Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking

[EasyPhil]

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] “Did the NIST investigation
look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought
down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives
or thermite residues? The combination of thermite
and sulfur (called thermate) “slices through steel like a hot
knife through butter.” [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel” [3].
We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues
of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable
admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials
including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion
investigations by the NFPA 921 code:
Unusual residues might remain from the initial
fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite,
magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials [26].
Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of
thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure
for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain
why they have not looked for these residues? The code
specifies that fire-scene investigators must be prepared to
justify an exclusion [26].

NIST has been asked about this important issue recently,
by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:

Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it
didn’t look for evidence of explosives?” Neuman
[spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]:
“Right, because there was no evidence of that.”
Abel: But how can you know there’s no evidence if
you don’t look for it first? Neuman: "If you’re
looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting
your time… and the taxpayers’ money.” [27].

The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous
if not for the fact that NIST’s approach here affects the
lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking
for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921
code is “wasting your time.” We may be able to help out
here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the
WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially
in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as
the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the
evidence for thermite use is mounting. [13, 22]

[Cisco]

Hey ivan, Phil, listen guys: I’ve been onto this hot lead for awhile, and it’s finally as well-developed as the rest of the 9/11 alternative hypotheses so I’m ready to put it out there: I’m pretty sure a unicorn rammed the cores of all 3 towers a few times, weakening them to the point of failure. And you know what? NIST didn’t test for this! Can you believe that? We need to investigate, guys. Are you with me?

Are you with me?

Unicorn power!

[EasyPhil]

That’s pretty funny…NOT!

[Cisco]

Well your “theories” are pretty sick, for the record.

[EasyPhil]

@Cisco

Well your “theories” are pretty sick, for the record.

You speak like you know exactly why the buildings fell when there’s is not definitive answer and the link I have posted are from architechts and engineers who question the official story of the collapses. Your qualifications to refute what they are presenting is what?

[Cisco]

You mean the link from a conspiracy site that no legitimate architects or engineers support that says they found some of the most commons elements on Earth in the rubble? Yeah, you got me there, I guess I’m a sheeperson and everything I think I know is wrong :rolleyes:.

[ivan_astikov]

Wow Cisco, those last 2 posts of yours were especially lame.

Are you getting a bit worn down from the whole ridiculousness of these “sick theories”? Perhaps you need to have a rest from the 9/11 debunking game?

[Cisco]

@ivan_astikov

Are you getting a bit worn down from the whole ridiculousness of these “sick theories”?

I was getting a bit worn down in 2006, and you guys haven’t come up with anything new since then.

And yes your games are sick, don’t kid yourself. 9/11 trooth is all about blaming your personal internal antagonists (whether they be the Bush admin, Jews, FDNY Firefighters, lizard people, etc.), exonerating the real perpetrators, and forgetting about the victims. And it’s very much a game to you people.

[Skywatcher]

@EasyPhil

If WTC 7 had not collapsed in the same way that WTC 1 & 2 did you could accept the notion that it was the results of the planes. There’s serious skepticism around this for a reason, buildings don’t collapse like this that are on fire and we’ve countless examples of buildings engulfed in flames for hours that do not collapse in the manner. Either the buildings were faulty to begin with or something else is going on here.

Like the entire complex being exempt from building and fire codes?

7 was constructed on a site that had been prepped for a building with a smaller footprint. Rather than tearing up the existing foundation and redoing it, as much of 7 was placed over it as possible. This left the entire southern side off the existing foundation and no additional foundation was poured. 7’s southern side had no direct contact with the ground and sustained heavy damage from being pummeled by debris from 1 when that collapsed.

7 essentially split in two as it fell; a significant portion went to the north and caused irreparable damage to the roof and upper floors of 30 West Broadway–across the street! The rest went to the southwest and caused heavy damage to the lower floors of the Verizon building.

[Skywatcher]

@EasyPhil

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Not peer-reviewed. See JREF for details.

[GIGObuster]

@Lute Skywatcher

Not peer-reviewed. See JREF for details.

