Skeptic 911 truthers meet

9/11 - RationalWiki

skeptic 911 truthers meet

Even after 15 years, 9/11 conspiracy theories are still going strong. Local 9/11 Truth chapters around the U.S. still meet for potlucks and seminars. of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, who has debated prominent Truther. No matter how many people set out to debunk them, the Truthers will not be the standard explanation has more than met its burden of proof. 9/11 skeptics to meet in Toronto on anniversary 9/11 Studies, are expected to examine various conspiracy theories stemming from the attacks.

Among others, Michael Ruppert [42] and Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker[43] published criticisms or pointed out purported anomalies of the accepted account of the attacks. In Septemberthe first "Bush Did It! It also asserted that unanswered questions would suggest that people within the administration of President George W. Bush may have deliberately allowed the attacks to happen. Weston of the University of Iowa College of Law and others signed the statement.

InVan Jonesa former advisor to President Obama, said he hadn't fully reviewed the statement before he signed and that the petition did not reflect his views "now or ever. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university. Citing academic freedomthe university provost declined to take action against Barrett. Omissions and Distortions written by David Ray Griffinclaimed the report had either omitted information or distorted the truth, providing examples of his allegations.

RJ Lee's report states the spheres are indicative of molten iron. Many of these responses claimed that it ignored key evidence suggesting an explosive demolition, "distorted reality" by using deceptive language and diagrams, and attacked straw man arguments, such as the article by Jim Hoffman entitled Building a better mirage: This was the first such programming on a major cable news station.

Jones was criticized by his university for making his claims public before vetting them through the approved peer review process. He was placed on paid leave and has since retired. Jones and Barrie Zwicker. Fetzera former philosophy professor, and physicist Steven E.

Jones, in December It was a group of people of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks. Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces.

However, only the fires on some of the lower floors — 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 — burned out of control.

skeptic 911 truthers meet

These lower-floor fires — which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed — were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

Conspiracy theorists have also tried to claim that "pull" is standard jargon within the demolition industry to fire off demolition charges within the building; demolition experts have denied this; the usual term would be "shoot it" or "blow it. While the idea of a giant building toppling over like a felled tree is popular in fiction, in reality the structure is designed to bear its weight straight down and in no other direction; throwing a massive building severely out of equilibrium would cause it to fall almost verticallyno matter what direction the initial force was applied from.

It is possible to fell a tall structure like a tree by selectively removing large amounts of support at one side or corner, near the base, but this requires a specific, well-prepared, and overt demolitions plan and either the intent to do so or a horse-doctor's dose of failure.

In the case of the WTC, the upper floors detached and fell through lower undamaged sections, which can be clearly seen until they're obscured by dust and smoke.

skeptic 911 truthers meet

This falling mass would be too large for any one floor below it to stop or substantially redirect. The collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else; and The time it took for the collapse to initiate 56 minutes for WTC 2 and minutes for WTC 1 was dictated by a the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and b the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

The first is the theory that damage to the WTC floor systems caused their progressive collapse, known as the "pancake theory. Neither theory matches the observation that each building appeared undamaged except at its top until it collapsed. The NIST concluded that damage to perimeter support columns initiated the detachment of the floors at and above the fire and impact floors, which subsequently fell into and through the towers.

The claim that a building damaged by metal fatigue cannot collapse vertically does not square with observations of the collapses as they happened, nor the conclusions of experts evaluating the effects of physical damage to and the weakening by unusually high temperatures of critical building structures.

WTC 1, 2 and 7 were not the first steel-framed structures to ever collapse from fire. A controlled demolition would presumably try to avoid such behavior.

Debunking Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

You can see flashes all over Building 7 as the demo charges fire off[ edit ] Rebuttal: You can see flashing What you see is window glass popping out as the floors collapse and compress the air inside. The sun is momentarily reflected in each pane of glass as it falls. Thermite was used to cut structural members in the buildings[ edit ] Rebuttal: This is based on a few pictures of vertical beams that had been sheared off by recovery workers. Although a thermite reaction is highly exothermic, it is nearly impossible to effectively channel it sideways to cut a vertical beam, since it tends to pour straight down as it burns.

9/11 Truth movement

This was later amended to thermate, a variation which includes sulfur, and appeared when there were chemicals were found that matched what was found in the debris.

However, such claims ignore the natural occurrence of these chemicals, do not match the chemical signatures that were found in the debris, and do not have corresponding traces of two major byproducts from thermate, aluminum oxide [note 7] and barium nitrate. Supposed evidence of thermite use is the presence of unreacted thermite in the WTC debris. This, however, comes as close to falsifying the hypothesis of thermite use as one can reasonably get: This criticism has been "answered" by claiming that the unreacted "nanothermite" is indeed merely a trace residue.

But this would require attaching some metric tons [note 8] of thermite to the WTC buildings' structure, in hundreds or even thousands of small packages, with nobody noticing. And even if that were true, the corresponding amount of reacted thermite has simply failed to turn up. Finding thermite educts yet failing to find the appropriate amount of thermite products turns the supposed "proof" of thermite use into a quite robust refutation of thermite use.

In any case, "unreacted thermite" is composed in bulk of elemental aluminum and iron oxide. Commercial aircraft contain enormous amounts of aluminum, and the WTC was an aluminum-clad, steel-cored building. If an airliner crashes at high speed into a large steel-frame building, causing an enormous explosion, fire, and building collapse, we can expect to find aluminum and iron oxide, as well as aluminium oxide and metallic iron, in the debris without any thermite charges being required to explain it.

