A Guide for the Undecided. Brief Analysis of Common Theories Part 1: WTC

ref

Master Poster
ref
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
2,685
This is a guide for the unsure. If you are not sure what to believe, who is telling the truth. This is an analysis of theories surrounding the WTC in 9/11. This analysis is not taking into account every single small theory. This is a collection of most common theories and their explanations.

I have included an "In Brief" section to each theory, so people won't have to click thousands of links to get information and to keep new readers from exhausting with a huge amount of information. Everything is packed into one single post and everything is linked to further reading.

I will at first write this tight package of most common claims and their explanations concerning the WTC. I might broaden to other issues and write other parts to follow this one. But this is a start.

This is part one, the WTC.


WTC

  • Claim: There were bombs in the building. People heard explosions.
This topic is covered exclusively in these posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2244381&postcount=186
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

There are accounts of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

In Brief: Most of those accounts are about the sound of the towers as they were collapsing, and some are about cars, trucks, etc. that were on fire after the collapses. None have seen actual bombs, or claim nowadays that actual bombs went off. Accounts before the collapse are of bodies from the towers hitting the ground or other structures.

The bomb theory would require a huge risk of getting caught beforehand, starting the explosions from the wrong part of the towers, a huge amount of people who would have to remain silent, a risk of making the explosions too visible and getting caught, enormous amount of wiring. Remember, no one is claiming to have seen or heard actual bombs.

The no bomb theory requires a plane and a fire.
​
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: The lobby was damaged. There were explosions in the basement of North Tower.
Discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40
In Brief: The explosion in the north tower elevator shafts, which damaged several floors, the lobby, and basement levels, was caused by jet fuel. Why risk getting caught by blowing up the basement? What if the collapse started accidentally from there? There is no sense weakening the base, if the collapse should start from the top.

​
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: Larry Silverstein said Pull, meaning they decided to demolish the building.
The quote goes: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
In Brief: They made the decision to pull, which means the Fire Department. Fire Departments don't demolish buildings. Why would Larry Silverstein accidentally admit demolition on a non-live TV-show and not have it edited away. Pull meant the personnel, that had to be pulled from the scene, because WTC 7 showed signs of critical failure.

​
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: WTC 7 had only small, local fires. And no plane hit it. It should have not collapsed.
Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
In Brief: There is a huge amount of eyewitness material comfirming the damage, as well as fires. Also videos from the south side show large amount of smoke from almost each floor.

​
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: WTC 7 was classic Controlled Demolition Style Implosion
Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
In Brief: WTC 7 damaged surrounding buildings. The Penthouse collapsed way before the actual building. The pile was not tidy. Those are not signs of Controlled Demolition. Pictures from the scene confirm this. Those that are not selected to show the scene only after the place was partly cleaned.

​
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: There was Thermite and Molten Metal. Pictures and Steven Jones have confirmed this.
Discussed here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
In Brief: The colour of the material means nothing. The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

The elements that Professor Jones reports finding have already been discovered by other WTC dust surveys, who for the most part don’t seem surprised by their presence. It seems likely that, in all cases, there are other WTC sources that can deliver far more of these elements than you would ever see from thermite/ thermate.

There’s also no clear evidence that the suspect elements are available in proportions that match what you’d expect from a thermite/ thermate reaction.

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

​
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: The Towers shouldn't have collapsed from the impacts and fire. No steel framed building have collapsed due to fire alone. It had to be controlled demolition.
Discussed here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2221280&postcount=214
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm
In Brief: The towers had their unique design. They can not be compared to other buildings, which have not been even damaged by an impact before the fires.

They were hit by airplanes. Their fireproofing was removed from the impact zones. Why would you fireproof steel if fire did nothing to it? The structure was weakened by the impacts and further by the fires. The collapse was not improbable, it was evident.

Controlled demolition is never started from the top. And nothing was controlled in the twin towers collapse. Debris flew everywhere.

​
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: Silverstein Made a Huge Profit from Insurers.
Discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...448&highlight=silverstein+million#post2193448
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/nyregion/08insure.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In Brief: Silverstein is rebuilding. The total cost of the massive project is now estimated at $9 billion.

The insurance proceeds, about $4.6 billion, only covered about half the total cost. The other half had to be made up with a combination of state, federal and private financing.

Where is the profit?