For conspiracy theorists this thermite item is a sad thing to put forward for 2 reasons:

1. Very shoddy science and shoddy publication referenced.

2. A point that was already debunked.

Of particular interest is this post on the JREF:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4584589&postcount=74

Although there is similar spectra in the case of Fig 25 on page 18, the peaks are simply not proportionate. In thermite, titanium is 70% and aluminum around 25%. The 4.5 keV peak for titanium should be higher than the one for aluminum. That is not the case and as a matter of fact, the aluminum peak is significantly higher in Fig 25. I would think a more reasonable hypothesis is that the trace amount of titanium observed in the Fig 25 sample came from another source. I’m sure among the computers and other office equipment in the WTC, titanium was present somewhere.

This super thermite sounds just like the TWA 800 conspiracy theorists that continue to think that they have great physical evidence, when in reality they continue to ignore contamination (The paper mentioned just shows a sorry attempt to minimize the contamination present in samples coming from the buildings). In the case of TWA 800 CTs ignored on purpose that the composition of the sea floor near Long Island matched the materials found in the stolen sample that the conspiracy theorists used to say that the materials came from a missile.

In the case of 9/11 it is clear that paint and other building and office materials match the results better than any magic thermite. Well, it has to be magic to allow the installation of it with nobody noticing and not leaving physical evidence.

[ivan_astikov]

Anyone want to suggest what the ‘non-contaminated dust’ would be expected to contain had thermite been used?

[GIGObuster]

@ivan_astikov

Anyone want to suggest what the ‘non-contaminated dust’ would be expected to contain had thermite been used?

You did not look at the spectrograms did you?

The levels needed to declare that thermite was there are missing. To put it in other words, better evidence than this would be needed to **start **suggesting that thermite was there.

[Valgard]

@ivan_astikov

It’d certainly have nipped in the bud all the accusations that a full investigation hadn’t taken place. And, if you’ve done all the hard work putting the parameters in place to do your simulation, how hard would it have been just to include some extra variables? If I’d have been on the job, I’d have done it out of pure curiosity.

Have you ever done any structural analysis, even of a simple structure? There’s no “put a bomb here” button or anything like that.

@ivan_astikov

All that video indicates to me is that if the core was sabotaged, it would have had to be higher up. I see the tower crumbling, but I don’t know for sure that the cores hadn’t been weakened somewhere below the impact points. And in the case of the tower with the antennae, it even looks as if it is falling before the rest of the building.

The problem I see with these theories, over and over again, is it comes down to “Suppose someone sabotaged the towers so that they’d collapse exactly the way they did? What would it look like?” (Hm, I guess it would look exactly like it did) No matter what mountain of evidence opposes such a theory and no matter what utter lack of evidence supports such a theory, it is met (after the fact) with some variant of “Well they just made it look that way”. It’s like the Intelligent Design folks.

EasyPhil, do you know what the two components of thermite are? Iron oxide (rust) and aluminum. Do you know what is left after thermite burns? Iron and aluminum oxide. I assume that the presence of iron, aluminum, rust and aluminum oxide in an office building comes as no great surprise. My garage contains ample amounts of all those things and I assure you that no thermite was involved. My truck contains all of those ingredients and I’m pretty sure it’s not built out of thermite. You might as well say that an office building was blown up with nitrocellulose due to the vast amount of paper found in the rubble.

It’s up to the people making claims of sabotage/demolitions/thermite/etc to present their evidence in favor of their theories. Time and again they have been shown to be wrong, either in the interpretation of facts or just plain making stuff up (lying). People making wild technical claims are shown to have no expertise in the subjects involved. I’ll ask the same question I’ve asked over and over again:

ivan astikov and EasyPhil, you have presented various theories, question or claims regarding structural analysis, material science and demolitions. What educational background or actual work experience do you have in those areas or any related fields to base your ideas on?

[Merijeek]

@ivan_astikov

It’d certainly have nipped in the bud all the accusations that a full investigation hadn’t taken place. And, if you’ve done all the hard work putting the parameters in place to do your simulation, how hard would it have been just to include some extra variables? If I’d have been on the job, I’d have done it out of pure curiosity.

Oh what a load of horseshit. If they HAD done it, it would have been “obvious” that the results were doctored. How many times have we seen in this thread some troofer saying, “I’m not going to believe it just because the gummint says so”.

