Debate thread for 9/11 Truther issue

[Dardedar]

On my Facebook I posted or shared this picture and blurb on the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer:



"Cover of the Skeptical Inquirer at the printer now. Can hear the "Truthers" sharpening their pencils already."

Now available online. -- Skeptical Inquirer.

A fellow on facebook, let's call him '"T" (who I had extensive exchanges with regarding climate changed) posted this comment in response:

"I would gladly debate this subject with you any day of the week."

Okay "T" (or whatever name you wish to use here), let's begin. And first, a few suggestions:

a) perhaps you should read the article in question (if it's not out already, it will be in days).
b) Don't just pass along a bunch conspiracy claims you've heard. The truth is in the details and investigating the details means examining claims carefully and with detail. So pick a couple that you think have the best merit and focus on making a case for them. Focus on the science, not political distractions.

This is open to all, bring your friends. Best if we can focus on the merits of the issues and not distractions such as long screeds devoted to ranting and insults as quickly happened before.

D.

[JamesH]

This will be fun. Darrel, I have not seen you shread anyone lately.

[Savonarola]

This is open to all, bring your friends.

To all guests and new users:
Please read the three following short posts before submitting messages. The first one outlines the guidelines for using this board and provides links to other pages for additional help. The other two explain what anti-spam measures are in place so that you will understand why you may be having trouble posting URLs or submitting replies.

http://www.fayfreethinkers.com/forums/v ... hp?f=5&t=3
http://www.fayfreethinkers.com/forums/v ... 309#p19309
http://www.fayfreethinkers.com/forums/v ... 308#p19308

Guests and registered users may ask questions regarding posting in the Help forum. Registered users can also ask me for help via private message.

Your cooperation is appreciated.
--Savonarola, FFForums Mod@Large


P.S.: I might be able to waive the three pre-URL post minimum on a by-member basis (but I am not sure). If you can confirm your identity as a human (who is interested in posting here) and don't mind helping me find out if this is possible, send me a private message to that effect.

[Random Nobody]

Search In Plane Site on Google vidoes-> the directors cut(but i don't think it matters)

Lets do this debate in pieces. The first point on contention is the documentary In Plane Site. Lets first discuss the first part about the pentagon. Explain to me how a plane made the hole as described in the documentary. Why do the recreations leave out very important data?

[Dardedar]

Search In Plane Site on Google vidoes-> the directors cut(but i don't think it matters)
Lets do this debate in pieces.

Hello Random, glad you dropped by. I completely agree about doing the "debate in pieces." In fact, I wouldn't be interested in doing it any other way. As one of my favorite quotes goes:

"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." --John Dryden (1631-1700)

In other words, the truth is in the details, not generalizations and mere assertions.

The first point on contention is the documentary In Plane Site.

There are lots of documentaries and they make lots and lots of claims. I am not so interested in watching them because the claims quickly pile up and it would take a great deal of time to investigate those claims, point by point. Having been doing this skeptical stuff for quite some time, and knowing how easy and common it is for people to fall into fooling themselves (usually by isolating themselves from dissenting material and reading the exciting stuff that supports their opinion) there are only a couple points regarding 9/11 problems that I have found interesting enough to spend time looking at. Realize that someone making a documentary and making claims, really accomplishes very little for me (near zero). Hence the need to examine what you are interested in making a case for "in pieces."

Lets first discuss the first part about the pentagon.

Okay, what would you like to tell us about the crash at the pentagon? Be specific.

Explain to me how a plane made the hole as described in the documentary.

I am pretty sure I gave a presentation on this at a meeting several years ago (because this particular claim was interesting to me). But I can't find my notes right now. I think I played a clip that was rather informative about the physics of a plane hitting a concrete structure. Since it is so far outside of our normal human experience, very few people have any idea what such an event entails. They expect to see a cartoon impression on the side of the building. That's not how it works.

You might consider this rather extensive and well referenced analysis the conspiracy claims regarding the Pentagon: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/ ... /pentagon/

See also this issue of Skeptic Magazine from about 5 years ago.

Even snopes has a nice response: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

Why do the recreations leave out very important data?

What important data "Random?" Be specific. Let's hear you state your claim specifically, and then provide supporting evidence for your assertion. Remember, pointing to someone making an assertion in a documentary, counts for very little, almost nothing. But you haven't even done that yet.

D.

[kwlyon]

As a physicist I was a little surprised by the damage done to the pentagon as well. I would have expected WAY more damage. However my surprise does not mean there was some conspiracy. There are a myriad of factors here...I would be very surprised if the plane hit the building directly. I imagine they actually hit the ground in front of the pentagon thus dissipating a great deal of energy. Hope this is helpful.

