# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/321 "2009-05-31T05:54:59Z")
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive] Remember, B is Jimmy Carter’s National Security adviser, not some crank on a message board somewhere. [/QUOTE] You may want to check your timeline, chief. The PDPA over threw Daoud Khan in 1978. They almost immediately began moving towards the Soviets (they were a Marxist organization after all, and it’s fairly clear that the Soviets were at least indirectly involved in the coup), and the Soviet formally moved their army in sometime around December of '79. So, looking at your cite: > [@](#): > > Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? > > Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Since the PDPA was a Marxist organization, and since they had moved almost from day one of the overthrow of the previous regime into the Soviet’s sphere, it seems fairly plausible that the CIA would in fact take notice and start the process of obstructing that. It was the Cold War after all. How does this jib though with your statement here: > [@](#): > > Hmmm… the CIA ‘destabilizes’ Afghanistan in 1979, provoking the Soviet invasion… under the circumstances, that can be dismissed as ‘old news’? The CIA didn’t ‘destabilize’ Afghanistan in 1979…Afghanistan was destabilized (no quote needed) in 1978 when a Marxist organization staged a friggin coup against the old government! As for the eventual uprising by the religious fundamentalists types…the CIA had little to do with it initially. For the gods sake man…the PDPA was a secular Marxist group who were touting a liberal socialist agenda, including such things as women’s rights. The fundamentalist Muslims went absolutely nuts. And this doesn’t even count the effect on the stiff necked Afghani’s when the Soviets started lording it over them and tossing their weight around. Oh, no doubt the CIA tossed hydrogen into the furnace…but it’s a complete mis-understanding of the time table or the facts to suggest that it was the CIA who destabilized (with or without quotes) Afghanistan in 1979. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/322 "2009-05-31T06:07:38Z")
> [@RogueAOV](#): > > So please do not write me off as a conspiracy nut, i clearly do not believe all the claims, i just have questions i would like answered to my satisfaction in a unbiased way. Sigh. It’s already been done. In this thread. READ. And by the way, your video does not show molten steel. The pictures in your link do not show molten steel, and have likely been doctored anyway (like the famously doctored photos of workers “peering into the molten core” that was actually just a searchlight photoshopped orange.) Truthers don’t understand, or choose to ignore, what “molten” means. ‘Glowing red’ does not equal ‘molten’, and ‘molten steel beam’ is an oxymoron. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/323 "2009-05-31T06:22:00Z")
Debunking the supposed use of [thermite](http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)(I’m not going to bother quoting relevent parts…I’m sure it will be ignored). For fun, since YouTube is so often used by the CTers, here is a nice [video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0) on it. Just for shits and giggles. [Here](http://books.google.com/books?id=3C7JSfnMsbIC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Debunking+9/11+myths+thermite&source=bl&ots=udTlq2itYY&sig=FhUbo2j2vrjOn3kqFtky62yIviE&hl=en&ei=ex0iSoeVCpD8tgOqtficBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA41,M1) is a .pdf file…check out pages 41 and 42. Screw Loose Changes [version](http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/thermite-meet-superthermite.html). And on and on. Again, this has been debunked. Even a cursory knowledge of thermite (or even someone who occasionally watches Mythbusters, where they use it fairly often) debunks this. Most of the photos shown to ‘prove’ the use of thermite are taken out of context, or (deliberately IMHO) mis-interpreted. The ‘molten metal’ meme is a good example of this…because the buildings came down for some reason the CT’ers assume all the fires went out. They, of course, didn’t…instead they continued for days or even weeks after since there was all that rubble in the way. Why it’s a mystery to some that there would be ‘molten metal’ in a building that was struck by an airplane loaded with fuel, and then burned out of control for an hour, then crashed down and burned for days or weeks…well, THAT is a mystery to me. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/324 "2009-05-31T06:30:50Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The ‘molten metal’ meme is a good example of this…because the buildings came down for some reason the CT’ers assume all the fires went out. They, of course, didn’t…instead they continued for days or even weeks after since there was all that rubble in the way. Why it’s a mystery to some that there would be ‘molten metal’ in a building that was struck by an airplane loaded with fuel, and then burned out of control for an hour, then crashed down and burned for days or weeks…well, THAT is a mystery to me. I’ve always wondered why they think an explosion would leave hot metal sticking around longer than one of the largest office fires in history would. And I’m not a chemical engineer or anything, and it’s been awhile since I read deeply into 9/11 and the various conspiracy theories surrounding it, but I seem to recall there was actual molten (liquid) aluminum and lead on site, but no steel ever got past “red hot”. Another note: As I’m looking at my right thumb right now, there is a blister on it. Yesterday I was wrenching on a 1967 VW Bug that I’m restoring, and I worked the same bolt through about 3 or 4 holes in a row, just to clean them out. After that it was hot enough from the friction to burn me. Now I was wrenching on these by hand, mind you, not with an pneumatic tool. I wonder what kind of heat the friction from the rapid collapse of a 110 storey building would generate. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/325 "2009-05-31T06:44:34Z")
