I've seen so many wars about the 9/11 conspiracy, not only on this site, but on many others. I'm just interesting as what has officially been debunked here at ATS.

Off the top of my head I can think of a few.

- the pod

- the fires in WTC7 were not small, they were actually pretty bad.

- Terrorists still alive article by BBC was mistaken idenity (I think at least)

I still do believe firmly that the official story is a complete load of crap. I'm not looking for opinions here, I'm curious as to what else related to the Conspiracy Theories has been debunked.

Thanks

[edit on 19-4-2006 by Barcs]

The 3 that you list.... can you show me an 'official' debunk or are they just opinion? Now I never saw a POD, but was it 'officialy' debunked or debunked by opinion here? Same goes with the fires.They show fires in many images, some look like they are huge, but from word of firefighters who were there, this is not the case.So again, opinion debunk or 'official' debunk.

I dont think you will get anywhere with this because most of this debunk stuff is opinion.There may be a few small things, but nothing big...... scratch that.I think they did debunk the whole Boeing/wallstreet deal.I could be wrong, but I think that one was shown to be just misunderstanding.

My input.

Originally posted by Barcs
Off the top of my head I can think of a few.

- the pod

I don't think the pods have actually been debunked, per se. There are alternate theories that make sense and are more readily acceptable, ie static discharge, but that's different than debunking. I don't argue for the pods, but I know of organizations contacting Boeing and relevant experts for photo analysis and getting eerie replies, so I'm just going to sit that argument out.

- the fires in WTC7 were not small, they were actually pretty bad.

Is there any photographic evidence to back this up?

If not, then neither has the assertion that the WTC7 fires were small really been debunked. I've still seen no fires worse than are shown in images you can pull off of Google or out of NIST releases or etc. I've seen fires on a few bottom floors in pockets here and there and that's about it.

- Terrorists still alive article by BBC was mistaken idenity (I think at least)

This seems to me like a case of doublethink. Debunkers point out that the identities could have been faked, and yet the suspect lists remain the same and media and others continue to refer to the original list as if they were the actual hijackers, no questions asked, no further investigation needed. And still no paper trail on anyone or any organization, save Atta's left-behind bag.

Stolen identities is very plausible to me, and I'll buy that, but that's still different than a debunking. There's a big difference between offering an alternate explanation for something and proving something outright incorrect. I just want to see them try to find who the real hijackers were.


I think the "pull it" argument is pretty worthless considering it's all play on semantics. Another one that's not really debunked, but then not worth the trouble arguing over, either, because you can see it in what you like.

No jews in the WTC on 9/11. That's been debunked.

Q33NY in Wingdings or however that went. That's been debunked too.

The fires in the WTC could have melted the steel. No one argues that anymore, and that would've been impossible. The fact that credible people were asserting it in the first place just goes to show you how stupid "experts" can be.

Heated trusses pushed exterior columns outward. FEMA suggested in its report that heated floor trusses caused expansion that pushed exterior columns outwards and caused buckling. I'm assuming the government dropped this when NIST released its report claiming inward sagging only, and no one from the demo side would really argue sufficiently failed trusses to begin with. It can be said that, from photographic evidence, there was never any appreciable expansion and so this claim is pretty well debunked.

Those are all that I can think of off the top of my head. Most everything else is still disputed.

I'm not sure if any of it has been 'officially' debunked. I know many members on ATS, including myself have had certain theories, but none of which can be construed as officially debunked.

The powers that be (Governments)will not bow down to some of the logic raised here on ATS, or anywhere else for that matter. They gave us their 'officially version of events and we are giving our unofficial versions of events as we see them, and search for the understanding of what actually happened.

Ain't debunking just fun when you are up against Governments?

The claim that " Seismic evidence proves underground explosions" is pretty much a load of fertilizer.

Even if there were more fires in WTC7, no building has ever collapsed due to fire alone. At least not in the fashion WTC7 came down. To me when I looked at the video it looked liked controlled demolition. FEMA wants us to believe that this is the case for both WTC7 and the WTC. I just don't buy it.