Also, what important data is left out of the documentaries? If there are omitted details I would suggest they were omitted as it was determined the audience would not find it particularly enlightening. You will have to provide me with details of these "omitted details" and I will do my best to explain the motivation behind *the* omission...but I am willing to bet you wont be able to come up with anything.

[Dardedar]

I imagine [the plane] actually hit the ground in front of the pentagon thus dissipating a great deal of energy.

It did. See the snopes link, and especially the first one I gave. See the picture of the rebuilding.

...what important data is left out of the documentaries?

Calling these conspiracy flicks "documentaries" is being very very charitable.

I am willing to bet you wont be able to come up with anything.

Considering he was too lazy to even provide a link to this film he found persuasive, I don't have high hopes on the follow through.

[Random Nobody]

First of all, i tried to post the link, your forum would not let me. Second please show me picture of the impact of the plane with the ground before it struck the pentagon, I have seen no photos of such claims. There are steel spindles lying at the entrance of the hole that have not been hit and there is no trench in front of them. The snopes site you provided show small thumbnail photos, it does not link to full resolution so that they can be evaluated. Also, have you heard of pilots for 911 truth? They have created a simulator that attempts to recreate the pentagon attack. Thus far no trained pilot has been able to recreate the attack on the simulator. They claim that the speed of approach was too fast to strike such a small target. Also a third point, i have observed on my own account that the size of the explosion at the world trade center was significantly bigger than the one at the pentagon. Both flights were reportedly full of fuel, so the explosions should be of similar size. I"m sure there are other factors that play into account but after evaluation the difference i was curious. Just using the building as reference, the pentagon explosion looks to be 150 to 200 feet while the one at the towers looks to be 500-750 feet. Any clue why there could be such discrepancy? When trying to determine 9/11 truth should we not look at history to help determine our opinion? What should i take from Operation North woods? How can i completely forgot that our country is not against false flag operations and have plan and executed them routinely in our past.

P.S. Let's try to keep insults to a minimum, I'm not retarded.

[Random Nobody]

Also the important data left out of the American Civil Engineers recreation was the concrete walls and the engines. It also did nothing with the tail section after entry.

[Savonarola]

First of all, i tried to post the link, your forum would not let me.

Gee, if only somebody had explained to you how posting links worked...

To all guests and new users:
Please read the three following short posts before submitting messages. The first one outlines the guidelines for using this board and provides links to other pages for additional help. The other two explain what anti-spam measures are in place so that you will understand why you may be having trouble posting URLs or submitting replies.

http://www.fayfreethinkers.com/forums/v ... hp?f=5&t=3
http://www.fayfreethinkers.com/forums/v ... 309#p19309
http://www.fayfreethinkers.com/forums/v ... 308#p19308

If you are unable to follow such a simple directive, why should we accept your conclusions about anything else? If you are unable to understand the anti-spam functions of the board, why should we expect you to understand the much more complicated analyses of damage, flight paths, etc.?

The real irony here is that -- had you simply registered -- your three-post minimum would now be met and you could post URLs. It is doubly ironic, then, that you are in this position after I offered to try working around this minimum for any new member willing but have instead been posting as a guest, who has no chance at all in posting links.

[Random_Nobody]

Your site would be more used if you didn't insult people. I didn't really want to register. I figured you could do a Google search. Your not suppose to accept my conclusion, I'm suppose to convince you that your conclusion is missing information and you should rethink your conclusion. As Darrell has said before the truth is in the details, so lets discuss them. Details like the lack of impact of the plane on the lawn at the pentagon, the size of the initial hole at the pentagon, the incredible difficulty in which the approach of the plane achieved, and the discrepancy between the official story and what we can gather by observation. Let try and be grown ups here and respect one another. I know that you guys do your research and are diligent about finding the truth, and i admit i could be wrong as i hope you can do the same.

[Dardedar]

please show me picture of the impact of the plane with the ground before it struck the pentagon, I have seen no photos of such claims."

RN, my understanding is that it did, but the plane need not have hit the ground before the building in order to go into the ground directly past the wall of the building (at an angle).

What is your point? What is your hypothesis? What are you claiming? Then perhaps you can build a case for, and provide evidence for, *your* claim. There are always going to be gaps, missing information and mistakes. This doesn't mean it is reasonable to leap to some extraordinary conspiracy claim.

They claim that the speed of approach was too fast to strike such a small target.

The Pentagon is not a small target. The plane went three levels deep into the Pentagon. What is your claim? Be specific.

i have observed on my own account that the size of the explosion at the world trade center was significantly bigger than the one at the pentagon.

