9/11 Conspiracy Thoroughly Debunked

[truthorder]

9/11 Conspiracy Thoroughly Debunked

For those who want to insist that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks, you've had your voice for a while. Now it's time for those of us who believe that you are all paranoid to have ours.

You've told us to "view your evidence" and, at least speaking for myself, I have. I've gone through TONS of it and didn't have to find any links to support my own conclusions that most of the claims are utterly FALSE.

I don't have a problem with people providing good, honest, clean evidence to support their views.

I DO have a problem with people manipulating photos, quoting things out of context, and outright lying about the events that happened on that day. It's not only wrong, but it's a serious, serious slap in the face to all of those who died.

From the article.............

"To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history."

[Glacies]

A nifty read, i must say. thanks for the link. i do love reading about conspiracy theories and the debunking thereof.

[Tengu]

Awesome! Thanks for sharing this info. I'm heading to bed but I will read it all first thing tomorrow. All this 9/11 conspiracy stuff has been thrown at me in the last two weeks and I am not sure what to think at the moment.

[scoobysnack]

9/11 Conspiracy Thoroughly Debunked

that's what you think.

[ZionOracle]

Um, hate to say this but this does not debunk ANYTHING.

Pop Mec's chief editor is the COUSIN of the Chief of Homeland $ecurity and that is NOT a secret!

Sorry, conflict of interest. Can't use Pop Mec.

So basically, you just HELPED the argument, not debunked.

Debunk it and find proof that says otherwise.

The problem is this, those who want to debunk it have not come up with ANYTHING to refute the claims.

I am not a CT, but I've questions. What is so wrong with questions? Atop of that, the OTHER side of this has yet to step up to the podium and offer SOUND answers to so many questions that are still lingering.

[truthorder]

So what if he's the cousin of the Chief of Homeland Security?????

Does that REFUTE the obvious explanations given in the article?

[truthorder]

And here's an example of why I don't trust you conspiracy theorists on this issue. If you people would stick to honest evidence, instead of LIES, then I might be swayed a little bit more.

From the article

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

Now.....if the evidence of a conspiracy is SO solid, then why the need to lie and misrepresent?

[Tengu]

Alright I was able to read your article and do find it quite interesting however it fails to address the two main facts that really bother me about 9/11. Perhaps some of you could give me your ideas. My father inlaw worked for the military for years. I am still not sure exactly WHAT he did as he isn't allowed to talk about it. However I DO know that he showed me photos of the pentagon and pointed to the missile launchers that are situated around the building. The White House has them as well.

I would like to know why those planes weren't just shot down. It doesn't make sense to me how, with our military technology, 4 airplanes could get past our defense systems to cause such havoc. (and before you point to the explaination in that article...I will say now that that doesn't quite cut it for me. I know what our military is capable of. I could see it for the first plane but once the country knew it was under attack...those other planes should have never hit)

The other thing that makes no sense to me is...after looking at the people that were aboard those planes...how some men with box knives can intimidate a crew and it's passengers. A lot of those planes were carrying some extremely knowledgable men including some of our own military personel. I just can't wrap my mind around being aboard a plane and KNOWING that I am going to die and not at least TRYING to stop these men from doing what they did. We've all heard that the people on Flight 93 did stand up to the highjackers. I don't see why this didn't happen on all of the planes.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Tengu

[truthorder]

Okay, here's a logical explanation for you.

The premise and base of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that the governmental elite wanted a war. In order to get their war, they orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 to blame it on Bin Laden therefore giving them a "reason" to deploy the military in actions around the globe.

That's all well and good, but explain this to me......

The planes smashing into the twin towers was enough of an attack by themselves to get the job done.

So it makes little to no sense at all that after the planes had already struck the towers...why they would go ahead and hit the Pentagon as well.

They already had enough incentive for their war, why overdo it? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[truthorder]

The other thing that makes no sense to me is...after looking at the people that were aboard those planes...how some men with box knives can intimidate a crew and it's passengers. A lot of those planes were carrying some extremely knowledgable men including some of our own military personel. I just can't wrap my mind around being aboard a plane and KNOWING that I am going to die and not at least TRYING to stop these men from doing what they did. We've all heard that the people on Flight 93 did stand up to the highjackers. I don't see why this didn't happen on all of the planes.

In the history of aviation, there have been NUMEROUS hijackings. Not a single one of those incidents involved crashing the plane into a building. Pilots and crew are trained to NOT make a bad situation worse and to obey the commands of their aggressors.

