9/11 conspiracy Mythbusters?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

I would like to see a Mythbusters (or some such) on what would happen if we played the devil’s advocate. Have experts, models, simulations, etc, try to “do” the conspiracies.

Three challenges:

  1. Can you pack enough explosives in the WTC to cause the collapse? You have to use the timeframe in the conspiracies and all the work be undetected for both towers. They would have to collapse in the same way. You can use thermite if you think it would help. Bonus points: Go ahead and add in WTC #7.

  2. Fire a missile at the Pentagon. Would it look like an airplane to freeway drivers? What would the explosion and resulting hole look like? The launch point would have to be undetected. Bonus points: You must also account for the now-missing airliner, crew, and passengers.

  3. Start a major conspiracy-sounding rumor at a large organization (GM, Microsoft, Wal-Mart). Have the CEO play along with real-looking meetings, memos, e-mails, and warn everyone not to disclose it. See if no one spills the beans. For bonus points, make it an illegal atrocity, but you still have make sure no one reports it.

2

I cringe with anger about the 9/11 morons.

I think we should instead have a materials science class be standard requirement for high school graduation.

Maybe then the morons would be less and less.

3

As a teacher, I can tell you what would happen. The nuts would call the schools all upset because their kids are being taught things that would disprove their political beliefs.

Stupidity can be really persistent, far more than actual truth, it seems.

4

At one point (I think when they were doing pyramid powers) Adam basically said that they were no longer going to do anything with “woo-woo” stuff.

9/11 Trutherism is about as woo-woo as you can get.

5

Actually the tower collapse is one of the subjects on their list. But the problem their having is the scale of the experiment and also added no matter how it’s constructed the nutters , er I mean some people are going to have a problem with it. He also added they couldn’t pull this off in seven days which is the time limit they have for episodes.

6

That’s an interesting visual. Like seething with fear. :stuck_out_tongue:

Yep. *Evil Socialists are brainwashing out children! :eek: :mad: * I’m surprised schools in some areas area allowed to teach biology.

I don’t blame him. Woo-woo-oids will not respond to logic and empirical evidence. And they’re probably not the sort who watch Mythbusters anyway.

7

I think they are worried about a plausible result. Many of the 9-11 theories are plausible not just damned likely.

8

That really depends on your definition of plausible.

9

The mythbusters definition of plausible is “it can/could have happen” . It

10

Let’s turn this around. Find me a way some of the scenarios the “Truthers” come up with and see if they have any basis in reality.

silent explosives, thermite that cuts vertical columns with ridiculous attachments, hologram planes, etc.

11

My theory if it was really so easy to plant bombs and such in a skyscraper to cause a demoliton, why aren’t we seeing it? I mean Chicago has a lot of tall buildings. Frankly I’m surprised we don’t see more bombings as it’d be so easy to do.

You could easily bomb subways, Els, malls and such or at least plant the devices without causing much attention at least till after the fact.

12

Could controlled demolition have brought down the WTC? Possibly, but it demonstrably didn’t happen. So what would a test like that prove?

13

Remember; for plausible on Mythbusters all they need is to mimic the result. Not the exact circumstances.

14

I think they’d take the could airplanes take down the building route instead of could a building be brought down by explosives. Because that would be a big duh.

15

No, they mimic the result in the end, but if they can’t mimic the circumstances (or close to them) then it’s busted.