You know why some people are so vested in their conspiracy theories? Because being one of the “enlightened” who somehow used the power of their massive brains to “see through what blinds the sheeple” makes them feel special. It’s like buying a fucking Hummer - they’re compensating for something. In the case of the Hummer it’s because they’ve got a small dick, in the case of this, it’s probably a tiny brain.

-Joe

[ivan_astikov]

Because it’s far easier to believe that no intelligent person would take such theories seriously! That’s okay, you carry on kidding yourself. :rolleyes:

I think you realise how arrogant and dismissive such an accusation sounds, Merjeek, but you are more interested in defending what you’ve been told, aren’t you?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Merijeek

You know why some people are so vested in their conspiracy theories? It’s like buying a fucking Hummer - they’re compensating for something. In the case of the Hummer it’s because they’ve got a small dick, in the case of this, it’s probably a tiny brain.

For the record, both my brain and my wiener are exceedingly large

For me, the war on terror still doesn’t add up. One explanation is that there are greater motives than the stated ones. Another explanation is that the whole thing was so poorly executed I still can’t believe it :smack:

Looking again at Afghanistan, here’s one reason why I doubt the second possibility, and why the ongoing campaign remains an object of suspicion.

Consider how the Taliban was removed from power, from Wiki:

In 2001, SAD units were the first US forces to enter Afghanistan. Their efforts organized the Afghan Northern Alliance for the subsequent arrival of USSOCOM forces. SAD, US Army Special Forces and the Northern Alliance combined to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan with minimal loss to Americans lives. They did this without the need for US military conventional forces. [17][102][103][104]

George Tenet:
“The routing of the Taliban and al-Qa’ida from Afghanistan in a matter of weeks was accomplished by 110 CIA officers, 316 Special Forces soldiers and a score of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) raiders creating havoc behind enemy lines–a band of brothers with the support of U.S. airpower, following a CIA plan, that has to rank as one of the great successes in Agency history.”

A couple of weeks to take out the Taliban. Now we’re going on 8 years of occupation, so what are we doing?

It seems the war could have been over almost as soon as it started. From another Wiki article:

The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban’s refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his alleged involvement in the 11 September attacks, and disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations.[142] On 14 October the Taliban offered to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11.[143] The U.S. rejected this offer as an insufficient public relations ploy and continued military operations

Although once a war is underway I actually can understand that diplomatic avenues may no longer be effective.

There are reasons to suspect that there is more to the story than is revealed, from here

According to Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, “Two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship,” as reported by the Miami Herald. And in Graham’s book, Intelligence Matters, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry’s final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees."[39]

What would the suppressed pages reveal? One can only speculate, but perhaps it suggests that the blame for the 911 attacks has been misplaced? I can’t claim to know. It does feed my suspicions however.

Backing up a bit, let’s take a look at the Taliban’s influence in Afghanistan. At their height they were recognized by 3 countries, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and UAE, as the government of Afghanistan.
This article says they were based out of just 3 Afghan provinces: Helmand, Kandahar, and Uruzgan-click for maps. Their control is said to have grown to 12 provinces later, apparently through massacres and repressive tactics.

During the Afghan Civil War, their influence seems to have grown as they had some success against competing factions, as shown in this map. It’s debatable what kind of ‘control’ they had over regions freshly conquered in an ongoing civil war, but ok, they were growing through conquest. Eventually it is claimed they had ‘control’ over 90% of the country- looks like the Northern Alliance forces were on the run.

It is during this last phase that the only reference (that I’ve found so far- help me out) to a relationship between AQ and the Taliban.

On September 9, 2001, a suicide bomber, posing as a journalist, blew himself up after gaining access to Ahmed Shah Massoud office. The suicide bomber was killed along with one of Massoud’s followers, and the Afghan commander’s guards killed the second person posing as a journalist. Massoud was struck in the chest with shrapnel from the bomb, which was either hidden in the camera or concealed around the waist of one of the terrorists. Massoud died shortly after being taken to Tajikistan for emergency care.

It is reported that al-Qaeda carried out this attack against Massoud to eliminate the Northern Alliance’s most effective military leader

But it is only ‘reported’ that AQ did that, I couldn’t find a cite.

