# Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy theory
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [December 3, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976 "2004-12-03T22:51:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/41 "2004-12-06T15:00:48Z")
Sinister Air Force General: Say there, Airman Bob.
Airman Bob: Sir?
SAFG: Listen son, you’ve been a good and loyal asset.
AB: Sir?
SAFG: You’ve been reccomended to me from your immediate NCO all the way up the chain.
AB: Thank you sir! I apprecia…
SAFG: So we have a job for you.
AB: Proud to help sir!
SAFG: We want you to kill a few thousand of your countrymen.
AB: SAY WHAT!?
SAFB: And destroy a couple of American icons in the process.
AB: Sir, with all due respect, are you on drugs?!
SAFB: And bring this fine nation to a state of undeniable fear.
AB: OK, definately drugs. I’m guessing crank.
SAFB: But’s it for your country son. Don’t you love your country?
AB: Sir, I love my country sir!
SAFB: So you’ll help up out by killing thousands of them!
AB: What FOR sir?
SAFB: Oh, you know. Stuff. Help George Bush’s approval rating, maybe get to invade Afgantisan. We might get a pipeline or something. Not really sure what, but we’ve got to destroy the Twin Towers to do it. No other way.
AB: Destroy the…Sir, this is the stupidest idea ever.
SAFB: Nonsesnse! No one will ever suspect the president of killing his own people in a fake terrorist act.
AB: Fake terroris…Sir what are you planning to do?
SAFB: Simple! Piece of cake! We simply take a couple of commercial airplanes, seize control of them, murder or hide the passengers, replace them with military aircraft with special rockets on the front. Then we fly those planes into the World Trade Center! Towers go boom! People die. And we of the conspriacy get…something. Genius!
AB: Doens’t sound very…
SAFB: OF course, we need to hope nobody in NYC has a video camera.
AB: But…
SAFB: And we’re hoping Osama Bin Laden will take credit for it.
AB: Errr…
SAFB: No, here’s where you come in, son. You’re going to fly one of the planes into the tower!
AB: Sir, I’m going to have to kill you now.
---
### Author:  [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/42 "2004-12-06T15:22:51Z")
> [@blowero](#):
>
> Geez - calm down, dude.:rolleyes:
\*\*blowero \*\* we neeed to step back for a moment and go back over basic science before we go any further because I really think you are lacking in that understanding. Actual science works on building up testable hypotheses and building evidence for or against that hypothesis in steps. There are very few things in science that are ever considered “laws” or proven. That is why there is the “theory” of evolution even though we have massive amounts of evidence supporting it. Likewise, we still have the “theory” of relativity even though some parts of that theory are completely necessary to make GPS systems work at all. Conspiracy theorists are immune to these tests and conditions because they just make things up and modify the theory whenever the evidence builds against whatever they postulated before. You need to stop giving people the :rolloyes: and start to take a look at your own understanding of the way that science works.
You only needed a few pieces of evidence to debunk this one:
1. Planes took off from Logan with passengers and never returned (I even knew some of them through friends).
2. Air traffic control tracked these planes all the way to the World Trade Centers
3. Commercial airlines have no means to be fitted with missiles.
That is it. You don’t need anymore.
You say that you don’t believe this one but your thought processes suggest that you are unusually open to this kind of thing and that is rather odd for SDMB member.
---
### Author:  [@Scruloose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruloose)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/43 "2004-12-06T15:35:35Z")
> [@blowero](#):
>
> They actually offered pretty good reasoning as to why it couldn’t be a reflection; since the second crash was recorded from different angles, **a reflection of the sun or whatever wouldn’t show up from every angle** , yet the flash is there from different angles. So what would cause a flash of light?
Emphasis mine.
Sure it would, wouldn’t it? I mean, If I take a mirror, and shine a reflection onto a dark wall, the light on the wall will be visible from any angle. The focused light coming off the reflected surface may not be visible from every angle, but the light on the wall certainly will be. Right? What am I missing here?
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/44 "2004-12-06T20:45:45Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#):
>
> \*\*blowero \*\* we neeed to step back for a moment and go back over basic science before we go any further because I really think you are lacking in that understanding. Actual science works on building up testable hypotheses and building evidence for or against that hypothesis in steps. There are very few things in science that are ever considered “laws” or proven. That is why there is the “theory” of evolution even though we have massive amounts of evidence supporting it. Likewise, we still have the “theory” of relativity even though some parts of that theory are completely necessary to make GPS systems work at all. Conspiracy theorists are immune to these tests and conditions because they just make things up and modify the theory whenever the evidence builds against whatever they postulated before. You need to stop giving people the :rolloyes: and start to take a look at your own understanding of the way that science works.
That’s just a gigantic non-sequitur.
> [@](#):
>
> You only needed a few pieces of evidence to debunk this one:
>
> 1. Planes took off from Logan with passengers and never returned (I even knew some of them through friends).
> 2. Air traffic control tracked these planes all the way to the World Trade Centers
> 3. Commercial airlines have no means to be fitted with missiles.