A more recent truther claim is that traces of red-gray chips and iron-rich microspheres in the WTC rubble are best explained by thermite. This is held as their " smoking gun. Explosions coming out the windows of the towers are indications of an explosive demolition[ edit ] Rebuttal: What happens when you squeeze a concertina? These side-jets of air and dust were not really explosions as such but debris being expelled from the buildings as the floors pancaked on top of each other.

There is a lot of air in a quarter-mile-tall office building, and when compressed it has to go somewhere. Add to that, the Twin Towers were full of water in water mains, toilets, sinks, and beverage machines. Water heated to boiling temperatures expands violently, and if contained, it expands explosively. Water has a high heat capacity which usually precludes rapid heating to boiling temperatures, but the heat of burning jet fuel will force water to heat rapidly to boiling that causes explosions of such objects as unopened soft-drink cans or whiskey bottles.

Such explains many of the explosions that survivors heard. The "pyroclastic flows" of dust indicate that explosives must have been used[ edit ] Rebuttal: A pyroclastic flow is a movement of hot gas. In the context of a volcano, it is usually hot gases containing hot dust and other chunks spreading out. In the context of WTC, these flows were claimed to be the cloud of dust that dispersed during collapse and when the towers hit the ground. Aside from not being hot enough to qualify as a pyroclastic flow see volcanoes and shuttle launchesmost claims try linking it with the controlled demolition theory.

Skeptic Presents: You Can't Handle The Truther

The only thing this debris flow indicates is a fast vertical compression that caused air inside the building to push dust outward over a large area. The same flows can also be seen during controlled demolitions but usually much smaller than what happened at WTC.

It has been estimated that the total mass of sheetrock in the internal walls was on the order of tons US. An enormous cloud of white dust is, therefore, not entirely surprising or unexplainable. Molten steel was found in the basement seven weeks later and jet fuel can't melt steel beams. There is no documented evidence of the presence of actually-melted steel at ground zero.

Most of the reports of "molten steel" found at ground zero were merely references to obviously red-hot solid steel.

In addition, the mix of jet fuel, plastics, rugs, curtains etc. This can be demonstrated by placing an empty aluminum soda can on top of an ordinary campfire. Meanwhile, molten steel is not typically found at the site of buildings that have actually been demolished using "explosives" to sever columns.

Also, the first law of thermodynamics prevents even the super hot molten product of thermite charges from remaining molten long after thermite ignition. Therefore, whatever molten materials were observed at ground zero in the weeks following the collapses, that molten material was not originally present and molten at the time of the collapses it began to melt after the collapses, not before the collapses.

That all being said, a Family plane can carry up to 90, liters of fuel in its hull. It is estimated the two planes had about 28, Liters left in their tanks which is spread all over the hull from the wings to the fuselage for ballast and balance control.

The crash and shredding of the plane hardware caused the fuel to ignite almost instantly. Since it was not a controlled burn it is likely to hit the highest end of the combustion scale at its core, causing simultaneous ignition of anything around that was combustible and causing severe damage to load bearing pillars. In a nutshell[ edit ] Hysterical do-gooders ensured there wasn't enough asbestos in the building[ edit ] This theory, proposed by Steve Milloy [19]immediately accepted by Andrew Schlafly[20] and also promoted by a Russian asbestos mine logo [21] holds that "Big Government," Nanny-Statismhysterical environmentalistslawyers and do-gooders had ensured that spray-on asbestos was not allowed in the WTC buildings, thereby ensuring they were not properly equipped to resist the fires that engulfed the structures.

Asbestos protection of any kind would've not only proven useless, but would have also been dispersed into the air when the buildings collapsed. This contradicts the previous claim. The argument is that if Larry Silverstein had removed the asbestos from the towers in the proper fashion, it would have cost him a huge amount of moneyand officially demolishing the building would have been nearly impossible under New York City laws.

9/11 skeptics to meet in Toronto on anniversary

So when he overheard that the powers that be were plotting to crash a couple planes into his towers, like any good tycoon he sensed an opportunity asbestos removal paid for by the government! This is one of the few bases that truthers provide as a reason to plant explosives in a building that's going to be hit by planes: On July 28, a B bomber, because of poor visibility, crashed into the 80th floor of the Empire State Building. Some truthers seem to think that if a skyscraper survived a similar incident the towers should also have.

The two incidents were very different. Although smaller than the towers were, The Empire State Building is a much heavier building. The Empire State Building is a steel-framed structure with movement-resisting bolted or riveted connections: It was much smaller and far slower than the Boeing airliners which crashed into the Twin Towers. The B is estimated at 9, kg flying kph, versus a Boeing ER AA 11 or UA with a mass of at least 90, kg flying at kph or kph respectively.

This would have given the B 40 megajoules of kinetic energy on impact, while the AA 11 and UA would have delivered 2 gigajoules and 3 gigajoules respectively, resulting in least 50 times the kinetic energy on impact. There was a nuke in the basement[ edit ] Rebuttal: None of the basic characteristics of a nuclear detonation intense flash, thermal pulse, observable radial shockwave, emission of nuclear radiation, or electronic devices being fried by EMPs, etc.

The physics departments of NYU, Columbia, Stuyvesant High School, and every other school in the area would have been all over that with Geiger counters, and most of Lower Manhattan would be uninhabitable for years. Also, to put it in perspective, the PEPCON explosion in Nevada was less than a tenth of the size of the Little Boy explosion at Hiroshima inand not even half the size of the fizzled North Korean nuclear test in That'd have to be one hell of a small nuke, [note 9] and it doesn't even begin to take into account that the tower collapses started from the impact sites, not the basement.