Ok, that isn’t the only reported link between AQ and the Taliban. There is the so-called 055 Brigade

Reports from Time magazine indicate that members of the 055 Brigade were often deployed in smaller groups to help reinforce regular Afghan members of Taliban. This was often achieved via threats or intimidation designed to enforce discipline and a commitment to the mujahedin philosophy. Estimates on the strength of the 055 Brigade vary, however it is generally believed that at its peak it comprised somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 personnel.

I couldn’t find any specific examples of the aid this group was giving, but ok, so we don’t know details about the internal affairs of the Taliban during the Afghan Civil War. I can accept that. And another poster has already stated that hard-core intelligence about AQ is hard to come by- I can accept that as well.

But- who are these AQ guys anyway?

More from Wiki on AQ:

Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border regions are alleged to have trained militant Muslims from around the world.[62][63] Despite the perception of some people, al-Qaeda members are ethnically diverse and connected by their radical version of Islam.

Ok, the training camps are in the border regions- in the more lawless areas of the country, as I suspected upthread.

What do we know about these guys? Consider some more quotes from the same source:

The number of individuals belonging to the organization is also unknown. According to the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates.

The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is cited by the documentary as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all. Therefore the extent and nature of al-Qaeda remains a topic of dispute.[78]

What exactly al-Qaeda is, or was, remains in dispute. In the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, writer and journalist Adam Curtis contends that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organization is primarily an American invention.

Hmmm, really? Doesn’t exist at all? Frankly that sounds dubious to me as well. What would be the motive of making AQ seem to be more than it is? Again from the same source, one possible explanation may be found in this quote:

As a matter of law, the U.S. Department of Justice needed to show that Osama bin Laden was the leader of a criminal organization in order to charge him in absentia under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as the RICO statutes. The name of the organization and details of its structure were provided in the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl, who claimed to be a founding member of the organization and a former employee of Osama bin Laden.[83] To quote the documentary directly:

The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term "al-Qaeda" to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it.[84]

Or, in Bin Laden’s own words (whatever those are worth of course):

The name ‘al-Qaeda’ was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia’s terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed.[34]

Origins in the Afghan war against the Soviets? So Al Qaeda really is, to some degree, a bastard child of the CIA? Maybe not exactly that simple. From here:

Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.[17] Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.

Ah. So at least some of the terrorist training camps have their origins in the war against the Soviets. It might be unfair to say Bin Laden was the ‘buddy’ of the CIA- it isn’t clear if there is any direct link at all. Help me out guys, one way or the other on this one. Other people up-thread have mentioned the CIA program the Islamic Militant Network, but frankly I have to chew on that before I can make any comments.

What it looks like to me- and correct me if I’m wrong- US aid during the war with the Soviets laid the foundation for the Taliban and also lent Bin Laden a big leadership role. In the chaos and civil war of the aftermath, the Taliban drew some of their stability from the earlier aid and were able to parlay that into regional influence.

Taliban regional influence obviously turns out to be a bad thing for just about everybody as far as I can tell. How big a deal is it that plan for a pipeline from the Caspian Sea, through Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, and into Pakistan fell through, mostly because of the Taliban’s insular ways and blanket rejection of non-Muslims? It is at least a fair question- but I’ll get into oil ideas in a later post.

What I do know is that Afghanistan was invaded in response to 911. Is that really necessary? Consider, from here, more from Bin Laden (again, FWIW):

On November 29, 2007 a videotape was released that The Central Intelligence Agency says is likely to be from Osama bin Laden. In it the speaker claims sole responsibility for the attacks and specifically denies any prior knowledge of them by The Taliban or the Afghan people.[77]

Is that true? The Taliban (awful as they are) and the Afghan people have no knowledge of the attacks. Bin Laden is hanging out in the border region. People with links to Bin Laden get involved in the Taliban’s actions in the civil war, but as is claimed above, Bin Laden isn’t their ‘commander’. He had only been in country for a few years.

Do the Taliban and Bin Laden really have the kind of relationship that has been suggested? Did the Taliban, who are literally trying to return life to what it was in the 7th century- with predictable results- have any influence over him, or the power to pick him up and deliver him from the border areas to other authorities? Let me know.