>
> That is it. You don’t need anymore.
Well why exactly is it any skin off _your_ nose if I want to discuss the flashes of light and try to figure out what _really_ caused them? If you don’t want to play, that’s fine, but why do you feel compelled to piss all over my thread?
Maybe _you_ don’t care about the flashes of light, but I’m interested in it, if for no other reason than to find out why planes make big flashes of light when they hit buildings. If you’re not interested, then please just ignore the thread.
> [@](#):
>
> You say that you don’t believe this one but your thought processes suggest that you are unusually open to this kind of thing and that is rather odd for SDMB member.
I already told you that I _don’t_ believe the conspiracy theory; I’m just interested in discussing the _real_ explanation for the flashes. By refusing to accept my explanation, I can only assume you are deliberately trying to bait me, which is not cool.
You may be confused about something. I offered the details of the conspiracy theory not because I _believe_ them, but because I wanted people to understand what they are debunking. For example, saying “there’s no way a terrorist could strap a missile on a commercial airliner” doesn’t disprove the theory if the theory isn’t contending that that was done. I mean, I could say “No way could the terrorists build a laser cannon capable of taking down an airplane”, but it’s irrelevant if noone is _claiming_ such a thing. There _are_ some really good counter-arguments as to why it’s preposterours to claim that military aircraft were used, but “there’s no way a terrorist could strap a missile on a commercial airliner” doesn’t address the argument. So that’s why I’ve included some of the details of the theory, so that people can understand what they’re arguing against. Does that make sense now? It’s not that I believe the theory, it’s that you have to _understand_ what they’re claiming in order to disprove it.
So, as NattoGuy suggested, let’s please forget about the missile now. I consider that debunked. If anyone has any more input as to the flashes, I’d be interested. If you’re just here to rag on people, please go away.
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/45 "2004-12-06T20:48:42Z")
> [@Scruloose](#):
>
> Emphasis mine.
>
> Sure it would, wouldn’t it? I mean, If I take a mirror, and shine a reflection onto a dark wall, the light on the wall will be visible from any angle. The focused light coming off the reflected surface may not be visible from every angle, but the light on the wall certainly will be. Right? What am I missing here?
I don’t think you’re missing anything. I think that’s a good point.
---
### Author:  [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/46 "2004-12-06T20:56:10Z")
I wasn’t ragging on you. The way your OP reads, it sounds exactly like you want us to debunk a missle hitting a World Trade Center tower just before the plane hits to ignite the fuel. You didn’t make it clear that you wanted to understand the physics of a flash of light upon impact disregarding a missle strike. If you wanted only that done, you could have phrased your question much differently and saved people a lot of time.
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/47 "2004-12-06T21:10:34Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#):
>
> I wasn’t ragging on you. The way your OP reads, it sounds exactly like you want us to debunk a missle hitting a World Trade Center tower just before the plane hits to ignite the fuel. You didn’t make it clear that you wanted to understand the physics of a flash of light upon impact disregarding a missle strike. If you wanted only that done, you could have phrased your question much differently and saved people a lot of time.
I thought it was relatively clear that I was asking for a good explanation of the flashes of light. Did you read the whole post, or just the thread title?
---
### Author:  [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/48 "2004-12-06T21:26:47Z")
> [@blowero](#):
>
> I thought it was relatively clear that I was asking for a good explanation of the flashes of light. Did you read the whole post, or just the thread title?
I read the entire thread thank you very much. Go back through the entire thread again including the first few and count how many people thought you were asking about missles. A misreading by the majority of posters probably isn’t just by chance now is it?
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/49 "2004-12-06T21:35:16Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#):
>
> I read the entire thread thank you very much. Go back through the entire thread again including the first few and count how many people thought you were asking about missles. A misreading by the majority of posters probably isn’t just by chance now is it?
This is what I wrote; maybe some bolding will help:
> [@](#):
>
> My question: Has this particular conspiracy theory been widely circulated, and if so, has it been debunked? They actually offered pretty good reasoning as to why it couldn’t be a reflection; since the second crash was recorded from different angles, a reflection of the sun or whatever wouldn’t show up from every angle, yet the flash is there from different angles. **So what would cause a flash of light?** My first thought is that they got it wrong, and that it didn’t occur before impact, but right after impact, as the result of something in the cockpit exploding. Is there anything in the cockpit of a plane that would cause a small explosion on impact? **Any other ideas?**
>
> I suppose I shouldn’t discount the possibility that they simply retouched the video, but I just have a hard time believing this guy would do something that could so easily be checked against another source. **My gut feeling is that there’s simply a more benign explanation for the flashes.**
Seems clear to me. Apparently you disagree. I’m not interested in bickering over it.
---
### Author:  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/50 "2004-12-06T22:04:11Z")
Actually, there are two reasons the “focusing the sun’s rays on the building” idea can’t be right:
- The tapered front end of the plane is convex, not concave, so would disperse any light instead of focusing it, and
- The front of the plane was clearly in the building’s shadow at that moment.
