.

 

[Mick West]

It seems that agreeing facts which is (I assume) are the core of debunkery may be a fool's errand. I been writing for years that the "debate" begins by stipulating to the facts. And that never happens... Each sides claims their own facts. and the debate has no foundation.

Hence my attempts to drill down to the core disagreement, and my attempts at focus, and keeping things on (narrow) topic. Imperfect attempts.

 

[hamishsubedei]

The clear problem with this jeffrey is that if you watch the video or see images of the tower all the material is being ejected out the side of the building and not stacking up the towers

squibs.png

Content from external source

Judging on that picture at least 80 percent of the material is ejected laterally and not causing any force on the still intact floors below.
The buildings do not slow down or de accelerate but maintain a constant speed. However its not free fall speed its rather close.

 

[Mick West]

The clear problem with this jeffrey is that if you watch the video or see images of the tower all the material is being ejected out the side of the building and not stacking up the towers

squibs.png

Content from external source

Judging on that picture at least 80 percent of the material is ejected laterally and not causing any force on the still intact floors below.
The buildings do not slow down or de accelerate but maintain a constant speed. However its not free fall speed its rather close.

You think this has not been debunked? What do you think at the proposed explanations? Have you studied them?

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

The clear problem with this jeffrey is that if you watch the video or see images of the tower all the material is being ejected out the side of the building and not stacking up the towers

squibs.png

Content from external source

Judging on that picture at least 80 percent of the material is ejected laterally and not causing any force on the still intact floors below.
The buildings do not slow down or de accelerate but maintain a constant speed. However its not free fall speed its rather close.

I am pretty certain that what is ejected outward... breaking the windows in the process is the CONTENTS between the floor slabs.. ceiling tiles, GWB, furniture, window shades, paper, carpet and so forth NOT concrete from the slabs.

The reason I say this is because what was taking place was a vertical avalanche of sorts of building parts dropping down smashing into one floor after another. The building parts I refer to were the steel from the hat truss, mechanical equipment from the mech floors on 108 and 109, the massive sub station transformers up there, tanks for water, the antenna parts, restaurant equipment, elevator machinery and of course shatter floor slabs. Each floor added something like 1600 tons of mass for the slabs and loads outside the core... not counting the facade the core columns or the inside the core slabs and live loads. So the top 12 floors were dropping something in the order of 30,000 tons of material on the 97th floor of one acre. The vertical avalanche had to also push the air out of its path... much like a car does. The air was 18,000 cu yards per floor and it was moved in something like 0.1 seconds. Where did it go? Out the windows! And it took with it everything on the floor. The wind pressure created winds pulse or gusts of up to 400 mph which will pretty much destroy anything on a twin tower floor. Think of a sheet of plywood falling over on dusty floor times 100,000 or something... I don't know the scale.

The floor concrete became pulverized as it was ground to bits by millions of collisions on the way down and especially when it hit bottom. The concrete was not very strong to begin with with no stone aggregate and something like volcanic slag for aggregate.

If you knew the mass distribution you would know that your 80% figure is way off.

 

[hamishsubedei]

If you refer to the picture or sequence of pictures the concrete is being ejected out the side and there is clearly no 'avalanche' of stacking up of the concrete floors

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

If you refer to the picture or sequence of pictures the concrete is being ejected out the side and there is clearly no 'avalanche' of stacking up of the concrete floors

Show... I see no concrete... I see some sort of pulverized material which logically would be the walls and so forth.. how do you move the concrete laterally through the windows.. it was behind spandrel panel which circled the buildings floors.

 

[hamishsubedei]

with explosives...

 

[Mick West]

hamish, please don't just make vague hypotheses. If there's some specific evidence of any of the things you list, then start a new thread, and get into it in detail, with numbers, photos, and documentation.

 

[deirdre]

If you refer to the picture or sequence of pictures the concrete is being ejected out the side and there is clearly no 'avalanche' of stacking up of the concrete floors

other than your one pic I cant find any that I see concrete. I see the steel 'mesh' that makes up the outside walls only. do you have any othr pics?

and with the dishes analog, you have to remember there is space between the dishes.

 

[hamishsubedei]

Couldn't find any detailed photos as most were shot from a distance, this video however shows the phenomena I'm talking about

Content from external source

 

[deirdre]

Couldn't find any detailed photos as most were shot from a distance, this video however shows the phenomena I'm talking about

Content from external source

maybe start a new thread if this wasn't covered already. I don't see what youre saying or the guy on the video is saying I should be seeing. looks just like a pancake to me.

 

[Alienentity]

It wasnt a typical controlled demolition but how does gravity cause the pulverization of 90,000 tonnes of concrete and how does falling steel due to gravity throw itself hundreds of feet laterally ? Has there been any peer reviewed debunking ?

If you mean has there been peer-reviewed mathematical calculations to explain these things, yes, there has been.

There has been nothing peer-reviewed in any engineering journal from your side.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

other than your one pic I cant find any that I see concrete. I see the steel 'mesh' that makes up the outside walls only. do you have any othr pics?

and with the dishes analog, you have to remember there is space between the dishes.

ha? there was a space between the slabs too... 11'-8" 104 of them and one that was 90 feet at the bottom.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

OffTopic....why do so many have bizarre avatars? What's with that?

 

[deirdre]

ha? there was a space between the slabs too... 11'-8" 104 of them and one that was 90 feet at the bottom.

i meant a stack of dishes have no space between so you have to visualize a different model. not a stack of dishes

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

yes and no... dishes don't mate perfectly... change it to a sack of different sized plates and bowls...

What a mess.

 

[deirdre]

yes and no... dishes don't mate perfectly... change it to a sack of different sized plates and bowls...

What a mess.

I don't know how thick the floors were but I'm doubting a 12' space models down to what a millimeter of space between plates?