# 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:** 37
**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:** [June 21, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/721 "2009-06-21T19:19:25Z")
Why not just assume that _nobody_ could turn over bin Laden; that he lived in an essentially lawless part of the world beyond the reach of anything we’d consider to be effective law-enforcement? As far as I know, this changes nothing about the events of September 11, 2001. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/722 "2009-06-21T20:18:26Z")
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive] Sure I did. I found your points unsatisfactory, but that’s ok. [/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with whether the answer was satisfactory or not. Had it not been satisfactory to you, you could have listed the parts that were unsatisfactory to you and we could have discussed it. Putting in ‘Cite!’ however clearly showed you DIDN’T read it (or, less likely, you didn’t understand it), since I rather clearly said that it was moot and there could be no cite, since obviously the Taliban did not choose to turn over Bin Laden or any high ranking AQ members. I did manage to turn this up. From [CNN](http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/30/ret.taliban.binladen/index.html): > [@](#): > > Taliban say bin Laden under their control > > ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) – Suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden is under the control of the Taliban and cannot move around freely, but he will not be turned over to the United States unconditionally as American officials have demanded, the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan said Sunday. > [@](#): > > n an interview with CNN, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef said Taliban security officials have bin Laden under their control, although his precise location is constantly changing. > > “We have said that we don’t know exactly where he is. That doesn’t mean that we’re not aware of his whereabouts,” he said. “The location is shifting all the time, but we know where he is.” > [@](#): > > “We’ve made clear what needs to be done with him, and it’s time for them to act,” a Bush administration official told CNN on Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity. > > “Like we’ve said, it’s not time for negotiations,” the official said. “There is ample proof that Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network were behind previous acts of terrorism and every indication is that they are responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11.” > > “We want to solve this problem through talks,” Zaeef said. “If there are no talks, then obviously the two sides are not going to sit down and negotiate, and there is nothing to negotiate. But we think there is. If the talk is only that we have to surrender him, then we are not going to do that as long as we are alive.” > [@](#): > > President Bush demands the Taliban turn over bin Laden, all those linked to the al Qaeda network, and any other terrorists operating in Afghanistan. Bush also wants the Taliban to shut down all terrorist camps in the country. > > Attorney General John Ashcroft on Sunday dismissed calls for evidence of bin Laden’s complicity, noting that bin Laden already has been indicted for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. > > “This is not a situation where the Taliban sits in ignorance and says, ‘We’ve got him but we think he’s innocent.’ This is a time for them to say, ‘Yes, we’ll deliver him to you, and yes, we’ll deliver his network, and we’ll make it available, and we’ll expose it.’ Because this network of terrorism is a threat. It’s a current threat to the United States as well as the rest of the world,” Ashcroft said on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.” > [@](#): > > Pakistan’s president, meanwhile, said he saw little reason to believe the Taliban would meet U.S. demands, saying “hope is very dim” for bin Laden’s demanded extradition. > > “One can carry on engaging with [the Taliban], and there is a little bit of flexibility being shown,” Gen. Pervez Musharraf said in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “But the signals that have come out are certainly not very encouraging.” > [@](#): > > You could repeatedly assert that the Earth is 6000 years old too, but repeating it doesn’t increase its truth value, except maybe to the credulous. And, having shown given you the data that Bush DID demand the Taliban turn over Bin Laden, and the Taliban DID refuse, while holding your fingers in your ears and hand waving the data away as being inconclusive sort of puts into perspective who is claiming the earth is 6000 years old and who believes the whole 4.5 billion years old ‘theory’, ehe? Here is the thing…I and others have provided you with at least SOME data on this (and really, it’s not like this stuff is unknown or controversial in any way). You on the other hand have asserted that you don’t believe any of it, while giving diddly to back up your own theories. I realized long ago that you are essentially unconvincable on this subject…it will always be something, a theory of the gaps, so to speak. Find an anomaly and bam!, you are off…hell, find what YOU THINK is an anomaly and you are off to the races. Show you that your view point or data is wrong and you will either dismiss it, ignore it (to come back to it again when hopefully no one is looking) or simply shift the discussion somewhere else. > [@](#): > > And frankly, I still don’t think I’ve seen the formal request and especially the formal response from the Taliban Yes, you have, but [here](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal40.pdf) is