In any case, the story is Bin Laden-> Al Qaeda-> The Taliban is responsible for 911, and cause for war.

And finally, the Bush Doctrine:

Because of the Bush Doctrine, which stated “We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them”, the United States and Britain invaded and overthrew the Taliban regime in 2001, using air power, special forces and the Northern Alliance as a land army.

Well yes, Bush isn’t exactly famous for making distinctions, and parsing his statements will ever be the ultimate wtf??? experience. But really:
Were the Taliban literally ‘harboring’ Bin Laden in the first place?
Since the Taliban were overthrown in weeks, why are we there 8 years later? What exactly is the mission?

If you still think I’m nuts for being suspicious, fine, just please say why and try to enlighten me a little.

[Merijeek]

@ivan_astikov

Because it’s far easier to believe that no intelligent person would take such theories seriously! That’s okay, you carry on kidding yourself. :rolleyes:

I think you realise how arrogant and dismissive such an accusation sounds, Merjeek, but you are more interested in defending what you’ve been told, aren’t you?

Not really. I have no need to believe that Kennedy was shot six times from fourteen directions (Dillinger did it!). It’s too bad that some people are so paranoid (or desperate for a feeling of specialhoodliness) that they concoct a ridiculous conspiracy theory when it is perfectly clear what happened: A single pissed off individual with a rifle managed to kill one of the two most power men in the world. Is that scary? I guess so, if that’s your thing. Does it scare you that someone at pretty much any time, if they felt like it, could shoot you dead tomorrow when you go out to get the mail?

Afghanistan? A bunch of pissed of malcontents hiding in a war-torn Fourth World hellhole of country managed to pull off an incredibly effective coup-de-main against the world’s only superpower. Apparently everyone assumed that being able to nuke the planet into oblivion multiple times would keep us safe from a bunch of Arabs with boxcutters. Turns out that wasn’t the case. Everyone seems to think that the point of the whole Afghanistan invasion was to get Osama, but certainly removing the Taliban from power was the actual practical (and far more important) goal. Afghanistan was going just fine until the USA took their eye of the ball because a couple assholes had a stiffy for…

Iraq? A war without purpose, no matter what various bushbots would claim. Bush and his buddies went ahead and took advantage of the most absolutely predictable result of any attack the USA - a carte blanche to do whatever the hell they wanted. There was a reason the USA didn’t start fighting WW2 until December, 1941 and there was a reason that Germany claimed their September, 1939 adventure was self-defense.

So, where is the conspiracy? That a jet packed with jet fuel could bring down a building if it were crashed into one? What’s more likely, that, or a magic controlled demolition that nobody inside noticed being set up?

This is no different than the Moon Landing Hoaxers. “I’m some pinhead video store clerk playing around on the Internet, and I noticed this thing that LITERAL ROCKET SCIENTISTS forgot to put into their fake moon landing.”

Sure, Sparky. Just keep telling yourself that. It’s like the guy watching a video who says, “Dude, that was like so fake” when it was, in fact, a real event.

Finally, it’s not arrogance to dismiss obvious bullshit and operate based on the actual facts. That’s just sense. Same reason I’m pretty sure there isn’t an angel flying over my car every time I make it home without a wreck. I’ll just chalk that one up to observational skills, hand-eye coordination, and good brakes.

-Joe

[Telemark]

@ivan_astikov

So, anyone who questions the official line on anything now, is a “CT’er”, or is it just where 9/11 is concerned?

No, we love when people question the official line. What a CT’er does is start with a semi-plausible idea and then, when the evidence clearly shows that the idea isn’t supported by the facts, twists it into unbelievable, illogical, and frankly, insulting tripe in a hopeless attempt to keep it somehow viable. Eventually, even the CT’er has to admin that the weight of the artificial facade collapses into a logical rubble heap. Then he moves on to a less semi-plausible idea and the whole process repeats again.

This describes you to a tee.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Telemark

Eventually, even the CT’er has to [admit] that the weight of the artificial facade collapses into a logical rubble heap.

I dunno, some of them are awfully stubborn.