​
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: There were demolition squibs seen when the towers collapsed.
Discussed here:
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
In Brief: A buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris can also have similar effects. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.

The perpetrators would have known that all the cameras would film the event. Why make visual explosions?

​
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: The towers fell at free fall speeds.
Discussed here:
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
In Brief: Neither of the towers fell at so called free fall speed. The surrounding debris fell faster than the towers itself. A huge piece of the core of the north tower can be seen standing for a while after the collapse. This can be confirmed from the collapse videos.

​
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: But what about the concrete? It was pulverized.
Discussed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72894&highlight=pulverized+concrete
In Brief: WTC was not made of reinforced concrete. Towers had steel with 4 inch lightweight concrete floors. An enormous amount of energy was released in the collapse. That energy destroys everything.


​
Recommended reading for the interested:

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
 
Last edited:
Refreshing referrals, refereeing ref refulgently refutes reflexive refuse refrains!
 
Gravy said:
Refreshing referrals, refereeing ref refulgently refutes reflexive refuse refrains!
Click to expand...

By the way, You are to thank for a major part of the reference points made in the WTC post.

Props to our man Gravy. And to other contributors as well. I'll buy you all a beer in case you come to Finland some day. Finnish writers excluded from the offer, no offence! :p
 
I'm starting to blush, I feel the blood rush
to my head. I'm fed up with lies,
I'll squash them like flies.
No byebye's cause you're not wanted,
you've haunted the people for too long.
I'd like to see you all gone.
This one's for the jref, we are not deaf or blind.
We use our mind.
Peace!

Rap for the sceptics. Not for the hectics.
 
Alliteration aside, all analyses are astoundingly acute, amazingly astute, and admirably accomplished.
 
Last edited:
Posted perfect precis, particularly pertinent: promulgates piffle-promoter pounding. Pleasant prospect!:)
 
Great job, Ref...

I'm nominating it and bookmarking it.

A "universal problem solver" for 9/11.
 
I have no idea what it means, but as I always like to rush into things prematurely, I "nominaded" this thread. It sounded official and good. Anywhoo, me thinks this should be some sort of sticky (but Im guessing even proposing it is a faux-pas).

Cheers,
SLOB
 
The dumb part is people think they have to weigh evidence as if you have to decide whether you like the science or not.

Sorry but science wins regardless of my bias. I accept this. Why dont CTers? They have no friggin idea of science. So get off your pc's, stop using lights in your house and stop using your cars.
 
ref:

nice job. I would love to see a complete list of topics along with their "discussed" sections. I could then use this to send people to the various areas they need to read based on answering my MC questions (if any of the dweebs are courageous enough to answer them).

TAM
 
It would be interesting to see truthers reaction to this thread. A thread like this should be posted at the Loose Change forum.
 
The Demon's Head said:
It would be interesting to see truthers reaction to this thread. A thread like this should be posted at the Loose Change forum.
Click to expand...

May I offer a prediction?

"You work for the government"

"You are a disinfo agent"

"You clearly don't know what you're talking about"

etc, etc, etc...

(In one of my latest videos, I was forced to go over the cut beam nonsense. I used the photograph of the workers cutting the beam, at an angle, on a lift, and his only response was to claim it didn't exist- that it was not in the video... that's cognitive dissonance at its best.)
 
Totovader said:
May I offer a prediction?

"You work for the government"

"You are a disinfo agent"

"You clearly don't know what you're talking about"

etc, etc, etc...
Click to expand...

Don't forget:

"Well I don't think so!!


Excellent work, Ref. :)
 
Last edited:
The Demon's Head said:
It would be interesting to see truthers reaction to this thread. A thread like this should be posted at the Loose Change forum.
Click to expand...

Most of the truthers I meet would just yap:

"Its wrong, I saw it on the internet. OWNED"

They always do. Sometimes they change "OWNED" for "CASE CLOSED", but they always use capital letters and they never have a clue.

Cheers,
SLOB
 
Nice post, ref. Things like this are very helpful.

What I'd like to see (and I'd be happy to help put it together) is a big index of truther claims, done in a similar style as TalkOrigins' Index to Creationist Claims. I'm sure this has been discussed in the past, but I don't know what the conclusion was.

It couldn't be that hard to put together a text-based index if all of the savvy folks here addressed a few claims each (we have 11 potential entries just in this thread!), and it'd be nice to be able to refer people to it to avoid seeing the same arguments over and over again.
 