[QUOTE=Cisco] I’ve always wondered why they think an explosion would leave hot metal sticking around longer than one of the largest office fires in history would. [/QUOTE] Gods know. No idea where this obsession with thermite comes from either…if you were really going to bring the buildings down via controlled demolition you wouldn’t use thermite because it’s difficult to work with…and it wouldn’t work worth a crap in trying to cut through the load bearing members in anything like a controlled fashion. A clue to this would be that they don’t use it when they are actually trying to bring down buildings. Another would be watching them use it on Mythbusters where they have trouble even having it cut through a car sometimes. Logically it makes no sense…but then, logically most of the CTer’s assertions make no sense. The thermite one just makes less sense than most of the others. > [@](#): > > And I’m not a chemical engineer or anything, and it’s been awhile since I read deeply into 9/11 and the various conspiracy theories surrounding it, but I seem to recall there was actual molten (liquid) aluminum and lead on site, but no steel ever got past “red hot”. Probably not. Structural steel wouldn’t get past the ‘red hot’ stage without complete deformation IIRC. I’m sure some of the structural steel was pretty hot, but most of the ‘molten metal’ was probably aluminum (probably some copper too…it’s used in the piping infrastructure, and there was a LOT of IT infrastructure in the buildings), as you say. Much of the outer sheathing for the building was aluminum. As you said though, why should the metal have stayed ‘molten’ though from the supposed ‘controlled demolition’ in any case…as opposed to the uncontrolled fire that continued even while they were clearing away the debris? > [@](#): > > I wonder what kind of heat the friction from the rapid collapse of a 110 storey building would generate. No idea, but I doubt it added much more energy to what the fire had already done and continued to do after the collapse. There was no way the firemen could get to parts of the building for weeks after, and the fires continued to smolder and even burn vigorously even after they started clearing the site. One has but to look at some of the photos and video to see large plumes of smoke continue to billow from the crash site for a LONG time after the buildings came down. -XT ---
**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 31, 2009, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/326 "2009-05-31T09:55:25Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I was going to mention at some point awhile back that most truthers are eventually backed into the corner of saying the FDNY was in on it, but that is an extraordinary claim, so I figured I’d be challenged on it and didn’t want to go looking for a cite. Thanks for doing my work for me, ivan. Did I really say that though? If you’ll read more carefully, I actually suggested that some of the people wearing FDNY jackets might not have been firemen. Now I’ve clarified your misconception, do you deny this could have been possible? Oh, and you conveniently avoided answering how qualified firefighters are to determine “suspicious device” fragments among tons of rubble! > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Because the quoted portion (what a pathetic reply, that it is not from the book..) deals with the pentagon, I have to remind you that that issue was dealt with already in the same thread where I asked you to mention some of the book contents. > > It was demonstrated that it is lunacy itself to even imply that what hit the pentagon was not a Boeing 757. > > You were not paying any attention when we already posted about the Pentagon just a few months ago? Perhaps I should have bolded this bit > [@](#): > > Once again, the official conspiracy theorists are found to illustrate the very sins of which they accuse their opponents." as the reason I posted that review was that it attempts to discredit PM, one of the “official” verification/debunking sources of the 9/11 event. If they can be proven to have lied or misrepresented once, what else might they be doing the same about. How about you countering this section - > [@](#): > > I shall address one issue in which the PM authors’ desperate lying is exposed by the laser-sharp mind of Griffin. In an attempt to address the charge of a stand-down order by the US military to not intercept the planes, and bolster the ‘incompetence’ theory, Popular Mechanics says this: “One of the first steps the hijackers took after seizing control of the four aircraft was to turn off the jets’ transponders. At the time of the hijackings, there were 4,500 planes in the skies over the continental US. Without transponder data…, controllers were forced to search for the missing aircraft among all the identical radar blips.” As Griffin notes, this is a major lie because it paints a picture of 4,500 radar blips being on each ATC’s screen. (Indeed the original magazine article explicitly said this.) But in reality, the radar scopes only cover a limited, local region; it is absurd to think that any single controller would be responsible for monitoring a screen with thousands of blips. Also, the four planes that had been hijacked would NOT have looked identical to the other blips, because only the hijacked jets would have been void of transponder data (a 4-digit code number and the plane’s altitude). So they would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Finally, as Griffin asks rhetorically, “Was the US military’s defense of the homeland during the Cold War based on the assumption that Soviet pilots would have the courtesy to leave their transponders on?” ---
**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 31, 2009, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/327 "2009-05-31T10:06:11Z")
While we are here, can anyone provide a link( in English, obviously.) to an official Saudi reaction to the announcement that the hijackers were from their country, and any journalist’s interviews with the families of the dead hijackers?? ---