You've seen the explosion? What is your point? What is your claim?

Both flights were reportedly full of fuel, so the explosions should be of similar size.

Provide evidence for this.

a) First show the explosions were not the same.
b) Show that a plane hitting a combination of concrete building and ground would necessarily cause the same explosion as a plane hitting a mostly steel tower, high in the air.
c) What are you claiming? What is your explanation for the damage to the Pentagon? Be specific.

Let's try to keep insults to a minimum, I'm not retarded.

No one has said you are retarded.

[Dardedar]

Edward Current (self admitted former Truther) explains the building seven collapse in three minutes:

Building 7 Explained

[Dardedar]

Perhaps the best magazine response to 9/11 Truther claims (see cover at the top of this thread) is available to read online:

The 9/11 Truth Movement: The Top Conspiracy Theory, a Decade Later

[Dardedar]

Nice smack of truther stuff:

Was 9/11 an Inside Job?
By David Wong December 10, 2007

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_wa ... e-job.html

[Joeknows]

There are countless pieces of information that we could look at to weaken the official story, and also many pieces that could be used to strengthen it. But we don't have to get into any heady science or complex theories to simply look at how the buildings were struck, and how they fell. You don't hit something on its upper half, and then have its entire base disappear out from under it. The progressive collapse of the floors onto each other was near perfection for the top floor to fall nearly at the speed of gravity until it reached the ground. Mark Pasio actually works out the math (http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/i ... sOf911.pdf) to show how much upward resistance per floor would have met the downward force of the collapse and caused its fall to take longer. But the time it took to collapse reveals almost NO resistance, and an explosion creating enough force to erode all that resistance is just impossible to occur from where the planes struck it. How did it pancake SO perfectly and not slide off towards one side or another that would seem more likely if the structural beams were weakened? Logic, nature, and all evidence suggests that one would weaken before the others, and not have simultaneous breaks on all at once. Why weren't there any sizable pieces afterwards as everything just seemed to vaporize and turn into dust? And not only did it defy the laws of the universe to fall so fast without resistance, it did this twice right in front of us (not counting building 7 that some theorize Flight 93 was intended to collide with, yet that didn't stop it's inevitable fate of demolition, that it shared with the other 2 more popular buildings right next to it). Your building 7 "debunking video" shows a great graphic of how the weighted and hot steel beams could fall, but it still shows all the vertical supports. In the 9/11 collapse there were none of these vertical supports remaining or protruding from the wreckage as there should be. Thus it is suggesting that these vertical support beams were so completely liquified by the explosion, that they fell in upon themselves in the very way that they are designed to be the MOST sturdy. They could break, they could bend, but they don't just sink down into their very own shadow.

[Dardedar]

Joe, all of your claims are rebutted at the links already provided above in this very thread. All you have to do is have the courage to read them, and also the courage and ability to grasp new information that disagrees with your low watt conspiracy mindset. I don't think you're up for it. A couple pokes:

There are countless pieces of information that we could look at to weaken the official story,

Unfortunately, they're all crap, just like what you've posted here.

You don't hit something on its upper half, and then have its entire base disappear out from under it.

Actually you do. That's how gravity works. Things fall down, and when they're real heavy they fall straight down.

The progressive collapse of the floors onto each other was near perfection for the top floor to fall nearly at the speed of gravity until it reached the ground.

Again, your claim is completely flatten at the link provided two posts above yours. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_9_11_ ... ade_later/

Mark Pasio actually works out the math"

Mark Pasio is a conspiracy bullshit artist and a foo foo meister who I have no reason to belief can work out the math without using his fingers and toes. The fellow I provided at the above link, who "works out the math" has the following credentials:
"Dave Thomas, a physicist and mathematician, is president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is currently a scientist/programmer at IRIS/PASSCAL in Socorro, New Mexico, and also teaches classes in physics, psychology, and critical thinking at New Mexico Tech." LINK

upward resistance per floor would have met the downward force of the collapse and caused its fall to take longer.

Dave Thomas says he's exactly wrong. I'm gonna go with him.

But the time it took to collapse reveals almost NO resistance,...

You're wrong.

How did it pancake SO perfectly and not slide off towards one side or another

Where's the magical force that would push it sideways?

Why weren't there any sizable pieces afterwards

Actually there were.

And not only did it defy the laws of the universe to fall so fast without resistance,... [blah blah blah]

Anyway, as I said, I really don't think you have the mental horsepower for the task. You just want to believe foo foo nonsense because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. Boring.