The people on Flight 93 already knew that planes were crashing into buildings.

There's a difference from those on the other planes. They didn't know what was happening, and were told to sit still. They were lied to and the hijackers told them that they were going to land at another airport.

[mamacita]

So what if he's the cousin of the Chief of Homeland Security?????

Does that REFUTE the obvious explanations given in the article?

WTF??? as if chief of homeland security's cousin would allow anything in his research that goes against his cousin and could land him in hot water??

Thats like one of charlie sheen cousins being a engineer coming foward to debunk the offical story and not be considered Biased!!

I havent had a chance to look at the site but I will soon!!

Any information is good information..

U no how u said aj lied about seismic movment being recorded is not correct.. Lam institute did report seismic movements during 911, Aj gives a possible connections that if explosives were used that may have caused them.

If the institutes researchers dont want their research to imply the use of explosives its understandable considering that when government funded NIST researching the 911 cause of collapse of the wtc towers, A researcher found that the models of the wtc towers would not collapse in the manner purposed in offical story was fired

Models were giving up on trying to prove the offical story and computer simulations were used ( Interesting )

Edited April 5, 2006 by mamacita

[1Alchemy]

Um, hate to say this but this does not debunk ANYTHING.

Pop Mec's chief editor is the COUSIN of the Chief of Homeland $ecurity and that is NOT a secret!

Sorry, conflict of interest. Can't use Pop Mec.

So basically, you just HELPED the argument, not debunked.

Debunk it and find proof that says otherwise.

The problem is this, those who want to debunk it have not come up with ANYTHING to refute the claims.

I am not a CT, but I've questions. What is so wrong with questions? Atop of that, the OTHER side of this has yet to step up to the podium and offer SOUND answers to so many questions that are still lingering.

Thank you very much for a logical, factual and informational post….

I agree with every bit of it

[Tengu]

Okay, here's a logical explanation for you.

The premise and base of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that the governmental elite wanted a war. In order to get their war, they orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 to blame it on Bin Laden therefore giving them a "reason" to deploy the military in actions around the globe.

That's all well and good, but explain this to me......

The planes smashing into the twin towers was enough of an attack by themselves to get the job done.

So it makes little to no sense at all that after the planes had already struck the towers...why they would go ahead and hit the Pentagon as well.

They already had enough incentive for their war, why overdo it? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I personally do not think the government wanted a war and orchestrated 9/11 to cause one. I am more of the opinion that there was some information in those buildings, that area of the pentagon that they wanted done away with. And that I am still not even sure of. Keep in mind all this conspiracy stuff is still rather new to me and I am still researching (simply out of boredom and nothing else).

However to address your questions. Perhaps there was some information that was deliberately put in that area of the pentagon that they wanted 'removed'. Or perhaps they thought that a simple attack on civilian land might not be enough and they wanted us to think that our government facilities were also under attack. I know for me personally, that day when I was watching all of this...I was scared simply from the WTC attacks and then when the pentagon got hit...I was waiting for military bases to be hit next and of course the White House. It truely felt like someone was starting a war with us....

Not saying you are right or wrong in this....but there are a lot of questions that I think deserve answers. And I really doubt we will ever get those answers....

[1Alchemy]

We’ll get the answers..

They are becoming far too transparent.

Each and everyday they are making huge mistakes and soon, it has to break wide open. But, they have a plan for that too…how they will cover their behinds that is.

However, even that will be transparent.

If some cannot see it, I suppose there is good reason for that (for them)

Their beliefs would be shattered…

[bboy]

The argument is mute. You'll never get the conspiracy theorists to come to realize the truth. Everytime you bring up evidence, or someone's expert opinion, the conspiracy theroists always say, "they are part of the conspiracy and can't be trusted". It's a no win situation. No matter how much evidence you bring forth to refute these conspiracy theorists, they will dismiss it as being part of the conspiracy.

[truthorder]

It's not that "some cannot see it".

It's simply that people who believe in a conspiracy aren't taking whole facts. You are pulling a piece out of one thing, combining it with another, making conjectures along the way, and turning it into one, neat concept which has been orchestrated to your liking.

And when anyone presents any evidence to the contrary, you'll find something in that to fit your own views and turn it around.

I have LOOKED THROUGH ALL OF THE CONSPIRACY EVIDENCE. There is not ONE PLAUSIBLE piece of it that points to a government conspiracy. Not ONE. All we have are pieces of things from here or there that you guys throw together to try and manipulate a big picture.

The government isn't fabricating their story. You guys are fabricating yours.

There was no conspiracy. There were some stupid and idiotic moves. There WERE people warning the people in charge that something was on the horizon, and the people in charge didn't listen.

THAT is their crime. They've been exposed for that, and well they should have.

But to say that they orchestrated the entire thing is absolutely ridiculous. ESPECIALLY when it comes to George Bush. The very people who call him "stupid" have it right. If he's "stupid", then how was he so intelligent to pull this whole thing off right under your noses?

You see? You say and think one thing, but it totally contradicts another. George Bush must be the stupidest genious in history!

[Eggy]

WTF??? as if chief of homeland security's cousin would allow anything in his research that goes against his cousin and could land him in hot water??

Thats like one of charlie sheen cousins being a engineer coming foward to debunk the offical story and not be considered Biased!!

I havent had a chance to look at the site but I will soon!!

Any information is good information..

U no how u said aj lied about seismic movment being recorded is not correct.. Lam institute did report seismic movements during 911, Aj gives a possible connections that if explosives were used that may have caused them.

If the institutes researchers dont want their research to imply the use of explosives its understandable considering that when government funded NIST researching the 911 cause of collapse of the wtc towers, A researcher found that the models of the wtc towers would not collapse in the manner purposed in offical story was fired

Models were giving up on trying to prove the offical story and computer simulations were used ( Interesting )

Sorry but those statements are innacurate and biased on so many levels that its obvious that the only source of information you use is conspiracy sites. I could be wrong though..what sources have you used to counter the CT claims?

[1Alchemy]

The argument is mute. You'll never get the conspiracy theorists to come to realize the truth. Everytime you bring up evidence, or someone's expert opinion, the conspiracy theroists always say, "they are part of the conspiracy and can't be trusted". It's a no win situation. No matter how much evidence you bring forth to refute these conspiracy theorists, they will dismiss it as being part of the conspiracy.

But wait a minute.

I believe it is who you call the conspiracy theorists that come up with the evidence and expert opinions...and, it was who you call conspiracy theorists that asked Bush supporters to come up with some of their own proof...however, when that is debunked (the one single thing I have seen) this is your response?

And, I believe it is who you call the conspiracy theorists that say they are only seeking the truth...they don't stop looking, they read everything (at least I do) and I check out all sides...I am looking further into it than most.

It is my perception that Bush supporters do not seek beyond what is written or said in the news. And, that is dished out by more Bush supporters. (and when I speak of Bush, I am speaking of the whole administration)

[truthorder]

There's where you're wrong.

You continue to speculate that everyone who doesn't believe in a conspiracy is a Bush supporter. While I stand behind any President who is in office, I did not vote for Bush, nor would I vote for him if he were able to run for re-election.

I think his administration is inept on many levels, and his leadership leaves a lot to be desired.

So because I'm against many of the President's policies, please don't lump me in with the "Bush Supporters" group. I most definitely am not one of them.

But when I see these crackpot theories come up where people just pull things out of midair in order to bash the President, I'm gonna speak up about it.

If there's ANY conspiracy, it's the left-wingers who will do ANYTHING to bring down the Republican side.

[1Alchemy]

It's not that "some cannot see it".

It's simply that people who believe in a conspiracy aren't taking whole facts. You are pulling a piece out of one thing, combining it with another, making conjectures along the way, and turning it into one, neat concept which has been orchestrated to your liking.

And when anyone presents any evidence to the contrary, you'll find something in that to fit your own views and turn it around.

I have LOOKED THROUGH ALL OF THE CONSPIRACY EVIDENCE. There is not ONE PLAUSIBLE piece of it that points to a government conspiracy. Not ONE. All we have are pieces of things from here or there that you guys throw together to try and manipulate a big picture.

The government isn't fabricating their story. You guys are fabricating yours.

There was no conspiracy. There were some stupid and idiotic moves. There WERE people warning the people in charge that something was on the horizon, and the people in charge didn't listen.

THAT is their crime. They've been exposed for that, and well they should have.

But to say that they orchestrated the entire thing is absolutely ridiculous. ESPECIALLY when it comes to George Bush. The very people who call him "stupid" have it right. If he's "stupid", then how was he so intelligent to pull this whole thing off right under your noses?