**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 31, 2009, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/328 "2009-05-31T12:09:59Z")
A couple of [linky-](http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/whoAidedHJ.html)[poos](http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/911analysis.html) for your perusal. ---
**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 31, 2009, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/329 "2009-05-31T12:46:30Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > While we are here, can anyone provide a link( in English, obviously.) to an official Saudi reaction to the announcement that the hijackers were from their country, and any journalist’s interviews with the families of the dead hijackers?? [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm) ---
**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 31, 2009, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/330 "2009-05-31T12:58:51Z")
> [@](#): > > How about you countering this section - > Quote: > I shall address one issue in which the PM authors’ desperate lying is exposed by the laser-sharp mind of Griffin. In an attempt to address the charge of a stand-down order by the US military to not intercept the planes, and bolster the ‘incompetence’ theory, Popular Mechanics says this: “One of the first steps the hijackers took after seizing control of the four aircraft was to turn off the jets’ transponders. At the time of the hijackings, there were 4,500 planes in the skies over the continental US. Without transponder data…, controllers were forced to search for the missing aircraft among all the identical radar blips.” As Griffin notes, this is a major lie because it paints a picture of 4,500 radar blips being on each ATC’s screen. (Indeed the original magazine article explicitly said this.) But in reality, the radar scopes only cover a limited, local region; it is absurd to think that any single controller would be responsible for monitoring a screen with thousands of blips. Also, the four planes that had been hijacked would NOT have looked identical to the other blips, because only the hijacked jets would have been void of transponder data (a 4-digit code number and the plane’s altitude). So they would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Finally, as Griffin asks rhetorically, "Was the US military’s defense of the homeland during the Cold War based on the assumption that Soviet pilots would have the courtesy to leave their transponders on? While I am no expert in radar, I can say for sure that this is unmitigated crap. Griffin knows nothing about commercial radar if he thinks turning off the transponder will make a plane stand out. This is not the product of a ‘laser-sharp’ mind, it is the product of an intellectually lazy waste of brain cells. There was tracking of some of the flights, but using primary radar, which has very little data to work with. Some locations also do not have primary radar, and false blips are a problem. ---
**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 31, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/331 "2009-05-31T13:21:01Z")
> [@](#): > > as the reason I posted that review was that it attempts to discredit PM, one of the “official” verification/debunking sources of the 9/11 event. If they can be proven to have lied or misrepresented once, what else might they be doing the same about. Except that Griffin, his cronies, and you have all failed to prove anything of the sort. You have pages and pages of whining, special pleading, and deliberate misunderstanding of the situation. Why is that CTers can be wrong all the time and yet fools still keep quoting them and their fanboys? ---
**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 31, 2009, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/332 "2009-05-31T13:22:32Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is ridiculous! > Here we have a perfectly nice CT thread going and you want to calmly post facts and draw logical conclusions with no histrionics or wild accusations. You’re going to ruin the thread! > Yeeesh! I know…I’m no fun at all! ☹ In these threads, Ivan always wants to challenge people on why we trust the government, but at least as far as the WTC is concerned, I think most of us just kind of know what we saw with our own eyes. ---
**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 31, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/333 "2009-05-31T14:08:10Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Did I really say that though? If you’ll read more carefully, I actually suggested that some of the people wearing FDNY jackets might not have been firemen. > > Now I’ve clarified your misconception, do you deny this could have been possible? > > Oh, and you conveniently avoided answering how qualified firefighters are to determine “suspicious device” fragments among tons of rubble! :rolleyes: What I mention stands, you are trying to make a second hand testimony into something we should chase for your amusement. I could say for example that “Jimmy told me that Sasquatch ripped his homework!”; sure it will create interesting questions 🙂 but I would rather find first, besides the Sasquatch silliness, if real people or people involved in the rescue and cleanup were actually saying that. > [@](#): > > Perhaps I should have bolded this bit Meaning what? What PM said was accurate, conspiracy theorists failed to do their homework, and you did not pay any attention before. > [@](#): > > as the reason I posted that review was that it attempts to discredit PM, one of the “official” verification/debunking sources of the 9/11 event. If they can be proven to have lied or misrepresented once, what else might they be doing the same about. Sure, so far from the quote mentioned, I can say that Griffin can be dismissed. > [@](#): > > How about you countering this section - Griffin has a “Laser Sharp mind”? :rolleyes: Well, that is getting closer to the proper way to ask questions. An specific item. It is clear that controllers had the same issue as the radar controllers that had to look for the Gimli Glider: ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/SiG81F1gtvY/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/SiG81F1gtvY?