# 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:** 52
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1021 "2009-07-10T00:07:02Z")
Psik, what is your theory as to why the buildings went down? ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1022 "2009-07-10T00:09:25Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Nobody _believes_ that the planes brought the buildings down, Psik. You believe that we believe that, but we don’t. > > We merely _know_ that the fires which erupted because of the plane crashes brought the buildings down. > > Why are you arguing against a point that nobody is making? I disagree. We do believe it. But! We believe it _because_ of all the positive evidence that it happened the way it happened, and the lack of negative evidence that it didn’t happen. All Psychiehacker has shown is that we don’t have even more positive evidence than we already have. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1023 "2009-07-10T00:23:31Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > How do you compute what the fire could do in less than 2 hours if you don’t know the quantity of steel in the vicinity of the fire? > > [How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?](http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm) This is getting ridiculous. How many times are you going to post links to nonsense CT sites that spend all their efforts showing that the aircraft fuel could not have weakened the steel enough to cause a collapse when the very NIST report cited by your own link, (but then carefully excluded from the quotes by the authors of the site), agrees that the fuel fires would not have weakened the steel, sufficiently, but that the other office materials (an acre worth on each level), were enough to weaken specific trusses. And while you keep nattering on about how no one “can come up with” the amount of steel on each level, you have failed to demonstrate that they did not know that–only that you have not bothered to look it up. At this point, your circular arguments that simply repeat the same refrain over and over, with additional insults as you can get away with, is beginning to look like trolling. Give it a rest. > [@psikeyhackr](#): > > I let my MENSA membership expire back in the 80s. I took their IQ test to get in. According to that table 75% of people score below 111 and 90% below 121. Bragging on your intelligence on an anonymous board when you fail to demonstrate that intelligence in conversation is not persuasive. Neither is this sort of disingenuity: > [@psikeyhackr](#): > > What level were you referring to. Obvioulsy, to anyone smart enough to recall the actual thread, the level is the level of the building or the bunk bed, since there was much made of “levels” against “stories” earlier on. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1024 "2009-07-10T00:55:13Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > I disagree. We do believe it. But! We believe it _because_ of all the positive evidence that it happened the way it happened, and the lack of negative evidence that it didn’t happen. > > All Psychiehacker has shown is that we don’t have even more positive evidence than we already have. The way that I’ve been reading Psik’s arguments is that he is claiming that we (or the NIST) believe that the initial impacts were enough to bring the buildings down, which is why he focuses on oscillations, how far the buildings moved upon impact, the amount/weight of the steel in each level, the amount of time passing between impact and collapse, etc. To me, it seems that he completely discounts the effects of the fires and assumes their effect to be nil, and assumes that we think the same. After all, unless I missed it, he hasn’t given his theory as to how/why the buildings collapsed. So I’m a bit confused as to what his point actually _is_. ---
**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:** [July 10, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1025 "2009-07-10T00:57:19Z")
[QUOTE=psikeyhackr] How do you compute what the fire could do in less than 2 hours if you don’t know the quantity of steel in the vicinity of the fire? [/QUOTE] You only need to know the quantity (and more important the quality) of steel that was in the supporting structure and in the vicinity of the fire. I know you don’t get this, but the entire building didn’t have to melt like wax for the structure to come down…only a few key elements did. This concept, seemingly quite easy to grasp, is, sadly, beyond most if not all of the CT crowd. I wish I could understand why it’s so difficult a concept for you (and them) to wrap your head around. C’est la vie, I suppose. I’d think it would be child’s play for a former MENSA member… 😛 -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:** [July 10, 2009, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1026 "2009-07-10T08:46:41Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Was digging around looking for some specifics (outside of the extensive one’s already cited and ignored in the NIST report) about the examination of the structural members that failed and caused the collapse. I found [this](http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml) cite which deals with a lot of the civil engineering aspects of the collapse (posted here for future reference, or for anyone who is following along and actually reading the cites with comprehension or at least an open mind). > > Here is a [cite](http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf) (previously ignored) that talks about the examination of the structural supports from a metallurgical perspective (no evidence of explosive use found, but then, perhaps they simply ignored it, ehe?). (warning: PDF) > > Another [cite](http://www.911investigations.net/IMG/pdf/doc-296.pdf) (which will again be ignored) talking about the metallurgical