another, earlier request to deal with the Bin Laden problem. I’m sure there will be yet another ‘gap’ though, ehe? > [@](#): > > Page 1 > UNCLASSIFIED SECRET NODIS si DECL: 7/16/11 . RELEASED IN FULL U.S. Engagement with the Taliban on Usama Bin Laden, DECAPTIONED Since the Taliban captured Kabul in 1996, the UnitedStates has consistently discussed with them peace,humanitarian assistance, drugs and human rights. However,we have made clear that Usama bin Laden (UBL) and terrorismis the preeminent issue between the U.S. and the Taliban. • These concerns over bin Ladin preceded the 1998 bombings. • For instance, Secretary Christopher wrote to the TalibanForeign Minister in 1996 that, “we wish to work with youto expel all terrorists and those who support terrorism…” In our talks we have stressed that UBL has murderedAmericans and continues to plan attacks against Americansand others and that we cannot ignore this threat. • Have also emphasized that the international communityf shares this concern. In 1999 and in 2000, the UN Security Council passed resolutions demanding that UBL beexpelled to a country where he can be brought to justice. • Have told the Taliban that the terrorist problem is notconfined to bin Laden and that the Taliban must takesteps to shut down all terrorist activities. • Have told them that the resolution of the bin Laden issueand steps to close the terrorist apparatus would enableus to discuss other issues in an improved atmosphere. • Conversely, have stressed that if this terrorism issue isnot addressed, there can be no improvement in relations. These talks have been fruitless. The Taliban usually saidthat they want a solution but cannot comply with UNSCRs.Often the Taliban asked the U.S. to suggest a solution. • In October 1999, the Taliban suggested several"solutions" including a UBL trial by a panel of Islamicscholars or monitoring of UBL Afghanistan by OIC or UN. • Taliban consistently maintained that UBL’s activities arerestricted, despite all evidence to the contrary. This stuff isn’t really even in dispute. It’s like you are asking me to cite water is wet or something. AFAIK, NO ONE seriously questions that the US demanded the Taliban turn over Bin Laden, or that the Taliban rejected the US’s demands. Well, no one but you. Hell, I don’t even know of any CTer’s who are making this particular (odd) claim. > [@](#): > > That was really a sticking point for me. For any assertion that lacks evidence, I take the default belief to be that it is not true. Reasonable, no? In a case where a tragic war is predicated on such an assertion, it gets under my skin in a big way if I can’t find evidence to support it. And you know, had you not been shown links demonstrating that you are simply wrong, and if you didn’t have access to Google, you maybe would have a point. As it is, I wonder who you think you are fooling here. It’s certainly not me…though, perhaps you are winning over some who aren’t following along closely in the peanut gallery. > [@](#): > > Or, in the framework of categorical debunking: The proposition that the Taliban could turn over Bin Laden is clearly mutually exclusive with the proposition that the Taliban could not turn over Bin Laden. And it leaves aside the aspect that the Taliban COULD turn over Bin Laden but chose not too, for reasons of their own. Excluded middle, I suppose. > [@](#): > > Convincing evidence puts the train on a whole different track, doesn’t it? Convincing to who, exactly? It’s like debating with a moon landings CTer…what is pretty obvious and convincing to me is not going to convince them, and vice versa. > [@](#): > > Well ok, one point for you. If you have more, and maybe some links, I’d still find the information interesting. I gave you two. If you want more, I suggest you work on your Google-Fu…it’s really quite easy to find a LOT of names of high ranking AQ members, both dead and alive (mostly dead at this point after years of being hunted and attacked). > [@](#): > > It is too bad you couldn’t drop the insults and simply be this informative from the start, as then this thread might have died pages ago. It’s too bad you couldn’t have an open mind and actually absorb what people (many with a lot more patience than I have) have been trying to tell you. It’s too bad you couldn’t realize that this aspect of the CT you have been working is REALLY not in dispute by nearly anyone…not that much of the rest of the CT actually is either, mind. > [@](#): > > But had you done that, I wouldn’t have had the chance to school you (et al) on the argumentum ad baculum. So, one point for me too! Um…sure chief, whatever you say. If you want to give yourself props and points, it’s no skin off my nose. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/723 "2009-06-21T21:14:07Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Try concentrating on the engineering; physics only works for spherical buildings in a vaccuum. > > In other words, you’re letting Physics 101 blind you to Engineering 452. **ROFLMAO** What happened to the towers was GRADE SCHOOL physics. Engineering is physics. It is just applied physics that is usually so well known that physicists don’t pay much attention to it anymore. Structural engineering is thousands of years old. It merely got more scientific and mathematically precise in the last couple of hundred years. The towers were designed to sway 3 feet in a 150mph wind. With a 208 foot width that is 1 1/2 %. The NIST says the south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor on impact and that was 130 feet below the impact point. So an extrapolation would indicate that the 81st floor moved 14" on impact. So that is only a 0.6% deflection so it doesn’t look like the building was stressed anywhere near its maximum. But of course the difference is the airliner impact was concentrated, thereby doing local structural damage. But since the kinetic energy of the plane had two different effects, building deflection and structural damage, then the amount of energy that did one of them must be computed to determine how much was left to do the other. The energy that went into building deflection cannot be determined without knowing the distribution of mass. So why don’t we have it after _ **SEVEN YEARS** _? The NIST admits its importance in two places. Once in relation to wind and the other in relation to the impact analysis. psik ---