Thanks for the encouraging feedback guys! :)

I am on a vacation this week and I planned to do a similar one with Pentagon and Flight 93. Then after that maybe combine them all into one. Thanks for the advices also. Let's see where we are at the end of the week and what comes out of this.
 
Totovader said:
May I offer a prediction?

"You work for the government"

"You are a disinfo agent"

"You clearly don't know what you're talking about"

etc, etc, etc...

(In one of my latest videos, I was forced to go over the cut beam nonsense. I used the photograph of the workers cutting the beam, at an angle, on a lift, and his only response was to claim it didn't exist- that it was not in the video... that's cognitive dissonance at its best.)
Click to expand...

Those would be typical responses from truthers.

SLOB said:
Most of the truthers I meet would just yap:

"Its wrong, I saw it on the internet. OWNED"

They always do. Sometimes they change "OWNED" for "CASE CLOSED", but they always use capital letters and they never have a clue.

Cheers,
SLOB
Click to expand...

Right. Because if it appears on the internet, it must be true.

;)
 
ref, you compiled a great list of debunking the common myths about the collapse of the WTC.

However, truthers will still believe that the WTC was brought down by demolitions because of a video of a fireman saying there was a bomb in the building. That video is probably the one thing truthers will use as their evidence for controlled demolition.
 
The Demon's Head said:
ref, you compiled a great list of debunking the common myths about the collapse of the WTC.

However, truthers will still believe that the WTC was brought down by demolitions because of a video of a fireman saying there was a bomb in the building. That video is probably the one thing truthers will use as their evidence for controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Well, it is nearly impossible to influence the thinking of a true conspiracist. They always find a way to support their beliefs. I might debunk that statement also, as it has already been debunked in this forum (there were many bomb scares in the area). But they wouldn't believe, or would find something new to support their bomb theories.

Their weapon is youtube and 5,5 year old videoclips. They have no idea, what has happened since then. Something called investigation.
 
Last edited:
ref said:
This is a guide for the unsure.
Click to expand...

Hmm, woo.

A brief analysis is not a guide, it is a decision - for the undecided.

Thats strange, I wouldn't want to influence people unfairly myself. I certainly wouldn't represent a minority view as consensus to try and sneak it through.

Why not point them to a few 'conspiracy theory' sites? They specialise in this kind of thing - it will all be covered there. Let them look at the raw data and make up their own minds, that kind of thing.

Tell them to check out "WTC7 - The Smoking Gun of 9/11" ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954

It's the perfect partner to the new BBC video where they announced the collapse of Building 7 before it happened, a stunning vindication. The gun was already smoking and then this came along ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztvvgT0P2E
 
scooby said:
Hmm, woo.

A brief analysis is not a guide, it is a decision - for the undecided.
Click to expand...

You might want to check out the complete version of my posts here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76025

I have always said, it's not a complete guide. It is a guide through common theories, not all theories. I have dropped the word "Brief" from the title of the final post. That word 'brief' was describing the way claims were analyzed, with an 'In Brief' -section, providing further reading for the interested.

scooby said:
Thats strange, I wouldn't want to influence people unfairly myself. I certainly wouldn't represent a minority view as consensus to try and sneak it through.
Click to expand...

Your views are a minority my friend. If yours were a majority, why didn't any of your monthly protests gather more than 20 people in some isolated cities?

scooby said:
Why not point them to a few 'conspiracy theory' sites? They specialise in this kind of thing - it will all be covered there. Let them look at the raw data and make up their own minds, that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Because those sites lie. Their repeat all the impossible claims.

scooby said:
Tell them to check out "WTC7 - The Smoking Gun of 9/11" ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954
Click to expand...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954

No I won't, because that film has nothing to do with reality or evidence.

scooby said:
It's the perfect partner to the new BBC video where they announced the collapse of Building 7 before it happened, a stunning vindication. The gun was already smoking and then this came along ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztvvgT0P2E
Click to expand...

You should read my reply to this topic in my final post.
 
ref said:
Well, it is nearly impossible to influence the thinking of a true conspiracist. They always find a way to support their beliefs. I might debunk that statement also, as it has already been debunked in this forum (there were many bomb scares in the area). But they wouldn't believe, or would find something new to support their bomb theories.