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque In the video the controllers only look at one screen that includes transponder radar data, when a transponder is lost or disconnected operators have to scramble to get primary radar up. Primary radar that has the resolution to catch planes with no transponders, it has to be moved in place or the radar operator has to change workstations, it is hard to identify who is who as the primary radar will show all planes as blips and it will take time to ID the plane with the issue. Hard to do in Canada, **even when the destination of the plane was reported** , now imagine moving that scenario to the more congested Northern East coast of the US and the plane is not telling you where it is. Sharp minds by now will realize Griffin is full of it. And that Sasquatch ate his high school homework. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/334 "2009-05-31T16:41:32Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Oh, no doubt the CIA tossed hydrogen into the furnace…but it’s a complete mis-understanding of the time table or the facts to suggest that it was the CIA who destabilized (with or without quotes) Afghanistan in 1979. > > -XT Here is another quote from that cite: > [@](#): > > According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA’s intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan’s destruction as a nation. I guess you’re right after all. There is clearly a distinction to be made between destabilization and ‘destruction as a nation’. Thanks for clearing that up. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/335 "2009-05-31T17:28:36Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I actually suggested that some of the people wearing FDNY jackets might not have been firemen. Again, it never ceases to amaze me, the lengths you’ll go to to bend reality to your beliefs, rather than adjusting your beliefs to fit reality. This is pathetic. ---
**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 31, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/336 "2009-05-31T20:20:21Z")
Any chance of an answer to this? > [@](#): > > Oh, and you conveniently avoided answering how qualified firefighters are to determine “suspicious device” fragments among tons of rubble! **Cisco** , if all you have to contribute to the thread is whining, why don’t you save yourself the stress and browse elsewhere? I won’t put a percentage on how convinced I am of the “official conspiracy theory”, but I’m ever going to become 100% certain like some of you here, it won’t be by calling me “pathetic”, “twoofer”, or any other derogatory term, for merely having the temerity to air my doubts! ---
**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 31, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/337 "2009-05-31T20:27:19Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I won’t put a percentage on how convinced I am of the “official conspiracy theory”, but I’m ever going to become 100% certain like some of you here, it won’t be by calling me “pathetic”, “twoofer”, or any other derogatory term, for merely having the temerity to air my doubts! The problem to me is that most of this was discussed before in a thread you participated no less. Hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you can begin to notice the pattern of deception that is coming from guys like Griffin that is good thing. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/338 "2009-05-31T20:32:06Z")
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive] I guess you’re right after all. There is clearly a distinction to be made between destabilization and ‘destruction as a nation’. Thanks for clearing that up. [/QUOTE] I get the feeling it’s still not clear in your mind based on what you say here and the quote you posted…but, ok. No worries. FWIW, it’s a legitimate question and it’s a legitimate debate…unlike most of the discussion in this thread. -XT ---
**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 31, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/339 "2009-05-31T20:32:11Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Any chance of an answer to this? > > “Oh, and you conveniently avoided answering how qualified firefighters are to determine “suspicious device” fragments among tons of rubble!” What, exactly, do you mean by that? Are you suggesting firefighters wouldn’t know what a bomb looked like or what the post demolition detritus would look like? > [@](#): > > **Cisco** , if all you have to contribute to the thread is whining, why don’t you save yourself the stress and browse elsewhere? Or maybe you could show some sign that you are learning and not just posting reviews of books you like. > [@](#): > > I won’t put a percentage on how convinced I am of the “official conspiracy theory”, but I’m ever going to become 100% certain like some of you here, it won’t be by calling me “pathetic”, “twoofer”, or any other derogatory term, for merely having the temerity to air my doubts! Don’t worry. I know when someone is determined to believe in a conspiracy theory, and all their whining about labels is just a cover for their determination to ‘buy in’ to said conspiracy. What I write I do not write for that sort of person. I just want to make certain that the crap they spew does not go unchallenged so that a person who really does have questions and wants to learn can see answers. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/340 "2009-05-31T20:36:46Z")
[QUOTE=ivan astikov] Oh, and you conveniently avoided answering how qualified firefighters are to determine “suspicious device” fragments among tons of rubble! [/QUOTE] You do realize that more than just fire fighters searched through the rubble…right? There was a fairly extensive investigation (I think I linked to it’s conclusions in this thread). -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=18)