**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:** [June 21, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/724 "2009-06-21T21:36:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Why not just assume that _nobody_ could turn over bin Laden; that he lived in an essentially lawless part of the world beyond the reach of anything we’d consider to be effective law-enforcement? > As far as I know, this changes nothing about the events of September 11, 2001. It doesn’t change anything about the events of September 11-assuming you aren’t blaming the Taliban directly for it. But it could affect our entry into the Afghanistan theater of war. I think xtisme is reading me wrong. A demand is one thing. An impossible demand is another. Proof of the demand doesn’t show that the demand was possible. With a guy like Bin Laden, doubt about his capturability isn’t so unreasonable, since he is still in fact on the lam today. I described Bin Laden up thread as ‘Rambo on crack’ in terms of his ability to hide in the mountains, and no one disputed that. Gig0buster’s link doesn’t just show evidence of a demand or a refusal. It also shows that (unless it is bad intel or something, but that isn’t what I’m saying) the Taliban actually could lay their hands on him, and therefore it was possible that US demands could have been met and war averted. Xtisme’s link also suggests that this is the case. However, the reports xtisme quotes almost suggest that the US were impatient with their demands. It suggests the contrary of what I was just recently starting to believe, that is, that there was a still push for war and the chiefs didn’t much care anymore what the Taliban did. Still, even that is less suspicious in light of the evidence that the Taliban had some idea where OBL was and how to get him. Sorry to everyone who complains that I didn’t answer every post. I honestly don’t have the time for 100% coverage. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/725 "2009-06-21T21:52:41Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > What happened to the towers was GRADE SCHOOL physics. Well, yes, in the sense that they fell down. However, GRADE SCHOOL physics (as I assume we will call it from now on) relies on simple idealized formulas. It isn’t until high school physics courses that students learn about additional fudge factors like friction and wind resistance, and not until college engineering courses do they learn about caulculus-heavy ideas like material tensile strength and shear stress. Someone whose expertise and understanding is limited to GRADE SCHOOL physics is sorely underqualified to describe what happened to the towers. So what exactly are your engineering qualifications? If you’ve described them already, please meantion the post number as I must have missed it. > [@](#): > > The energy that went into building deflection cannot be determined without knowing the distribution of mass. So why don’t we have it after _ **SEVEN YEARS** _? Because no-one of any credibility has any argument other than the towers were destroyed by crashing planes, thus nobody of any serious expertise has bothered to microanalyze every trivial aspect of the collapse? ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/726 "2009-06-21T22:49:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, yes, in the sense that they fell down. However, GRADE SCHOOL physics (as I assume we will call it from now on) relies on simple idealized formulas. It isn’t until high school physics courses that students learn about additional fudge factors like friction and wind resistance, and not until college engineering courses do they learn about caulculus-heavy ideas like material tensile strength and shear stress. Someone whose expertise and understanding is limited to GRADE SCHOOL physics is sorely underqualified to describe what happened to the towers. > > So what exactly are your engineering qualifications? If you’ve described them already, please meantion the post number as I must have missed it. > > Because no-one of any credibility has any argument other than the towers were destroyed by crashing planes, thus nobody of any serious expertise has bothered to microanalyze every trivial aspect of the collapse? Since I never took a single course in architecture or structural engineering the qualifications are irrelevant. I was debating between mechanical engineering and electrical engineering in high school. I won a National Merit Scholarship and applied to MIT. I got an interview but did not get accepted. I attended another engineering school. My pledge father was an architect and we could see the Sears Tower being constructed from campus so there was lots of talk about skyscrapers in the frat. It was a standard joke among the engineering students that architects took “funny physics and funny math”. I emailed Richard Gage in 2007 about what was wrong with Frank Greening’s paper. Gage acknowledged that I was correct but I notice his AE911Truth does not talk about the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. That is one thing about EXPERTS, they really want to make their area of expertise look mysterious and complicated. I encountered Greening on the JREF forum. [http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316](http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316) psik ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/727 "2009-06-21T22:58:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > owers were destroyed by crashing planes, thus nobody of any serious expertise has bothered to microanalyze every trivial aspect of the collapse? People claiming to have credibility need to keep people bamboozled. The NIST says this: > [@](#): > > 1. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires? > > Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses. > > In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy). > > After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy. > **[World Trade Center Investigation](https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation)** > > The collapse of the WTC buildings following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was one of the worst buildin Since deflecting the south tower by 14 inches at the level of impact meant moving all of the exterior wall panels on those levels to not specify the weights and numbers of the 12 different types of panels and yet claim to have taken the conservation of momentum into account is complete crap. All they are saying is, **“Trust us We are the EXPERTS!”** They don’t have to actually explain jack shit. Everybody is just supposed to roll over and play dead because a LIAR waves a degree in their faces and claims the subject is too difficult for them to understand. psik ---
**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:** [June 21, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/728 "2009-06-21T23:13:35Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > People claiming to have credibility need to keep people bamboozled. Whether or not this is true, it doesn’t prove that anyone has been bamboozled. > [@](#): > > All they are saying is, **“Trust us We are the EXPERTS!”** They don’t have to actually explain jack shit. Everybody is just supposed to roll over and play dead because a LIAR waves a degree in their faces and claims the subject is too difficult for them to understand. Whether this is true or not, why is better to take the work of an admitted (and indeed, proud of it) non-expert? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/729 "2009-06-22T00:01:49Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > The NIST says this: > > > [@](#): > > > > After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. > > Since deflecting the south tower by 14 inches at the level of impact meant moving all of the exterior wall panels on those levels to not specify the weights and numbers of the 12 different types of panels and yet claim to have taken the conservation of momentum into account is complete crap. No. Recognizing that the buildings returned to equilibrium following the impact and maintained that equilibrium until fires destroyed the supporting structure indicates that their analysis is completely accurate. Unless you have evidence of the towers oscillating continuously between the times of impact and the times of collapse, you are simply grabbing at a single rather irrelevant thread and pretending that it has SERIOUS IMPORT simply because no one bothered to waste time making unnecessary calculations. Either the towers returned to equilibrium following the impacts and later collapsed due to fires ignited by fuel in conjunction with damage caused by the impact or else the towers continued to oscillate after the impacts so that the oscillations contributed to the collapse in conjunction with the impacts and fires. In either case, the proximate cause of the collapses are the impacts of large bodies filled with flammable material. Making a big deal about whether the building continued to shake and figuring out how much they weighed is pointless. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/730 "2009-06-22T01:59:26Z")
> [@](#): > > No. Recognizing that the buildings returned to equilibrium following the impact and maintained that equilibrium until fires destroyed the supporting structure indicates that their analysis is completely accurate. Oh sure, we are supposed to believe that a hydrocarbon fire could destroy the structure in 56 minutes even though they won’t tell us the quantity of steel in the impact zone. The NIST admits that there were 100,000 tons of steel in each tower. That comes to an average of 862 tons of steel per level. But of course there was more steel toward the bottom. Here is a temperature computation. Of course the quantity of steel would affect the result. > **[How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?](https://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm)** > > How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center? So that is my point. Claiming to have analyzed these events without knowing the distribution of STEEL and concrete through the towers is absurd. The people who can **BELIEVE** this are capable of turning off there brains when **AUTHORITY** speaks. AUTHORITY doesn’t have to come up with the relevant information. psik ---