Their weapon is youtube and 5,5 year old videoclips. They have no idea, what has happened since then. Something called investigation.
Click to expand...

Truthers will ignore the debunking.

Has this short video been debunked?
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4574366633014832928
 
Firestone said:
Yes.

Bomb alarm at Peter Stuyvesant School in NYC on 9/11 in the morning.
No bomb found.
Click to expand...

Okey dokey.

So the truthers were lying again about explosives being in the WTC and being used for demolition. The video is so short that it would make someone think that there were explosives used. Is the video any longer than what it is?
 
The Demon's Head said:
Okey dokey.

So the truthers were lying again about explosives being in the WTC and being used for demolition. The video is so short that it would make someone think that there were explosives used. Is the video any longer than what it is?
Click to expand...
I don't know where the video comes from.

And, of course, the truthers who often use this video to "prove bomb were used" don't bother to research.

Here you have a description of the incident.

There were a number of bomb alarms in NYC on 9/11 and the days after 9/11.
AFAIK no bomb was actually found.
 
Last edited:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Claim: Silverstein Made a Huge Profit from Insurers.
Discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...on#post2193448
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/ny...=1&oref=slogin
In Brief: Silverstein is rebuilding. The total cost of the massive project is now estimated at $9 billion.

The insurance proceeds, about $4.6 billion, only covered about half the total cost. The other half had to be made up with a combination of state, federal and private financing.

Where is the profit?

​
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Where did you get the $9 billion price tag?
NY Post says $3B http://www.nypost.com/seven/0205200...its_towering_3b_regionalnews_tom_topousis.htm
And there is $5B in federal funding going toward the tower.
MSNBC says $1.5B to build, and another $10B in costs over 10 years.
Also the money LS recieved will definently not be going into the tower if he is a smart business man (and I have to assume he is). He would use financing to pay for his portion and may have to put up a small percentage.

I am still undecided on the overall issue, I see problems with both stories (Government & Truthers) but the fact is that LS made money off of this deal. I don't think it helps the truthers case too much but a $4.6B check in the hand of a business man like LS? Come on, he made money off the deal no doubt about it.
 
Without Rights said:
Where did you get the $9 billion price tag?
NY Post says $3B http://www.nypost.com/seven/0205200...its_towering_3b_regionalnews_tom_topousis.htm
And there is $5B in federal funding going toward the tower.
MSNBC says $1.5B to build, and another $10B in costs over 10 years.
Also the money LS recieved will definently not be going into the tower if he is a smart business man (and I have to assume he is). He would use financing to pay for his portion and may have to put up a small percentage.

I am still undecided on the overall issue, I see problems with both stories (Government & Truthers) but the fact is that LS made money off of this deal. I don't think it helps the truthers case too much but a $4.6B check in the hand of a business man like LS? Come on, he made money off the deal no doubt about it.
Click to expand...
Why do truthers almost never check their facts? :confused:

Yes, I know you claim not to be a truther, but your researching skills in this matter seem similar to those of a typical truther.

No, Silverstein did not make money out of the attacks. That's the lie the misnamed "Truth movement" keeps repeating. And you gladly post it here, at least for the second time in two days. :mad:

The $3 billion are for the Freedom Tower. That is only one of five towers Silverstein has to rebuild.
It's in Wikipedia, for god's sake!

Estimate for the rebuilding costs range from "more than $7 billion" to more than $9 billion.
Insurance money will be $4.6 billion.

No profit here.

Actually, precisely because of these losses Silverstein had to give up part of his lease. He would not be able to finance the whole project.

ETA: if you think I'm not very friendly, read this. And don't forget that accusing people without evidence is not very friendly either.
 
Last edited:
Firestone said:
ETA: if you think I'm not very friendly, read this. And don't forget that accusing people without evidence is not very friendly either.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. I think it is very easy to make accusations, when they are against an "organization", with the human face taken from it. It is very easy to make accusations of "murder of 3000 people" against the "government", but much harder to pin that on an individual with a face, a wife, children, a dog, etc...

TAM
 
That $9 billion figure was on the New York Times 8th of February 2007. I linked it there. The link requires a login to the NY times pages. The point is not the exact figure, it is estimated at 8-9-10 billion. The point is, there was no profit made. The insurance money of $4,6 billion will not cover the expenses even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom