9/11: Debunking The Myths

[TO Kid]

From the moment the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1

I guess Popular Mechanics is now in on the coverup ;-)

[WoodrowFan]

1. thank you!

What a great article! makes you realize, if you didn't already, how shameless so many of the CTers are, and how dishonest. Everybody interested in 9-11 should read this article.

[John Doe II]

2. Dishonest

Well, WodroowFan, you already called the CTlers and me included "intellctually dishonest". Can you please finally answer just some of my questions I've asked you in the thread: "To Those For, and Against, MIHOP, Please Kindly Help". I'd be very interested in reading your answers ....
I think it's simply a question of fairness to answer theses questions before calling others "intellectually dishonest".

[janedoe]

39. No wild conspiracy theories needed...

...if there were a gravitational anomaly of about 60xg, where g is the "normal" gravitational factor (32.2 feet/second^2). If gravity were 60xg, the towers would fall in about 12.5 seconds, in a vacuum, and with no resistance breaking each floor, for the progressive collapse ("pancake") theory to work.

So, is this (a 60xg gravitational anomaly) a "wild conspiracy theory" or is "controlled demolition?" Take your pick.

[LARED]

3. Shameless Really shameless

More than 3000 books and an estimated 628,000 web sites, of which many sell crap or want your money.

It's amazing what the people will do for the almighty buck.

Shameless.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

5. Just like you lared

Shameless what you do for a buck

[LARED]

6. Being an engineer is shameless?

I never knew.

I would be insulted by your implication, but knowing where it comes from just makes me nod my head and smile

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

13. Now I'm scared

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[AZCat]

14. Can we hold you to this?

I, for one, would like to see such a summation of LARED's posts.

Can you give us an ETA?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

22. I should have it ready

right around the time you get back to me on the EPA's test results for explosive residue. :eyes:

[AZCat]

23. Please point out to me...

any statements I have made regarding explosive residue and the EPA.

If you cannot, then I do not understand your post. Does this mean you will not be providing an ETA?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

25. Here ya go buddy

" I will continue looking."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=28408&mesg_id=28791&page=

Still waiting........

[AZCat]

26. Your correlation between the two issues is weak

Please point out to me the similarity between your statement that you would do something specific (creating the "best of LARED" thread) and my post regarding the EPA, because I don't see it.

I did continue looking and didn't find anything. After all, not everything is available on the internet. I was also not arrogant enough to claim I knew something that I did not.

I do not, however, think that you will have difficulty collecting LARED's posts so I don't see the issue preventing you from fulfilling your statement.

If you're trying to back out of a statement that you made, I understand. I think it would be much easier if you made that clear instead of attempting to misdirect the conversation.


On Edit: I'm not your "buddy", so please refrain from referring to me as such in future correspondence.

[k-robjoe]

27. Please

This is kind of boring.

Ofcourse he´s not going to make a "best of LARED".

I don´t see why you want to spend time and effort just to make him back out, and admit it. Aren´t there any interesting questions to look into?

[AZCat]

29. You make a good point

I just get irritated when posters make either unfounded claims. LARED is not guilty of the transgressions claimed to be logged in said thread. I guess I let him get under my skin.

I apologize to you and the other serious posters here for digressing on a personality-based tangent.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

28. Keep looking buddy..

Look far and near, hi and low.. let me know when you come across any semblance of a real investigation into the events of 9/11. In the meantime keep throwing your weight behind damage control puff pieces such as this PM article and the like. Have a nice day buddy. :hi:

[Make7]

15. On being wrong

He admitted he was wrong here.

:):):) Make7

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. HA! HA! HA! the IRONY!

chock full of you ignorant contradictions over the years... Never once admitting wrong, when wrong is all you have ever been... time and time and time again.

The one confirmed (by INTERNET standards) engineer on the site and HE is the one providing "ignorant contradictions".

Man you deserve a medal for that one. :dunce:

[LARED]

30. Irony

is one of the chief reasons for my visits to this forum.

[AZCat]

7. Care to substantiate that?

I have yet to see LARED ask for money for anything related to September 11. Perhaps you have evidence I have not seen?

Because I would hate to think that this was just a personal attack - that's against the rules.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

8. Personal attacks like the "kook" monomer

that gets thrown around by those who can't defend their cherished paradigms?

[AZCat]

11. Now I'm really confused

Is it possible you meant "misnomer"? :shrug:

And the only use of the word "kook" in this thread is by you...

[NecessaryOnslaught]

16. Did you read the PM article

or do you feel the need to defend the OCT at every turn, just for the sake of doing so? Labels such as "paranoia, Wild conspiracy tales, extremists " have no place in scientific debate, and are only there to comfort those who have nothing to say otherwise.

[LARED]

17. scientific debate???

Kindly point me to some scientific debate regarding 9/11.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

19. No, so I can see it any exists.

[MrSammo1]

How do you

debate physics?

Jet wings don't fold. A vertical stabilizer on a jet.....would have to mark a wall on it's way through it.

[LARED]

33. Who said anything about debating physics?

Jet wings don't fold.

I'm sure that menas something. Why can't the fold?

A vertical stabilizer on a jet.....would have to mark a wall on it's way through it.

Most likely true assuming it actually hits the wall. What makes you sure it hit the wall? Or that it hit it in a vertical position?

[AZCat]

21. How do you equate...

Pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies as "defend(ing) the OCT at every turn"?