**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:** [June 22, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/731 "2009-06-22T02:31:53Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > Oh sure, we are supposed to believe that a hydrocarbon fire could destroy the structure in 56 minutes even though they won’t tell us the quantity of steel in the impact zone. The NIST admits that there were 100,000 tons of steel in each tower. That comes to an average of 862 tons of steel per level. But of course there was more steel toward the bottom. > > Here is a temperature computation. Of course the quantity of steel would affect the result. > > [How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?](http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm) > > So that is my point. Claiming to have analyzed these events without knowing the distribution of STEEL and concrete through the towers is absurd. > > The people who can **BELIEVE** this are capable of turning off there brains when **AUTHORITY** speaks. AUTHORITY doesn’t have to come up with the relevant information. > > psik I wonder how we can trust the numbers in the link when they somehow also use estimates of the steel and concrete. 🙂 As the math in the link is suspect, I have to say that no serious researchers trust what that 9/11 “research” site mentions in your link. [http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm](http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm) > [@](#): > > From a contributor. > > ``` > One of the conspiracy sites published an article called "Popular Mechanics Attack on 9/11 Truth." I was pointed in that direction during a debate on a forum, after citing the Popular Mechanics article. > > Since we had been talking about the "melted steel" argument, I scrolled down to that area, which claimed this: > > "Here PM's counter claim implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF." > > That seemed strange to me. They made a point of how steel temperatures are different from the atmospheric temperatures surrounding it, then went on to cite a study and only mentioned the steel temperatures, not the atmospheric. So I went to the website of Corus Construction Co, and found a section in their Research area that said this about the difference in temperatures between steel and atmosphere: > > "With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C." > > So the tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity. > > I just thought it was a pretty striking example of dishonesty. The conspiracy theorist site could not have found that Corus study without finding the question on the atmospheric temperature, but left that part out. Some "truth movement"... > > -Steve > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/732 "2009-06-22T03:53:05Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > Oh sure, we are supposed to believe that a hydrocarbon fire could destroy the structure in 56 minutes even though they won’t tell us the quantity of steel in the impact zone. The NIST admits that there were 100,000 tons of steel in each tower. That comes to an average of 862 tons of steel per level. But of course there was more steel toward the bottom. > > Here is a temperature computation. Of course the quantity of steel would affect the result. > > [How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?](http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm) I’m not sure why you are making an issue of a “hydrocarbon fire,” but I will note that the site to which you linked accepts (actually quotes) a [statement from FEMA](http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf) (page 22) indicating how fast the jet fuel burned off, then completely ignores the computations on the very same pages (pp 22-23) regarding office materials that were present on multiple floors that provided fuel for fires to continue much longer and hotter than the jet fuel. That is a classic straw man argument and indicates something rather different than a search for “truth.” ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/733 "2009-06-22T08:30:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I’m not sure why you are making an issue of a “hydrocarbon fire,” but I will note that the site to which you linked accepts (actually quotes) a [statement from FEMA](http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf) (page 22) indicating how fast the jet fuel burned off, then completely ignores the computations on the very same pages (pp 22-23) regarding office materials that were present on multiple floors that provided fuel for fires to continue much longer and hotter than the jet fuel. > > That is a classic straw man argument and indicates something rather different than a search for “truth.” You will also notice the calculations are based on the assumption that no heat escapes by conduction or convection. Both of which are physical impossibilities. What I pointed out was that the quantity of steel had to matter. He just assumed a linear distribution with twice as much at the bottom. I presume there was actually less steel then he is assuming. So my point was simply that we need to know the quantity of steel. He also assumes a 100% efficient burn which is not going to happen in an open air fire. psik ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/734 "2009-06-22T11:41:06Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > So that is the point of this video: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc) > > In the real world you cannot separate the strength of steel from the mass of steel. In my demonstration the strength is only in the toothpicks and the washers only contribute mass. So why is it that simply adding mass breaks a lot fewer toothpicks? So how can we expect to analyze what happened to the WTC towers without knowing the mass of steel and concrete on every level? Your conclusion violates conservation of energy. In your experiment, adding masses (washers) adds potential energy to the system. During the experiment, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, and the kinetic energy is used to break molecular bonds in the toothpicks. When you started with more potential energy, you broke fewer toothpicks. Where, then, did the additional energy go to? I suggest there’s some portion of your experiment you haven’t adequately controlled. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/735 "2009-06-22T13:05:30Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > You will also notice the calculations are based on the assumption that no heat escapes by conduction or convection. Both of which are physical impossibilities. No, the calculations are bogus because they focus entirely on the kerosene fire, ignoring all the other material that continued to burn well through the collapse. Saying that the kerosene calculations were “too high” because they unrealistically ignored heat escape is a matter of bait and switch tactics when the kerosene burn is not the primary source of the heat. The initial fuel-air mixture and explosive fire from the crashes provided a way to ignite massive amounts of furniture, walls, documents, carpeting, etc. It was not necessarily the primary fuel for the ongoing conflagration. By focusing on the “low” heat from the jet fuel fire, your author is pretending that jet fuel is the only possible source for the heat. In fact, he makes a big deal about how the jet fuel fire alone was not enough to raise the ambient temperature above a certain level and deliberately ignores all the other sources of flames. Then there is the additional bait-and-switch that you appear to be employing regarding the structual steel. If I shove a car into a furnace, there is a pretty good chance that the engine block is going to survive a longer period at higher temperatures than the engine mounts, the frame welds, tie-rods, axle mounts, etc. Long before the engine block has suffered any significant damage, the car would begin to come apart. Knowing the total mass of the car, (or the steel in each floor of the WTC), tells us nothing regarding how long a particular joint or girder will survive the stress of a fire. Even if the mass of the core steel was sufficient to act as a damper for internal fires, (a point I do not grant except as a hypothetical), fires attacking the floor supports would not have to be nearly as intense. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/736 "2009-06-22T14:46:10Z")
I must say we get a better class of twoofer than, say, the IMDb. There’s a current discussion at the World Trade Center board over there in which a twoofer accuses a debunker of trying to change the subject when the twoofer is the one who brought up that particular subject in the first place! ---
**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:** [June 22, 2009, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/737 "2009-06-22T15:08:12Z")
Any reports of explosions prior to the collapses have been dismissed, claiming any that _were_ heard could have been many things besides a bomb. How big an explosion would we expect to have heard, had a detonation of some device taken place at the core of the towers, bearing in mind all the other noise and chaos that morning? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/738 "2009-06-22T15:22:20Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > How big an explosion would we expect to have heard, had a detonation of some device taken place at the core of the towers, bearing in mind all the other noise and chaos that morning? Invalid question, given that demolition charges are required on all columns and not just those at the core. But just for shits & giggles, [here’s a demolition of a much smaller building](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnxyauRFKM). The buzzing noise is from the helicopter the camera is in. [Here’s another angle of the same demolition](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28). ---
**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:** [June 22, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/739 "2009-06-22T15:24:43Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Any reports of explosions prior to the collapses have been dismissed, claiming any that _were_ heard could have been many things besides a bomb. > > How big an explosion would we expect to have heard, had a detonation of some device taken place at the core of the towers, bearing in mind all the other noise and chaos that morning? The collapse started from the section the planes crashed into, before one can even bother to look for other reasons of the collapse we need better evidence. Your question still has no supporting evidence, and when one checks the audio of the french reporter that was in the lower floors of the WTC the idea is even more preposterous. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/740 "2009-06-22T16:08:41Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Any reports of explosions prior to the collapses have been dismissed, claiming any that _were_ heard could have been many things besides a bomb. > > How big an explosion would we expect to have heard, had a detonation of some device taken place at the core of the towers, bearing in mind all the other noise and chaos that morning? Have you ever been to an explosive demolition of a building, live? I have and even though they use the smallest charges necessary they are really LOUD, and that’s hundreds of yards away in the open air. It takes a lot of energy to cut steel. There’s an incredible BANG BANG BANG as the charges detonate. I work in a modern steel-framed office building and loud sounds (like a door slamming, box dropping, furniture being moved, etc) are quite obvious even through a concrete slab floor. Compared to an actual explosion those are nothing. **psikeyhackr** , what do **you** think brought down WTC1 & 2? What is your strongest, most irrefutable evidence? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=38)