It has been debunked.
And soon there will be a book debunking the debunking.
In the end, people prone to believing conspiracies will believe what they want, regardless.
Barbara Walters must be spinning in her grave.
Oh wait. :dubious:
Hey Cheesesteak, it’s not our fault that Number 7 was all you could see from Montclair. 
I’ve got two words for you:
Bob Eiger.
This site is an excellent and constantly updated debunking of even the upcoming book:
A recent addition on why Building 7 collapsed makes me even more upset that conspiracy theorists are still at it:
Because of that, I do think it is high time to make fun of them:
Check this parody of 9/11 conspiracy nuttery applied to the Star Wars universe:
There might be some fun in this for the MythBusters. I wonder how you contact them a suggest it?
ISTR former mod Manhattan telling me that Giuliani had designated building 7 as a command and control site in case of a citywide disaster, and pursuant to that, Tower 7 was full of emergency fuel (he told me this in the context of explaining how stupid Giuliani was as a mayor).
Is this true? And if true, did the fuel contribute to the building’s collapse?
GIGObuster thanks for the link. It’s good to know someone other than the nutters is putting in that kind of effort. Not that it will do any good.
Rosie is not bringing the issue up to be talked about. She swallowed it hook line and sinker. Then she goes on her show and spouts off about it. The only one who might call her on it is too weak and stupid to put up a fight. Rosie just steamrolls over her. There are no lingering questions. The is nothing weird about it. Every “theory” that I have ever heard has been smacked down quite easily. Look at the site that Gigo linked to. See if there are any lingering questions. Now I’m off to hit my head into the wall again.
MythBusters have stated that they will not touch any September 11 related myths, period.
A-HA!
Regards,
Shodan
Oh my god, this literally had me rolling on the floor laughing!
- Honesty
P.S. I agreed with Rosie’s statements about Iran.
Oh god, the twoofers. People who think a government (any government) being able to keep a huge conspiracy completely under wraps for five-almost-six years is more believable than terrorists hitting the same target twice. They bugger belief without lube.
Screw Loose Change, a blog to expose Looser shit in particular and twoofer shit in general. As an added bonus, some twoofers post to that place!
Here is an example of the caliber of people who post to the Loose Change Web forum.
There are likely more and better debunking sites on the Web. I’ve gotten too depressed with the whole mess to look for them. If you have to put up with a twoofer in your daily life, I sincerely feel for you.
The problem with this, of course, is that the likelyhood of an accidental triggering of the purported explosives is so much greater than a terrorist attack on a particular building. Even our government isn’t stupid enough to take such a needless risk. Nor are they smart enough to keep it secret if they did it.
Sigh. But not worth starting the whole discussion all over again.
The problem with this theory is that, contrary to intuition and decades of Godzilla movies, buildings don’t topple over. As a thought experiment, consider a 20-story building with explosives in just one side of the base. Set off the explosives and our intuition is that the building will fall over like a domino. In fact, the only way that could happen is if you gave the 20th floor a sufficient shove to move it hundreds of feet horizontally, the 19th floor a slightly less powerful shove, etc. A skyscraper is not built to maintain integrity if something tips it over, as that is not a real-world threat. Instead, as soon as the structural integrity of the base disappears you get what looks like a controlled demolition, with maybe a bit larger footprint, but NEVER the building tipping over.
The thing that throws people about the “controlled demolition” thing is that we always hear about demolition teams making all these incredibly careful, precise calculations when they’re placing the charges, so people think that means collapsing a building like that is really hard: that if it’s done wrong, it’ll tip over like a domino instead of collapsing straight down. What they’re missing is the fact that all those careful calculations are cost saving measures: they could just wire every surface of a building with explosives and drop it that way, but that would be a huge waste of money. Instead, they figure out the minimum number of supports they need to blast to bring the building down, and just wire those. The calculations aren’t what makes the building fall that way: they’ll do that no matter what. The calculations are just figuring out how to do it with the smallest amount of explosives possible.
Buildings like skyscrapers cannot topple over.
The thing people fail and fail to understand is that tall buildings don’t collapse due to the explosives, they collapse due to gravity. Gravity pulls straight down. Weaken the support of the building enough (via explosions) and what happens? Gravity pulls the building down.
Simple physics that people seemingly cannot understand.
The problem is you can’t explain it that simply. There are exceptions and those exceptions will be thrown in your face by the nutters. Each building is different and is studied for not just the minimum ammount of explosives but also reason that would make the collapse uncontrolled. There are pictures that show buildings that toppled over and not straight down. This is the evidence the wackos use against you. Sometimes they need to take out interior structures that will cause an uneven collapse. Interior structures that WTC1,2 and 7 didn’t have. The site the Gigo linked has good examples of the pictures that the nutters use as “proof” with great explainations. One of the damning pictures is one that shows the WTC7 did not come straight down. Most of it did as you would expect but a good portion of it feel across the street and a large ammount of debris was on the roof of a building across the street. Just as you would expect with an uncontrolled pancake collapse.
Yep. Two months after 9/11 I came to the site the closest way you could–from Battery Park City to the North, and got within a block from 7. It was not a neat collapse at all–some of it had landed on Fitterman Hall, which still hasn’t been repaired, and a some on the street to the east.
As for the premature report of 7 coming down, I was in da Bronx all afternoon and channel-surfing all the time; it was reported in all soberness that One Liberty Plaza had come down too. As you can see from the first couple of pictures, it did lose a lot of windows, but it not only stayed up but reopened within a year or so. It became a bitter joke among my friends, “Oh no, One Liberty Plaza fell down again!” (Give us a break, we were in shock!) BTW, many people confused it with a black slab to the south of the site, the Deutsche Bank Building, which was heavily damaged but still didn’t come down. It’s currently being deconstructed and will be gone aaaaaaany day now.
Anyway, the point is that rumors and confusion were swirling that day, it was very hard to figure out exactly what was going on even for people on the site, and (swiftly recanted) media reports were just that. Nothing more.
Dammit, Rosie, I used to really admire you. 9/11 was indeed a conspiracy–by Osama bin Laden and nineteen evil stooges.
“the Gigo”?!?..
I totally forgot that when one reaches [del]brand[/del] name recognition, they shorten your handle! A symbol that one has made it here… or more likely my internet name is just getting “.old” 
Anyway, because in other threads it was noticed that there were loony leftists that believe in this conspiracy nonsense, one interesting bit to help remind everyone that not all leftists are like Rosie is also in the Debunking911 site: even a leftist like Noam Chomsky (that many times is accused of being also a nutty conspiracy theorist even when he documents his stuff) makes mincemeat out of the 9/11 nutters here:
(Scroll down for the video)