Wednesday, February 24, 2010

9/11 Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Theory Debunked

You think it was a U.S. government conspiracy that perpetrated 9/11?

Think the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition?

Well, they weren't.

Here's a few points I'd like you to consider. This isn't entirely comprehensive of course, but I'm not doing all of your research for you.

1) Where was the evidence of the controlled demolition afer the fact? There is always evidence of the explosive devices on the scene after a controlled demo. Yet, no such evidence was ever seen. Wonder why?

2) When do you propose they went into the buildings and planted all of those bombs, and how is that that no one noticed anything either during, or anytime after this operation?

The world trade center tower walls would have had to have been opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses, and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls, on all four sides of the building. Then the walls would have to be closed up.

This all taking place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building?

Really?

And again, say that somehow happened, where was the evidence on the scene?

3) People point to the beams with diagonal cuts as evidence of thermite usage.

Well, the beams were cut.....During the clean up:





4) The towers were designed to withstand impact with a jet.

The towers did withstand the impact.

They were brought down by a combination of the damage sustained during impact, and the fires, both of which resulted in enough structural instability to bring the buildings down.

5) But it looks like a controlled demolition!!!

Turn your sound on, and then watch this 30 second video:



People will compare video of a controlled demo and video of the WTC buildings falling once they start to fall. Well, look at them before that point. When a controlled demolition takes place, the charges are extremely loud and follow each other in sequence. THEN the building falls.

Look at that video. The charges go off for 10 seconds before the building starts to collapse. This was not heard or described by anyone on 9/11, nor during the collapse of Seven World Trade. It is not in any videos or heard by any witnesses.

It was not a controlled demolition.

6) Still somehow think it was? Really?

Explain this:

Why did the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 start from the top of the buldings, where the planes hit??

Controlled demo collapses start from the bottom. Not the top.

There was no controlled demolition, and there was no U.S. government conspiracy.

10 comments:

  1. "Where was the evidence of the controlled demolition afer the fact?"

    First, we must start with the fact that the official investigation looked for no such evidence.

    "Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?...NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."
    NIST FAQ 2006

    However, such evidence has been discovered. The scientific paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" was published last year and details the findings of bilayered red-gray chips found throughout the WTC dust.

    "We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction...After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred."
    Active Thermitic Paper

    "When do you propose they went into the buildings and planted all of those bombs."

    This could have been done at night or on the weekends. As well, the explosives are placed in and around the columns and core structure, not places where regular workers go. It could also have been under the guise of an elevator upgrade or routine maintenance.

    "They were brought down by a combination of the damage sustained during impact, and the fires, both of which resulted in enough structural instability to bring the buildings down."

    There is no evidence to support this. NIST, the agency tasked with investigating the collapse of Twin Towers, stops at the point of collapse initiation.

    And what about the collapse of WTC7? NIST now admits that it did enter a period of free-fall for 2.25 seconds or 8 stories. NIST's computer model does not show this and is therefore invalid.

    Don't you think an actual investigation into 9/11 would be helpful?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The evidence to which I was refering was physical evidence, ie, hardware, not thermite residue.

    As for that paper, did you actually rea dit? If so, your standards of evidence are laughable. You'll accept anything that will confirm, in your mind, your hypothesis. To call that paper 'scientifc' is a travesty.

    It's not peer reviewed, it's not published in a reputable journal, is biased, and, most importantly, the methodology employed in attaining samples is pathetic. They had people mail in samples that were said to be taken from the site. Where is their independent confirmation?

    And the authors' track record prior to this uncscientific piece of crap was already shoddy.

    Btw, if we go ahead and assume these samples are from the WTC site, and are untainted, what did they find? Iron oxide and aluminum in a tower built from steel with an aluminum facade. Do you know where these chips are from? Paint. And somehow this is evidence of a controlled demolition?

    Give me a break.

    ''This could have been done at night or on the weekends. ''

    Right.....

    You ignored the rest of my post, so I'll go ahead and ignore the rest of yours.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It never ceases to amaze me that people still believe this. Paranoia to the Nth degree.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've graduated from amazement to a mixture of sadness and despair.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tanabear, don't be one of those people who rund away from the truth so they can continue to hold onto their preconceived notions.
    It's disingenuous, it's harmful to yourself and others, it's harmful to the purusit of knwoledge, and it's intellectually bankrupt.

    Don't be that guy. I responded here and on your blog. Have the courage face my response.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thought so. Bet you're still clinging to that nonsense though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My blog is no place for viagara spam, Kris.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is it reasonable to assume that the top 15% of a structure "collapsing" down onto the remaining 85% could cause complete & total destruction including pulverizing mass quantities of building materials on the way down. I'm not buyin' it!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Is it reasonable to assume that the top 15% of a structure "collapsing" down onto the remaining 85% could cause complete & total destruction including pulverizing mass quantities of building materials on the way down."

    It's not only reasonable, it's physics. This is a total strawman on your part, because you aren't at all stating what the real position of people like myself if. It's not 15% pulverizing 85%. It's compromised structural integirty giving way to a pancake style collapse which entails one floor falling into the next weakened floor, which gives way under the weight, and then the combined weight of those two falls onto the next structurally compromised floor which then gives way as well, under now twice as much weight.

    This continues on down the line.

    "I'm not buyin' it!"

    Okay, do you wish me to congratulate you? Incredulity is not logically valid as a reason to posit a positive claim (your alternate hypotheses regarding the fall of the WTC buildings).

    You're saying you disbelieve the story, and then feel free to insert your own, based soley upon your incredulity.

    That's a classic argument from ignorance. Skeptisism is one thing. Being incredulous is one thing. Taking an incredulous, sketpical position, and then inserting your own explanation based on said incredulity, is logically fallacious. The best you can do is say you don't believe it, and then research further. Not make up youre own alternative hypothesis.

    This is what many theists do with respect to the origins of life or the universe. They don't accept any of the scientific theories, and/or they jump on the fact that there is still a gap in our knowledge, and then they fill that gap with god. Again, classic argument from ignorance. They ask you how it all happened. You offer the knowledge you do have, and then finish by saying "but we don't have it all figured out yet," and they come back with "aha! you don't know! Well, if we don't have an answer, it must be god!" Or they say, "I don't believe in abiogensis, evolution, or the big bang. So it must have been god."

    An alternative explanation for anything requires evidence that the original explanation is false, not just disbelief/incredulity as well as evidence supporting the posited alternative explanation. "I'm not buying it, therefore this must be true, doesn't cut the mustard, so to speak.

    It's an argument from ignorance. If you disagree, look up the definition of argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and truly think about what you're doing after you do read said definition. If you're honest with yourself, you'll see I am right.

    This doesn't preclude the 'offical story' from being wrong, mind you, but it DOES mean that the way you are approaching what you believe is WRONG. Even if you ended up being 100% correct, your methodology would still be logically invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Those videos have something special behind the main meaning... It's all about ignorance in this society. We can't avoid this themes, we never won't forgive it, specially if we are talking about "terrorists". I will do my best to understand why they did it.

    ReplyDelete

Tell magx01 and the rest of The Thoughtful Gamers what's on your mind!