# Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041 "2009-05-20T03:24:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/261 "2009-05-30T08:29:43Z")
First the federal government flew planes into the WTC, then they blew them up using explosives. Then they turned a crank, which rotated a vertical gear, connected to a horizontal gear. As that gear turned, it pushed an elastic-loaded lever until it snapped back in place, hitting a swinging boot. The boot kicked over a bucket, sending a marble down a zig-zagging incline which fed into a chute. This led the marble to hit a vertical pole, at the top of which was an open hand, palm-up, which supported a larger ball. The movement of the pole knocked the ball free to fall through a hole in its platform into a bathtub, and then through a hole in the tub onto one end of a seesaw. This catapulted a diver on the other end into a tub which was on the same base as the barbed pole supporting a cage. The movement of the tub shook the cage free from the top of the pole and allowed it to fall and trap the mouse. ---
**Author:** ![RogueAOV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecb155/32.png) [@RogueAOV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RogueAOV)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/262 "2009-05-30T08:40:51Z")
Riker… that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard… no way would it catch the mouse!!! he was a mossad plant, operating under the cover of rentokil with over sight by the Carlyle group. its so obvious…when you think about it::smack: ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/263 "2009-05-30T12:10:43Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > No, they don’t, and I’m not going to let you carry this discussion off into oblivion until you paint yourself into a corner and start repeating the first few points that you made, and were debunked, again. Provide a comprehensive alternative theory of what happened on 9/11/01 using facts, evidence, and logic, or admit you’ve got nothing. Shit or get off the pot, ivan. Have you read the book in the Amazon link above? Probably just like yourself, I don’t independently investigate every aspect of everything I read; I tend to rely on my judgement of the motivations of the authors. And I doubt David Ray Griffin is in it merely for the money, or the notoriety. > [@Cisco](#): > > Circles. And yet here you are again, 8 years on. Kinda perverse, dont you think? Or are you just as commited to spreading, or reiterating your version of events as the average “twoofer”? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/264 "2009-05-30T12:54:32Z")
An Amazon reviewer’s opinion. > [@](#): > > Scientist or not, the author is a Ph.D., and he knows how to present information in the telltale manner of a piece of academic paper. He puts information in a well-sorted order, presents the source of information in the way that the reader can trace his research to find fault if s/he so wishes, he discusses theories other than his to check if other theories might explain the phenomenon under study better, and he often quotes his opponents directly before presenting his position, so that the book reads like a virtual face-to-face debate. If a debunker could refute his many claims in the very same academic manner, the discussions on 911 truth will end promtly. But so far, we have not seen any document from the debunker camp that could match the level of scientific approach that Griffin seems able to employ. Yes, the reviewer might well be either a full-on nutjob, Griffin’s publishing agent, or his mum, but I’m going to give them the benefit of doubt. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/265 "2009-05-30T13:00:03Z")
This sounds plausible. > [@](#): > > I’m beginning to see how the twin towers and building #7 could have been wired for demolition by a subcontractor who was told the purpose was to read seismic monitors positioned at certain structural locations for that future earthquake that occurs in Manhattan every several hundred years or some similar scientific research ruse. Once that was completed, another group, also ignorant of the true purpose could have set up monitoring/control computers in bldg #7, some room with a view. At some point, another contractor could place cabinets in the structural locations and secure them to the structural members, for monitoring seismic movement perhaps, but these would contain powerful demolition explosives. > > Later, others would hook everything up and test the wiring circuitry, the triggering mechanism not engaged until later activated and controlled from Bldg. #7, ready to “rock and roll”. Properly handled, few if any of well-paid techies would understand what they may have participated in. Probably they would have been Haliburton or Blackwater people, or something similar. If I can imagine this, and I’m no expert, it could probably have been done by professionals from the military who are trained in such tactics. > > Perhaps the expenses are all accounted for in some funding request for the military under a code name. The I.G. could check that out. Follow the money. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/266 "2009-05-30T13:15:40Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > This sounds plausible. Its laughable. Completely and utterly laughable. The ignorance of what it takes to wire a building for demolition is stunning. Whoever wrote this watched the ‘X-Files’ movie and thinks a tower can be brought down with a soda machine full of explosives. What a joke. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/267 "2009-05-30T13:19:22Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > An Amazon reviewer’s opinion. > Quote: > Scientist or not, the author is a Ph.D., and he knows how to present information in the telltale manner of a piece of academic paper. He puts information in a well-sorted order, presents the source of information in the way that the reader can trace his research to find fault if s/he so wishes, he discusses theories other than his to check if other theories might explain the phenomenon under study better, and he often quotes his opponents directly before presenting his position, so that the book reads like a virtual face-to-face debate. Wrong. The Griffin builds strawmen and attacks them instead of real-world engineering and physics. You’d know that if you read the link by Mr. Mackey. > [@](#): > > If a debunker could refute his many claims in the very same academic manner, the discussions on 911 truth will end promtly. But so far, we have not seen any document from the debunker camp that could match the level of scientific approach that Griffin seems able to employ. Its been done, but the truthers IGNORE THEM. > [@](#): > > Yes, the reviewer might well be either a full-on nutjob, Griffin’s publishing agent, or his mum, but I’m going to give them the benefit of doubt. I’m going to go with ‘woefully ignorant of anything outside his little sphere’. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/268 "2009-05-30T13:22:30Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Have you read the book in the Amazon link above? Probably just like yourself, I don’t independently investigate every aspect of everything I read; I tend to rely on my judgement of the motivations of the authors. And I doubt David Ray Griffin is in it merely for the money, or the notoriety. Why do you doubt that? Griffin has had plenty of opportunity to learn the reality of engineering and physics but instead chooses to write and publish the same book over and over. How many books on 911 is he up to now? > [@](#): > > And yet here you are again, 8 years on. Kinda perverse, dont you think? Or are you just as commited to spreading, or reiterating your version of events as the average “twoofer”? [/QUOTE] You might want to look at the title of this webpage again. See the part about ‘Fighting Ignorance’? Think about that for a moment, OK? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/269 "2009-05-30T13:28:33Z")
Ryan Mackey may be a smart man, but there are smart men who’ll swear blind their views on religion are conclusive. If Mackey has done all the research necessary to refute Griffin’s opinions and facts, why does he still feel the need to entertain these “crackpots”? One could say he was just as obsessed about the topic as the most fervent “twoofer”. (And I bet he’s desperately hoping someone will buy his book, when it’s finished!) ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/270 "2009-05-30T13:29:37Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > This sounds plausible. Only to someone who is willing to ignore physics, engineering, and logic. If that sounds plausible to you then there’s really no point trying to discuss this. Regardless of what sounds plausible to you there is no chance, none, zip, nada, that this could have occurred. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/271 "2009-05-30T13:34:04Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Its laughable. Completely and utterly laughable. The ignorance of what it takes to wire a building for demolition is stunning. Whoever wrote this watched the ‘X-Files’ movie and thinks a tower can be brought down with a soda machine full of explosives. What a joke. Tower 7 could be brought down near enough symetrically by the removal of one support beam and some intense heat, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/272 "2009-05-30T13:47:19Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Tower 7 could be brought down near enough symetrically by the removal of one support beam and some intense heat, apparently. You might want to read the NIST report regarding WTC7. But yes, a raging inferno can bring down a steel supported building. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/273 "2009-05-30T13:53:03Z")
A criticism of Griffin’s book, from the reviews. > [@](#): > > If DRG insists that WTC 7 was not damaged enough to collapse, then there are many firemen who are liars. Virtually all the firemen working near WTC 7 claim that it was going to collapse because of fire and the structural damage. In fact Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said " There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." Notice he said that by 2:00 they realized that it was going to collapse? Remember that, it comes in handy in a minute. > > He also uses the old, tired and soundly debunked claim that WTC 7 fell at freefall speed. It most certainly did not. Do a you tube search for “How fast did WTC 7 fall”. You will find that WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speed. > > DRG also loves to point out that firemen have often stated that they heard explosions. First of all I find it interesting that DRG considers firemen to be expert witnesses when they hear explosions but then doubts their credibility when they claim that WTC 7 was going to collapse due to fire and damage. As for explosions, I have no doubt that firemen heard explosions or what sounded like explosions. There were all sorts of things that could have exploded such as transformers also the sound of metal snapping and walls collapsing would itself be very noisy. Firemen have made this very claim as far as the sound of explosions. > > There are several other things that DRG gets wrong with WTC 7. He claims that the fires didn’t really get going till 3:30 which didn’t give the fire enough time to cause wtc 7 to collapse because the steel was certified for 3 hours and the fireproofing for 2 more. Fire certification includes both the steel and fireproofing so DRG counted the fireproofing twice. Also fires existed in wtc7 for many hours before 3:30. Even if they weren’t as hot as they were at 3:30 the fires still existed long enough to contribute to the collapse. > > The validity of DRGs argument rests on the assumption that WTC7 was structurally sound at 3:30. Otherwise, he would have needed to factor the existing damage into the equation. As mentioned earlier, firefighters were predicting WTC7 collapse prior to 3:30. Obviously it was not structurally sound. Does anyone really find it surprising that firemen “predicted” Tower 7 was going to collapse, after what they had already witnessed that day? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/274 "2009-05-30T13:53:32Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Ryan Mackey may be a smart man, but there are smart men who’ll swear blind their views on religion are conclusive. If Mackey has done all the research necessary to refute Griffin’s opinions and facts, why does he still feel the need to entertain these “crackpots”? One could say he was just as obsessed about the topic as the most fervent “twoofer”. He produces a few papers countering the lies and somehow he’s obsessed? There’s a logic disconnect in your reasoning somewhere. This is a big fat tu quoque argument by someone desperate to cling to his delusion. Spare us. > [@](#): > > (And I bet he’s desperately hoping someone will buy his book, when it’s finished!) Do you know he’s producing a book? Please support this claim. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/275 "2009-05-30T13:59:40Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > A criticism of Griffin’s book, from the reviews. > Does anyone really find it surprising that firemen “predicted” Tower 7 was going to collapse, after what they had already witnessed that day? I’d say it was more a result of [what they were seeing and hearing](http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc) ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/276 "2009-05-30T14:01:08Z")
Am I crazy, or when you watch the twin towers collapse, don’t they each fail at the exact spot where the planes hit them and the fires are raging? Then, as the part above the impact zones crash down, they go past that point and just keeps going straight down? I mean, we’ve all seen it with our own eyes, multiple times. How in any way is does this look the same as controlled demos, where the whole building just gives way all at once? And what would ever make them suddenly topple one way or the other? Doesn’t everything that falls basically go straight down unless there’s some other force in play besides gravity? And wouldn’t that have to be an awfully strong force? I mean, the pleasant summer breeze that day wouldn’t have done it. Also, how much can we figure those top 20-30 floors weigh, and what would happen if we removed 10 floors from the buildings and then dropped that much weight on it, even without the fires? From what I understand about the way they were designed, they lost most of their upright integrity when they lost those floors, because the floors kept the corner supports square to each other. When the weight came down, the building twisted slightly and that was that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/277 "2009-05-30T14:44:19Z")
New York firemen can’t be trusted. I saw that documentary where two of them pretended to be gay so they could get married! ---
**Author:** ![interface2x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@interface2x](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/interface2x)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/278 "2009-05-30T14:47:15Z")
> [@RogueAOV](#): > > My general outline of what happened on 9/11 is this. > > Terrorists seized control of 4 planes. > Three did what they were suppose to do. > One was shot down due to the fighter pilot not knowing they were retaking the plane. > I do think they was bombs in the twin towers, in the basements on the main structural supports which would cause the tower to fall. Honest questions … 1. We know they were calling in fighter jets on the morning of 9/11 and we knew there was a strong possibility that they may have to shoot down one of the planes before it reached an intended target. If they did just that and the government wants to cover it up, why didn’t they keep the fighter jet thing secret in the first place? Why would they admit that something was a definitely possibility and then when it becomes a reality, deny it? That doesn’t make sense. And was it really just amazing timing that said fighter jet just happened to shoot them down within seconds of the passengers breeching the pilot’s cabin? 2. If there were bombs in the basements of the WTC, why didn’t we hear explosive charges going off (which, I imagine, would sound deafening anywhere nearby) in the documentary shot by the French brothers where one was actually IN the basement of tower 2 when it collapsed? All you hear in that movie is a slow rumble of things falling and collapsing before everything starts to go black. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/279 "2009-05-30T15:30:52Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Does anyone really find it surprising that firemen “predicted” Tower 7 was going to collapse, after what they had already witnessed that day? Nope, not surprising at all. They had already witnessed two buildings collapse because of structural damage followed by raging fires. It’s easy to put two and two together and predict that the third building was also going to collapse. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/280 "2009-05-30T15:46:53Z")
> [@interface2x](#): > > 1. If there were bombs in the basements of the WTC, why didn’t we hear explosive charges going off (which, I imagine, would sound deafening anywhere nearby) in the documentary shot by the French brothers where one was actually IN the basement of tower 2 when it collapsed? All you hear in that movie is a slow rumble of things falling and collapsing before everything starts to go black. And outside, the cameramen that where close to the collapse **pointed their cameras up** when the collapse took place, if explosions did take place in the basement I would expect that news people would point the cameras down to the source of the noise. Instead the source of the noise was up, and coming down on everyone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=15)