9/11 myths debunked . . .

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
By Popular Mechanics.


An excellent article that covers all of the major myths surrounding 9/11 and thoroughly debunks them.


enjoy.





posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I have to admit I had never heard this one before:


The White Jet
CLAIM: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.





B.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
The sad thing is


concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, (he) asked not to be quoted directly.


Some people have gone way over the top on this. His was not the only resonse of that sort.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
wow..i'm glad that mystery has been solved. i just can't believe it took so long for the real truth to come out. it is finaly over and the govt has been vindicated. all the other info about what happened on 911, the physics were all wrong.....obviously. finaly we can sleep at knight knowing that the u.s. govt is only looking out for the saftey of its citizenry.

all i have to say...' " And many are so hoplessly dependent on the system that they wiil fight to protect it"



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
HR - Do you mean like poor Van Romero who has been misquoted repeatedly?


Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." ...
Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."


I really feel for this guy - he demands a retraction, which he got almost immediately and he's still fodder for Rense and crew. His name will be forever linked with a statement he never made.

B.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Thats a great find HowardRoark.

You know, as well as I do, that some will simply dismiss this 'debunking', correct?

A bit of a personal question for you though:
Having read some of your past comments dealing with this subject matter of events surrounding 9/11 and what happened at the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, how difficult was it for you to post this 'debunking' or was it difficult?

Very interesting read, to say the least, and some of it had been covered and mentioned within ATS long before this Popular Mechanics 'debunking' article came into being (based on that I did not see a date for the article).




seekerof



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Seeker it was nice to see somethings that I have been saying all along come out, especially the siesmic stuff.

Most of this is just common sense.



[edit on 8-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
HowardRoark.

Isn't it amazing that we can, at times, differ and yet still find agreement in other matters?

Yes, you are correct in what you have said, in both cases.
Well said HowardR.


Still reading it, btw, very well presented and researched.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
wow !!!

I'm about half way through that article and it's very very eye opening...

thanks for posting it here!!!

I was never one of the "nut" who believed the conspiracy behind 9/11... I'm loving all of this PROOF !!!

GOOD FIND !!



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
oh yeah..... I forgot...




You have voted HowardRoark for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Its about damn time a real news org figured out there was a story here.
Dman fne post Howard roark.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
i'm suprised at all the blanket agreements with the popular mechanics article. there are several rebuttals to the author (jim hoffman) about the things he alleges in the article. portland.indymedia.org...

popular mechanics should be viewed with some skepticism because they more often than not feature articles about new weaponry and the defense contractors that build this stuff. the magazine is a great place to show off misinformation.
george bush sr. has written for popular mechanics in the past.
www.plainlanguage.gov...

the connections between the bush family and the hearsts are also apparent by doing some internet searches.

i'm sure there are facts in the popular mechanics story but a person should not think just because it is a "popular" magazine their words are gospel.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
from PM:


But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F


Where does the 1832°F figure come from? How does anyone know excactly how hot the fires got?


Now from initially "restricted for matters of national security" FDNY transcripts eventually released to the New York Times:



9:25 a.m.

Ladder 15: "Go ahead, Irons."

Ladder 15 Irons: "Just got a report from the director of Morgan Stanley. Seventy-eight seems to have taken the brunt of this stuff, there's a lot of bodies, they say the stairway is clear all the way up, though."

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."





posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
To be honest, there isn't much hard evidence as the site claims. Another point of view and opinions. I have heard others that are much better researched and point to the same theories this site claims to "de-bunk"



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...
and heres an article that debunks the debunkers



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Popular Mechanics is simply playing into the hands of conspiracy theorists when they're analysis is obviously based on speculation and completely flawed.

They state the obvious, Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F.



NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.


Give me a break!
I'm sure the spray-on fireproofing insulation literally jumped off its steal beams in fear when it noticed 800-1500°F fuel fires coming its way.



He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.


Combustible fire burning from flammable materials cannot burn hotter than the maximum temperature rate at which jet fuel burns at. That's like saying holding a candle next to a blowtorch should increase the maximum blowtorch temperature.



"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


I can't believe some of you are accepting this crap! So it was "the stuff" burning afterwards that was responsible for the heat transfer? Once the fire spreads away from the source, the hottest temperature would be at the point of origin (jet fuel) having temperatures significantly decrease once it begins to travel, they're defying physics by claiming the opposite. Plus we all know fire will always burn towards were there is oxygen, following this important bit of physics should have seen large inferno fires pouring out of the airplane impact cavities. Photographic evidence saw no such thing because there was no "stuff" burning consistently transferring 1832°F fires, we can clearly see office chairs, people and even paper unharmed by this magical fire. Also, NIST claims the steel was at 10 percent or less strength when it approaches 1800°F temperatures, yet they forget to calculate their own "x" factor of the spray-on fireproofing insulation.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The sad thing is that this will only convince the real nut-bars that Popular Mechanics is part of the plot, too.

And while we're at it ...

You have voted HowardRoark for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I don't know what to think about how 9-11 happened there is good points on both sides the only thing I am sure of is that Bush used 9-11 to start a war with some country that had nothing to do with it.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
what we're seeing in this thread is classic "OJ" phenomena.....

those that want to believe its a conspiracy will reject evidence to the contrary, and support evidence that supports their beliefs

those that want to believe its not a conspiracy will do the same


in the OJ case, if you believed OJ did it, it was an open and shut case from the time they found 1 glove at the murder scene and 1 glove at his house

if you couldn't believe he did it, you saw him pull dried out leather gloves on OVER LATEX GLOVES, (and he really didn't pull them on that hard did he, knowing it might seal his fate !) and thought if it don't fit I must acquit !


some of us will always see missiles, pods, etc, some of us will see planes and flames



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Syntaxer says:

"Combustible fire burning from flammable materials cannot burn hotter than the maximum temperature rate at which jet fuel burns at. That's like saying holding a candle next to a blowtorch should increase the maximum blowtorch temperature"

No. It's like saying you can use a candle burning at 375 deg F to light an oxyacetylene torch burning at 1500 deg F to ignite phosphorus burning at 4000 deg F.

You are confusing the temperature at which a material starts to burn with the actual heat produced by its combustion. There can be a great difference between the two. How else would you have forest fire temperatures of 1200 deg F in a fire started by a match?

Further, just as a relatively low temperature can ignite material which burns at a substantially higher temperature the the fire which started it, the very act of burning in an enclosed space can trigger partial vacuum, rushing air, and a "firestorm" effect.

"...they're defying physics by claiming the opposite..."

No. A material which ignites at a temperature of X deg and burns at 2X or 3X degrees is not defying any law, either of physics, chemistry, heat transfer, or speed greater than reasonable and prudent. It's just the way the world works.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join