I agree that labels do not serve anyone. The Popular Mechanics article does not use the label "kook" either, so I fail to see your point. Would you like to address this claim made in your post (#8) instead of misdirecting the discussion?



Edited to correct square bracket no-print phenom.

[LARED]

9. I think he's insinuating I'm a paid disinfo agent

You know paid to muddle the "facts" with ...well reality.

[AZCat]

12. I had considered that

But since such an insinuation is a violation of DU rules. Surely no-one here would step outside those boundaries to make a personal attack, would they?

[WoodrowFan]

20. you're not?

what, you're doing it for FREE!!!????

[vincent_vega_lives]

31. Didn't you get your check?

oh shit, the cat's out of the bag now.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Make7]

34. .

[Make7]

35. .

[catnhatnh]

36. OK...

...haven't EVEN read alll the responses yet,but I've never seen an innocent man say "no comment"-the clown either fired the missiles (no comment) or did not(no I did not) and as to WTC7 show me 10 floors of ANYTHING or anything "scooped out"-any photo I have seen has shown fires isolated BY FLOORS...in short PM quotes single sources and single experts...by the same standards I can prove moon bats did the whole deal...

[catnhatnh]

37. Additionally...

I might mention NONE of you guys are commenting on the article.Lared,I look to you as a skeptic and as to you others I look for INSIGHT....Both are needed.As to the actual PM article, it may be the worst I've ever seen in their publication. Anything they do address they do in an at best cursory manner and their "debunking" is mainly single sourced.Let's touch on the subject matter guys...

[philb]

38. PM is a bogus study that has been debunked

As has the 9/11 Commission Report, which as Dr. Griffin demonstrated in his book: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions, is a "571 page lie"
lots of this before in other threads

[LARED]

40. The PM story has been debunked by whom (n/t)

[philb]

41. There are a lot of web sites by technical people and we've had threads

I've only looked at it marginally because while it has some technical authors it appears its purpose was mainly political and rather than seeking to resolve the real issues at question regarding what happened on 9/11, they were mainly interested in setting up straw dogs to knock down for political purposes. I've looked more at the "official" studies than the PM study. Some of the real unresolved issues that it didn't attempt to resolve are here:
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

which appears to me the PM study is a part of. I don't think it was a serious unbiased study seeking truth whereever that leads.
It seems to have been like the 9/11 Commission Report which was a bogus, biased, non-useful, attempt designed to cover-up rather than enlighten.

[philb]

42. Here's a possible myth to debunk, from Danish Scientist

Myth or Fact? no 757

The official FBI explanation concerning the Pentagon attack contains a "phony story" about a Boe ing 757 crashing down into the Pentagon Building's west side.
The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is circa 40 meters. And such a huge plane could not have flown in from the west and penetrated the west facade - WITHOUT first having broken several of the numerous amount of light poles and traffic signs which were surrounding the Pentagons west side. But these lightpoles were left unharmed. (Check out the pictures for yourself).
This means in plain English : That there was no Boeing 757 which crashed down into the Pentagon on Sept. 11.
Had this been the case, there would also have been a much bigger hole in the west facade of Pentagon. And what happened to the wings of the Boeing ? Did they enter the small hole or did they disappear outside the facade ?
No debris from a plane crash was visible outside the Pentagon - obviously there was NO plane crash !
And what about the TWO huge Engines of the Boeing 757 !?
Did the engines penetrate the facade of Pentagon, and if so - what happened to the penetration holes of these TWO Boeing engines ?,...........NO holes are visible on any of the live pictures.
And what actually happened to the TWO Boeing Eengines ?,............ The firefighters who entered the burning Pentagon building saw NO debris,..... and found NO engines inside the Pentagon building.
(Yet the FBI still claim they found the TWO black boxes,...!?.,...

A German site had a relevant picture, though I can't determine the angles and distances from it. Anyone have better evidence?

Indestructible Pentagon lamp poles survived Boeing crash?
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate45.htm

[philb]

43. another claim from Henrik: myth or fact; and an alternative

Also the remaining walls in the attacked part of the burning Pentagon were destroyed only few hours after the attack.
This destruction was made by a huge demolition crane.
The official explanation of this intervention with a demolition crane, was that they feared that the building was unstable and that the roof would soon have collapse. The truth however is that this was a "coverup-story". The real reason for using this crane was that they could not promote the myth of a BOEING plane crash at Pentagon, if there was NO BIG HOLE in the facade of the Pentagon Building. That is why they used the Demolition crane in order to make the hole in the Facade look bigger.
The original holes in Pentagon was caused by the exploding bombs (and/or a Helicopter). But the size of these penetration holes were not big enough to convince the public that Pentagon was struck by a Boeing 757. That is why they used the crane to enlarge the penetration hole in the Pentagons west-Facade.
After an hour a 10 meter big opening Gap, could be exposed in front of the Worlds Newsmedias.
Before this took place the Press was asked not to take pictures from certain angles. If you recall the first hours on Sept. 11 - you will remember that we saw only long distance photos/film of a distant burning Pentagon Building. (NO closeups were allowed)
Many from the Press complained about this, and asked themselfes:
What is it that they are trying to hide from us ?


and an alternative version/myth? to explain same from a German site:

Pentagon collapse caused by cutting charges
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate46.htm

and if this is myth, why did the FBI seek to prevent people/Media from seeing the site and confiscate videos, etc. ? and not return them?