You see? You say and think one thing, but it totally contradicts another. George Bush must be the stupidest genious in history!

Ok, I consider myself to be an average intelligent person…not a genius, and not stupid…so, somewhere above and in between.

Alright, when I first hear something in the news, I first use my common sense and review the issue. I do not read any conspiracy theory news, I do not talk to anyone first so that they influence my thoughts, I come to my own conclusions based on the facts as they come it…

What I find interesting is that in so many cases when I come up with some of my own thoughts, things that just do not make sense about an issue, I then check further into it.

That’s where I begin to see that there are others that also have drawn the same conclusions. Then I read more interesting things about the same issue that are written by well respected people, people in the know…so, I conclude that my first thoughts on the issue were right…but, I think maybe they were not, so I look further into it and read the other sides…and when I see I am being fed a bunch of BS, I go back to what “my” first thoughts about it were…

If you want to call me a conspiracy theorist and if that’s what makes “me” a conspiracy theorist…so be it.

But, in my perception I see it as more of a free thinker…that is someone that uses their own thoughts, life’s lessons, ideas, skills to sort out details, mind, intuition, education and all combined.

I was taught to learn, be open, to educate my self and to make my own determination about an issue that I have a vested interest in… after I have reviewed all the facts.

[mambo132]

Okay, here's a logical explanation for you.

The premise and base of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that the governmental elite wanted a war. In order to get their war, they orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 to blame it on Bin Laden therefore giving them a "reason" to deploy the military in actions around the globe.

That's all well and good, but explain this to me......

The planes smashing into the twin towers was enough of an attack by themselves to get the job done.

So it makes little to no sense at all that after the planes had already struck the towers...why they would go ahead and hit the Pentagon as well.

They already had enough incentive for their war, why overdo it? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Let's say you comitted a murder and you want to get away with it. What you would do is injure yourself and blame it on someone else.

[Eggy]

But wait a minute.

I believe it is who you call the conspiracy theorists that come up with the evidence and expert opinions...and, it was who you call conspiracy theorists that asked Bush supporters to come up with some of their own proof...however, when that is debunked (the one single thing I have seen) this is your response?

And, I believe it is who you call the conspiracy theorists that say they are only seeking the truth...they don't stop looking, they read everything (at least I do) and I check out all sides...I am looking further into it than most.

It is my perception that Bush supporters do not seek beyond what is written or said in the news. And, that is dished out by more Bush supporters. (and when I speak of Bush, I am speaking of the whole administration)

Sorry..the CTs have yet to present ANY evidence. The "experts" cited are in fact not experts in the fields that they are evaluating and show an obvious bias.

The standard for "evidence" that the theorists use is one sided..i.e they hold as "Proof" the conclusions of people not even remotely qualified as credible while dismissing the conclusions of credible scientists trained in the fields of structural engineering, failure analysis, and finite element analysis..where the logic in that??

They try in vein to convince people the few "eyewitness" accounts that kind of support their theory is ample "proof" while at the same time dismissing as not credible the hundreds of eyewitness accounts that counter their claims. Wheres the consistancy in THAT??

Some of your comments seem to unveil the true motivational logic of the typical CT, which is an ideological bias. Statements like "Bush supporters come up with their own proof"...or.." Bush supporters do not seek beyond what is written or said in the news." and "That is dished out by Bush supporters"...It all boils down to ideology for you folks doesn't it?

Its almost like you have absolutely zero understanding of how and who is involved in conducting an investigation. Do you really think it was the "Bush people" who did the investigating? It almost sounds like you do.

I'm not a Bush supporter..never was..never voted Republican in my life and work for bringing a third party into the mix to break the deadlock of the 2 party system...but you probably won't believe that because it doesn't fit your sterotype.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Eggy

[1Alchemy]

Just read what I said above...this is all I can say.

I have exhausted the issue and have pulled more links from sites with very reputable evidence and yes, as well as eye witness statements. There are links all over this board, but I am too lazy to seek them out to show you anymore…lol

[Eggy]

Let's say you comitted a murder and you want to get away with it. What you would do is injure yourself and blame it on someone else.

Well..That explains it..I'm convinced..case closed.

[1Alchemy]

More like the Bush admin would do…a better analogy is =

You would get drunk, run the person you wanted to kill down and then get off on manslaughter. You still might serve a little time, but it’d be for the best this way…because there would be no investigation.

Edited April 5, 2006 by alchemistic