# Why do truthers espouse such an out-there theory? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 2, 2012, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518 "2012-10-02T21:09:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/141 "2012-10-05T17:55:34Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > What I could never figure is, even if you want to believe the CIA or the Mossad or Whoever was “really” behind the 9/11 attacks, and that they wanted to frame Al Quaeda for the attack… why would they need to crash planes into the WTC in addition to wiring the buildings with explosives and detonating them? > > Why not just wire the buildings and blow them up, and then blame the BOMBING on Al Quaeda? Why bring planes into it at all??? This one is pretty easy to answer. Something like a truck bomb may not work, and no one would ever believe Al Quaeda could get the kind of access to the WTC to place multiple charges in the buildings. Just collasping the buildings would have caused a real investigation to take place. The planes provided good cover I know thermite is not explosive, but the short video I linked to proves that explosives were used. The thinking is that a thermetic matieral was used to susititue for the explosive cutting charges that would normally be used in a controlled demolition. That material still would not be enough do the job, so some explosives still had to be used. You can all call me a troll, weirdo or what ever, but I actually have proof for the 3 main points I brought up. Proof #1: Iron rich spehres forn in the WTC dust. All the official story has is the NIST report, and the won’t even release the data they used to come up with their computer model of the collaspe. They could mkae the model do whatever they wanted to, and since no independent scientists can verify it, we’ll never no for sure. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/142 "2012-10-05T18:07:13Z")
Hit submit by mistake. That first one comes from [here.](http://www.ae911truth.org/) Theses spheres are known to be a byproduct of a thermatic reaction. It is impossible for kerosene office fires to do this. Proof #2: Explosions heard all over the WTC site well after the planes hit. I provided a link to that earlier. Those videos are all over you tube. Proof #3: The official timeline does not match up with the story we were told of the response. Proof #4: [Proof](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-I2FO8bLR2Y) of my claim the WTC was having rolling blackouts in the weeks leading up to 911. This is one from the weekend before 911. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/143 "2012-10-05T18:09:06Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > the short video I linked to proves that explosives were used. This is just nonsense. The video you linked to shows a couple of guys talking on a pay phone and a fairly loud noise can be heard while they are doing so. It doesn’t prove anything about explosives being used. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/144 "2012-10-05T18:14:40Z")
We have different views on what the word proof means. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/145 "2012-10-05T18:18:11Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > Much clearer, thanks. And I agree, not being able to say why doesn’t prove a theory wrong. But I believe that thoughts and discussions about why are a crucial part of any discussion of mainstream or alternative theories of how something happened and who was behind it. Let’s look at some basic stuff about the mainstream story of 9/11. How: hijacked airliners crashed into buildings causing huge damage and eventual structural collapse. Who: Al Qaeda, using mostly Saudi recruits, planned by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and ordered by Osama Bin Laden. Why: Extreme disapproval of US policies in the middle east, coupled with a belief that destruction of US assets is a desirable response to those policies. > > Add to that the fact that the same Al Qaeda leaders had tried to destroy the same target eight years before by much more conventional means, and you have a story that is supported by lots and lots of evidence and which has a plausible answer to the question of why. It is not a reason that makes sense to me in the sense that I believe I would reach the same conclusion if I were in Osama Bin Laden’s position in 2001, but in the sense that it fits his publicly known world-view and his self-confessed prior modus operandi. > > It is perfectly reasonable, when faced with an alternative story, to include the question of why into one’s evaluation of it along with how and who. Agreed. But it’s all circumstantial evidence. Do you think that evidence linking 9/11 to Bin Laden – considering how much we know of the man and what was presented as “evidence” – would withstand standard court scrutiny? We had a debate – well, more like a shouting match – where I was presenting similar circumstantial evidence of “dancing Israelis”. The whole debate was about weather they were Mossad operatives or not when that was never an issue. So, instead of moving debate to demonstrate that there were no public results of the investigation – as it was classified as national security issue. My whole point in discussing at that time was that based on information available one could reasonably put a dent into the whole story with the idea that someone expected the outcome on 9/11. Expected as in high-five is typically associated with a task that was planned and got accomplished successfully. There was even a 20/20 show dedicated to this with transcirpts widely available yet, it did not get any traction. And also, has nothing to do with “structural engineers” and such nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/146 "2012-10-05T18:18:46Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > This is just nonsense. The video you linked to shows a couple of guys talking on a pay phone and a fairly loud noise can be heard while they are doing so. It doesn’t prove anything about explosives being used. That is just one of many videos, do I really need to link to all of them? There is also the eyewitness accounts from the people in the lobby and basements. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/147 "2012-10-05T18:22:47Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > That is just one of many videos, do I really need to link to all of them? There is also the eyewitness accounts from the people in the lobby and basements. But you said it was thermite which burns and doesn’t explode. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/148 "2012-10-05T18:35:55Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > Theses spheres are known to be a byproduct of a thermatic reaction. It is impossible for kerosene office fires to do this. Iron spheres can be produced by many, many sources, including grinding and cutting metal, which is known to have happened during the cleanup. There are [pictures](http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html)of cleanup crew using thermal lances to cut through steel beams while the debris was being removed. > [@](#): > > Proof #2: Explosions heard all over the WTC site well after the planes hit. I provided a link to that earlier. Those videos are all over you tube. Explosions does not necessarily mean explosives. A large office building contains many things that can explode during a fire. The was known to contain generator substations, which included fuel tanks, and large battery banks for power backup. It is also entirely possible that there were compressed air tanks in the machinery spaces. There were likely water tanks, which may have been heated by fire to the point of rupturing. Furthermore, a sound of an explosion does not necessarily mean something exploded. Large metal beams breaking can sound like explosions. Debris falling can sound like explosions. There are eyewitness reports that the bodies of people who jumped out of the upper floors sounded like bombs when they hit the ground. (Some of those reports have been deceptively snipped by truthers and presented as evidence of bombs going off). Cars and trucks around the buildings and in the underground parking garages may have been on fire, and a car or truck tire rupturing in a fire sounds like an explosion. The timing of the reported explosions is also not consistent with a demolition. When a building is demolished by explosives, the explosives go off immediately before the building collapses. You never see a case where explosives go off randomly, and the building remains standing for a while and then collapses. This does not match what was seen at the WTC. Most of the reported ‘explosions’ took place at random times before the collapse. > [@](#): > > Proof #3: The official timeline does not match up with the story we were told of the response. Citation required. > [@](#): > > Proof #4: [Proof](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-I2FO8bLR2Y) of my claim the WTC was having rolling blackouts in the weeks leading up to 911. This is one from the weekend before 911. Unfortunately, I can’t watch videos on the machine I’m on at the moment, so I’ll have to wait to check this out. If you’re talking about the Scott Forbes claim, what you have is one person claiming that there was a power-down, with absolutely no corroborative evidence or other witnesses to this happening. Furthermore, there are [witnesses](http://www.classbrain.com/artfree/publish/article_70.shtml) who claim to have been in the building on that weekend who didn’t notice any such power-down happening. ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/149 "2012-10-05T18:38:26Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > But you said it was thermite which burns and doesn’t explode. Which is it? I’m saying both were used. Thermite or thermate to cut the steel, as the video I linked to clearly shows can be done. Nano-thermite (which is explosive) or regular explosives to finish it. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/150 "2012-10-05T18:40:31Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I’m saying both were used. Thermite or thermate to cut the steel, as the video I linked to clearly shows can be done. Nano-thermite (which is explosive) or regular explosives to finish it. You have yet to provide any evidence that nano-thermite even exists outside laboratory experiments, let alone that it is explosive. You also haven’t demonstrated any reason why anyone would use thermite to cut steel, when it is really bad at doing so and far better methods to cut steel quickly and precisely exist. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/151 "2012-10-05T18:44:44Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > That is just one of many videos, do I really need to link to all of them? There is also the eyewitness accounts from the people in the lobby and basements. You are wrong. I personally know of eyewitnesses in the lobby who saw the aliens that put the bombs in the buildings. The government had nothing to do with it. True though that they were working with the aliens but the aliens did all the actual work. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/152 "2012-10-05T18:45:22Z")
**split p&j,** nothing you are introducing is new to most of us. It has been thoroughly refuted from many angles and by many responsible, knowledgeable people, which doesn’t stop others from repeating it with their fingers in their ears. Much like Whak-A-Mole, it crops up periodically. If you haven’t yet, please read, carefully, [this multi-page site by Popular mechanics.](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842) Note the date that it was written (2005). No new information has come forward since then that would change the obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/153 "2012-10-05T18:53:18Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I’m saying both were used. Thermite or thermate to cut the steel, as the video I linked to clearly shows can be done. Nano-thermite (which is explosive) or regular explosives to finish it. Nano-thermite (if it actually exist outside of labs) was being looked at for thermo baric bombs. Also know as fuel-air explosives. Not the same thing as demolition. At all. I said earlier you had a child’s view of what explosives are and how they are used. Its true. But its the same as most people. Most people are underwhelmed when they see C4 go off. It doesn’t look like the movie explosions they have seen. Its also not as easy as “wiring” a building. An occupied building. It is laughable to think that a building could be wired to explode using thermite, experimental secret government nano-thermite and conventional explosives. In at least 3 occupied buildings. And no one noticed. You have no idea. You have proven you don’t have the start of the idea of what an operation like that entails. ignorance is winning. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/154 "2012-10-05T18:54:32Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > You are wrong. I personally know of eyewitnesses in the lobby who saw the aliens that put the bombs in the buildings. The government had nothing to do with it. True though that they were working with the aliens but the aliens did all the actual work. The Greys or the Greens? ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/155 "2012-10-05T19:00:31Z")
> [@AndrewL](#): > > Iron spheres can be produced by many, many sources, including grinding and cutting metal, which is known to have happened during the cleanup. There are [pictures](http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html)of cleanup crew using thermal lances to cut through steel beams while the debris was being removed. > > Explosions does not necessarily mean explosives. A large office building contains many things that can explode during a fire. The was known to contain generator substations, which included fuel tanks, and large battery banks for power backup. It is also entirely possible that there were compressed air tanks in the machinery spaces. There were likely water tanks, which may have been heated by fire to the point of rupturing. Furthermore, a sound of an explosion does not necessarily mean something exploded. Large metal beams breaking can sound like explosions. Debris falling can sound like explosions. There are eyewitness reports that the bodies of people who jumped out of the upper floors sounded like bombs when they hit the ground. (Some of those reports have been deceptively snipped by truthers and presented as evidence of bombs going off). Cars and trucks around the buildings and in the underground parking garages may have been on fire, and a car or truck tire rupturing in a fire sounds like an explosion. > > The timing of the reported explosions is also not consistent with a demolition. When a building is demolished by explosives, the explosives go off immediately before the building collapses. You never see a case where explosives go off randomly, and the building remains standing for a while and then collapses. This does not match what was seen at the WTC. Most of the reported ‘explosions’ took place at random times before the collapse. > > Citation required. > > Unfortunately, I can’t watch videos on the machine I’m on at the moment, so I’ll have to wait to check this out. If you’re talking about the Scott Forbes claim, what you have is one person claiming that there was a power-down, with absolutely no corroborative evidence or other witnesses to this happening. Furthermore, there are [witnesses](http://www.classbrain.com/artfree/publish/article_70.shtml) who claim to have been in the building on that weekend who didn’t notice any such power-down happening. It is Scott Forbes, but time is the key thing here. I never said the powerdowns occured at the peak tourist times. I’ll even agree with the fact it’s just one man here. If there had of been a real investigation, his claim could have been more throughly checked out. Of course, he is not the only one to make this claim. Before you try to school me about explosions and metal breaking, I’ll tell you that I work for a railroad and heve personally seen both, in high speed derailments. The difference in sound between a propane tank car exploding and trains just crashing into each other is night and day. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/156 "2012-10-05T19:09:14Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > . Of course, he is not the only one to make this claim. I challenge you to find a single other witness who can corroborate his story. The Scott Forbes story is notable in the complete and utter lack of corroborating evidence that should exist if it had happened. The WTC contained among other things several major financial institutions. These are the type of companies that are doing banking business around the clock, every day of the week. The computer systems in those businesses need to stay connected constantly - it’s a huge deal and major amounts of lost money if they don’t. This is why the WTC also contained emergency generators and banks of batteries to keep them going in the case of a power failure. You don’t just shut a company like that down without many people knowing. Preparations need to be made in advance to shift operations to another site. You don’t just tell the financial world you’re taking the weekend off, nobody can do any transactions. Had the WTC actually been shut down for a weekend, there would have been thousands of witnesses and an indisputable paper trail. > [@](#): > > The difference in sound between a propane tank car exploding and trains just crashing into each other is night and day. And yet, for both of them a witness who only heard the event and didn’t know what happened could quite plausibly describe the resulting sound as en explosion. People have reported the sound of a car crash as an explosion, and bodies hitting the ground on 9/11 were said to sound like bombs going off. Someone saying that they heard an explosion is not proof that explosives were used. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/157 "2012-10-05T19:20:40Z")
> [@AndrewL](#): > > I challenge you to find a single other witness who can corroborate his story. > > The Scott Forbes story is notable in the complete and utter lack of corroborating evidence that should exist if it had happened. Not that this proves anything or that I want to have anything to do with crazy theories but one fundamental question applies to any theory including official one – can you find a “single other witness who can corroborate his story”? For example, official line is that Bin Laden “admitted” on tape that he did it? Any witness? I mean, this is just plain silly… ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/158 "2012-10-05T19:26:22Z")
I’m not really seeing how a generator in the basement could explode due to an impact at the top of the building, close to 80 floors away. William Rodriguez says the basement exploded first, then the plane hit. [Here.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_LlJzR2oYI) ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/159 "2012-10-05T19:27:43Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Do you think that evidence linking 9/11 to Bin Laden – considering how much we know of the man and what was presented as “evidence” – would withstand standard court scrutiny? Yes, I think he would have been convicted of conspiracy in connection with 9/11 had he stood trial. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518/160 "2012-10-05T19:28:37Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Not that this proves anything or that I want to have anything to do with crazy theories but one fundamental question applies to any theory including official one – can you find a “single other witness who can corroborate his story”? > > For example, official line is that Bin Laden “admitted” on tape that he did it? Any witness? > > I mean, this is just plain silly… The difference is, if the WTC had been shut down for a weekend, there would be thousands of people involved. Any of those people could come forward and confirm that in fact, their office was asked to shut down for the weekend. None of them have. Nobody has offer photos of the WTC that night showing half of the building mysteriously dark or anything else like that. It’s true that you can’t prove a negative, and the lack of evidence isn’t proof it didn’t happen. What it does mean is that contrary to claims there is no proof of a power shutdown having happened. We have one person claiming it did, and that’s it, no other corroboration or evidence to support the claim. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-truthers-espouse-such-an-out-there-theory/636518.md?page=9)