analysis of the WTC debris. I note that they are looking at the microscopic crystaline structure of the steel (Their conclusion? The members deformed due to heat…go figure). Even if they weren’t specifically looking for explosives damage they would have seen indications of this in the form of shock damage to the underlying structure (not to mention, you know, the rather distinctive pattern and scorch marks left from explosives cutting through the members). > > Anyway, I realize this is all pretty futile…no way the faithful are going to see reason at this point in the thread. But thought I’d add a few cites just so I don’t have to look them up again in the next thread…I think that just about everything has been covered here by everyone, so next time this insane subject comes up it should be a simple cut and paste exercise. > > -XT Your first cite was as filled with “ifs, buts and maybes” as the most whacked-out ‘no-planer’s’ ramblings. Quick quote - > [@](#): > > When this article was first written on 9/11, the only evidence was photographs and television footage. Whether failure was initiated at the perimeter columns or the core is unknown. The extent to which the internal parts were damaged during the collision may be evident in the rubble if any forensic investigation is conducted. Since the mass of the combined towers is close to 1000000 tons, finding evidence will be an enormous task. Your second and third seem to be the same thing, and the very first words in the pdf’s are as follows:- “ **Two** structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were discovered in the WTC debris field. The first **appeared** to be from WTC7 and the second from either WTC1 or WTC2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2 respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.” You’re not going to suggest that such vague bollocks is representative of anything conclusive, are you? ---
**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:** [July 10, 2009, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1027 "2009-07-10T11:11:36Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > You’re not going to suggest that such vague bollocks is representative of anything conclusive, are you? Feel free to keep offering up solid bollocks in the meantime. ---
**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:** [July 10, 2009, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1028 "2009-07-10T11:18:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Feel free to keep offering up solid bollocks in the meantime. I never claimed to have them in the first place. It’s the Defenders Of The One True Theory who are claiming to have cast iron cojones that can never be rattled. ---
**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:** [July 10, 2009, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1029 "2009-07-10T11:23:01Z")
It’s my understanding that “bollocks” is, in addition to nonsense stated as fact, a state of mind. Anyway, the prevailing theory can indeed be rattled - as soon as someone has some actual evidence worthy of rattlefication. Got some? ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1030 "2009-07-10T11:50:21Z")
> [@bryan ekers](#): > > anyway, the prevailing theory can indeed be rattled - as soon as someone has some actual evidence worthy of rattlefication. Got some? No taxation without rattlefication! ---
**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:** [July 10, 2009, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1031 "2009-07-10T11:55:50Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It’s my understanding that “bollocks” is, in addition to nonsense stated as fact, a state of mind. > > Anyway, the prevailing theory can indeed be rattled - as soon as someone has some actual evidence worthy of rattlefication. Got some? I’ve just rattled the evidence of “investigation of the metallic structure” by pointing out that the investigators weren’t even sure where the metal came from. ---
**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:** [July 10, 2009, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1032 "2009-07-10T12:00:32Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > All you can do is imply people are stupid if they don’t agree with the majority. But the fact of the matter is that all of you people that BELIEVE the plane brought the buildings down can’t come up with information as simple as the quantities of steel and concrete that were on each level of the towers. It is certainly curious not to have information that simple after nearly EIGHT YEARS. What kind of PHYSICS is that? So far, the physics that you’ve presented is either inapplicable or misleading or just plain wrong. As a case in point, you’ve been repeatedly pointing out that you don’t know the mass distribution in the towers. However, the reason you want that information is to calculate tower displacement: > [@psikeyhackr](#): > > The NIST says the tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor. How can you compute how much energy was involved in that movement if you don’t know the mass on that level? So the percentage of the kinetic energy that did structural damage cannot be computed without knowing how much kinetic energy shook the building and that cannot be computed without distribution of mass. This calculation requires knowing the tower stiffness, not mass. I suggest that, to answer the questions you want to ask, an exact mass distribution is not necessary. Rather than worrying about mass distribution, you might wish to make sure your physics is both correct and applicable to the poblem at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1033 "2009-07-10T12:27:20Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I’ve just rattled the evidence of “investigation of the metallic structure” by pointing out that the investigators weren’t even sure where the metal came from. And you’re assuming that these were the only steel pieces that were found and tested? ---
**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:** [July 10, 2009, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1034 "2009-07-10T12:37:40Z")
> [@Eutychus](#): > > And you’re assuming that these were the only steel pieces that were found and tested? No, but I’d assume they knew exactly where the pieces they have stated that they tested, actually came from. What kind of scientist deals with such loose categorisations as “apparently”? ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1035 "2009-07-10T13:17:38Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Psik, what is your theory as to why the buildings went down? i **van astikov** Please answer this simple question that has been asked of you several times. What do you think caused the buildings to collapse? ---
**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:** [July 10, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1036 "2009-07-10T15:46:26Z")
Well, let’s put it this way, if it is so blindingly obvious that the buildings would have collapsed, had they been hit by fully laden passenger planes, in those particular places, it is entirely possible that some powerful group could have arranged that to happen. Anyone want to take a stab at what would have happened had the planes struck higher up the building? Whether towers one and two were brought down using additional methods, does nothing to explain how #7, after receiving asymmetrical damage, came down from one viewing angle in a perfectly symmetrical manner. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1037 "2009-07-10T16:35:37Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Well, let’s put it this way, if it is so blindingly obvious that the buildings would have collapsed, had they been hit by fully laden passenger planes, in those particular places, it is entirely possible that some powerful group could have arranged that to happen. Anyone want to take a stab at what would have happened had the planes struck higher up the building? > > Whether towers one and two were brought down using additional methods, does nothing to explain how #7, after receiving asymmetrical damage, came down from one viewing angle in a perfectly symmetrical manner. Indeed. And even Al Qaeda had significant difficulties. Remember, their first attempt failed, and their second attempt could have failed if things had gone differently. As for your second paragraph, you answer your own question within it–“ **from one viewing angle** ”. [It’s the same basic principle.](http://www.hemmy.net/2008/08/02/eureka-carpark-illusion/) ---
**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:** [July 10, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1038 "2009-07-10T17:03:52Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Well, let’s put it this way, if it is so blindingly obvious that the buildings would have collapsed, had they been hit by fully laden passenger planes, in those particular places, it is entirely possible that some powerful group could have arranged that to happen. It’s also possible that space aliens directed those planes. There was a powerful group that arranged for it to happen: Al Quida. We have huge amounts of evidence that they did the deed and OBL admitted it on tape. You’re now invoking some shadowy organization when there’s no evidence for it and no plausible explanation what their motivation would be. If you have evidence, present it, but all you have is unsupported handwaving to explain away a problem that doesn’t exist. > [@](#): > > Whether towers one and two were brought down using additional methods, Which they definitively were not. > [@](#): > > does nothing to explain how #7, after receiving asymmetrical damage, came down from one viewing angle in a perfectly symmetrical manner. Except it didn’t, and even if it did, it wouldn’t prove whatever you are suggesting. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1039 "2009-07-10T18:09:46Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Well, let’s put it this way, if it is so blindingly obvious that the buildings would have collapsed, had they been hit by fully laden passenger planes, in those particular places, it is entirely possible that some powerful group could have arranged that to happen. Anyone want to take a stab at what would have happened had the planes struck higher up the building? > > Whether towers one and two were brought down using additional methods, does nothing to explain how #7, after receiving asymmetrical damage, came down from one viewing angle in a perfectly symmetrical manner. You didn’t answer the question. More precisely, you answered it with a rhetorical question. :rolleyes: > **[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 The above link has plenty of evidence and analysis which disproves the fiction that WTC7 collapsed in a “perfectly symmetrical manner”. Now, it might have looked like it did (from certain “veiwing angles”), but it most definitely did not. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041/1040 "2009-07-10T22:01:35Z")
> [@zut](#): > > As a case in point, you’ve been repeatedly pointing out that you don’t know the mass distribution in the towers. However, the reason you want that information is to calculate tower displacement:This calculation requires knowing the tower stiffness, not mass.. . Horsehit! The stiffness AND THE MASS are both necessary. And of course the quantity of steel is going to be a factor in the stiffness. You don’t suppose thicker steel is more stiff do you? You don’t suppose thicker steel will be heavier do you? psik [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=51) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-me-your-9-11-conspiracy-theories-and-or-their-debunking/497041.md?page=53)