I also can’t buy the electrical wires idea - there’s not that much power in the plane’s cockpit. I still think it has to be a kinetic energy fireball, like when Shoemaker-Levy slammed into Jupiter, but on a slightly smaler scale.
---
### Author:  [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)
#### Post date: [December 6, 2004, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/51 "2004-12-06T23:43:21Z")
Maybe a red herring…but what level of static charge does a plane acquire during flight?
---
### Author:  [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2004, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/52 "2004-12-07T07:59:36Z")
If a missile was fired from the wing, why would it hit the tower at the _nose_ of the plane?
If a missile was fired from the wing, why wasn’t its launch detected? Why just the impact?
Who cares what caused the flash, **blowero**? It’s obvious that the conspiracy theory is so full of holes it makes Sonny Corleone look intact.
I don’t know why you’re getting so hostile at people feeding you common sense. It sure doesn’t seem like you don’t believe the conspiracy to me. But then, maybe I’m in on it.
---
### Author:  [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2004, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/53 "2004-12-07T08:05:38Z")
I’m interested in what caused the flash, too. And it’s nothing to do with conspiracy-debunking, it’s just curiosity. Is that such a bad thing?
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2004, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/54 "2004-12-07T08:54:21Z")
> [@SPOOFE](#):
>
> If a missile was fired from the wing, why would it hit the tower at the _nose_ of the plane?
>
> If a missile was fired from the wing, why wasn’t its launch detected? Why just the impact?
>
> Who cares what caused the flash, **blowero**? It’s obvious that the conspiracy theory is so full of holes it makes Sonny Corleone look intact.
>
> I don’t know why you’re getting so hostile at people feeding you common sense. It sure doesn’t seem like you don’t believe the conspiracy to me. But then, maybe I’m in on it.
_You’re_ the one who sounds hostile. We’re just trying to discuss a rather interesting phenomemon. I don’t know why you can’t just let us be. Do you make it a habit of jumping into people’s GQ threads and saying “who cares?” That’s hardly constructive.
---
### Author:  [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2004, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/55 "2004-12-07T09:37:43Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#):
>
> I read the entire thread thank you very much. Go back through the entire thread again including the first few and count how many people thought you were asking about missles. A misreading by the majority of posters probably isn’t just by chance now is it?
No, it’s not chance, it’s just the low-hanging fruit theory. Apparently a lot of people couldn’t resist the temptation to knock the missile theory out of the park, so to speak. Satisfied with that coup, they’re content to give shallow treatment to explaining where the flashes of light actually did come from.
---
### Author:  [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)
#### Post date: [December 7, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/56 "2004-12-07T16:09:24Z")
Just a guess here, but at those impact speeds both the aircraft structure and the building wall are going to disinitegrate into small pieces, so the flash could be light reflecting off the cloud of metal and glass shards exploding away from the impact site.
---
### Author:  [@koke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/koke)
#### Post date: [October 28, 2016, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/57 "2016-10-28T20:18:46Z")
The bottom line is the 176 cannot travel at 530mph at sea level only does this speed @ altitude of 35,000ft were there is 3 times less wind resistance fact. Planes were projected illusions of some kind.And anyone who doesn’t except buildings were brought down ������with demolition explosives������ is truly brainwashed ������
---
### Author:  [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)
#### Post date: [October 28, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/58 "2016-10-28T20:20:59Z")
We need a zombie emoji. We need it NOW.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [October 28, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/59 "2016-10-28T20:30:18Z")
> [@koke](#):
>
> The bottom line is the 176 cannot travel at 530mph at sea level only does this speed @ altitude of 35,000ft were there is 3 times less wind resistance fact. Planes were projected illusions of some kind.And anyone who doesn’t except buildings were brought down ��with demolition explosives�� is truly brainwashed ��
Nonsense. Further, George Bush is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
---
### Author:  [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)
#### Post date: [October 28, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976/60 "2016-10-28T20:34:40Z")
> [@koke](#):
>
> The bottom line is the 176 cannot travel at 530mph at sea level only does this speed @ altitude of 35,000ft were there is 3 times less wind resistance fact.
While Boeing may recommend slower speeds, the top speed of a 767 is 0.86 times the speed of sound at that altitude. Any faster than that and you risk structural failure.
The speed of sound at sea level is about 761 mph (it varies a bit depending on atmospheric conditions). This puts the top speed of a 767 at around 654 mph.
So a Boeing 767 can easily fly at sea level at 530 mph with absolutely no risk of structural failure.
The 767’s engines are also more than capable of pushing it to those speeds at that altitude.
Your idea of projected illusions is just silly. How on earth would you “project” an airplane?
You’re going to find that spouting this kind of nonsense on this board isn’t going to be very well received. We prefer to deal with factual information in this forum, and there’s nothing factual in your post.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunk-this-9-11-conspiracy-theory/277976.md?page=4)