Originally posted by Barcs
The Pod - Actually I have no idea about this one. I've read a lot on here about it, and the people who do get accused of being a disinfo agent. One person who posted above misconstrued it with the flashes seen before impact. Just to clerify, the pod is the strange looking buldge seen on the belly of the 2nd plane that hit the WTC.

It's not a strange bulge. It's the wing box, where the wings and landing gear and center wing fuel tank are located. Every 767, and most other commercial planes have that exact same bulge on them.

Originally posted by mrmulder
Even if there were more fires in WTC7, no building has ever collapsed due to fire alone. At least not in the fashion WTC7 came down. To me when I looked at the video it looked liked controlled demolition. FEMA wants us to believe that this is the case for both WTC7 and the WTC. I just don't buy it.

No buildings with comprable structures to WTC 7 have ever existed, period.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No buildings with comprable structures to WTC 7 have ever existed, period.

Regardless that still doesn't mean that fire alone brought down the building. I still find it hard to believe looking at the video.

That is suck bullocks ......
To think that important buildings such as WTC 7 which housed how many IMPORTANT offices and groups, would not withstand a few fires.... That building is very immportant to the CIA, FBI, and others and would be built to withstand a nuke if need be.
Every damn 'official' report makes it seem like WTC 7 was a cheaply constructed building which is was not.I dont care if gas was poured on the entire thing it would NOT have done what it did from fire.Fire would only gut the thing, not make it fall.

Originally posted by SMR
That is suck bullocks ......
To think that important buildings such as WTC 7 which housed how many IMPORTANT offices and groups, would not withstand a few fires.... That building is very immportant to the CIA, FBI, and others and would be built to withstand a nuke if need be.
Every damn 'official' report makes it seem like WTC 7 was a cheaply constructed building which is was not.I dont care if gas was poured on the entire thing it would NOT have done what it did from fire.Fire would only gut the thing, not make it fall.

I agree with SMR. If that building housed the CIA, FBI and other government agencies, as the government and FEMA claimed it did, I'm sure it wouldn't collapse due to fire. If I'm a government official and I want to house my agents in a safe place, I certainly wouldn't put them in a building that could collapse due to fire. Excellent point SMR!

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No buildings with comprable structures to WTC 7 have ever existed, period.

Regardless that still doesn't mean that fire alone brought down the building. I still find it hard to believe looking at the video.

1) the fire protection system for the building included both passive (fireproofing) and active (sprinklers) systems.

After the towers fell, the water pressure in the area dropped and it's doubtfull that the sprinkler systems were working properly.

The fireproofing was only designed to provide 4 hours of protection. The building burned for 7 hours before it collapsed.

The building suffered major damage after being hit by debris from WTC 1.

Originally posted by Barcs

[

Please say you are joking!

So now to support the official theory, the steel from the towers fell into WTC7 and spontaneously combusted causing the whole side of the build to be engulfed in smoke?

What is the proposed mechanism for this "fire" that traveled up every floor, but only stayed on one side of the building?



[edit on 20-4-2006 by 911revisited]

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by SMR
That building is very immportant to the CIA, FBI, and others and would be built to withstand a nuke if need be.

I agree with SMR. If that building housed the CIA, FBI and other government agencies, as the government and FEMA claimed it did, I'm sure it wouldn't collapse due to fire. If I'm a government official and I want to house my agents in a safe place, I certainly wouldn't put them in a building that could collapse due to fire. Excellent point SMR!

ALL buildings can collapse due to a fire.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
ALL buildings can collapse due to a fire.

Then why have all skyscrapers prior to and since 9/11 managed to avoid global collapse from fire?

Forget the Twin Towers and WTC7 for a second, Howard. Explain to us why so many skyscrapers have caught fire on so many floors for so long and remained standing with little structural damage.

What is it about all the other skyscrapers, that allow them to withstand office fires?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The building suffered major damage after being hit by debris from WTC 1.

Can you show me some pictures of this? I have only seen minor damage to the building and those are the small fires.

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by HowardRoark
ALL buildings can collapse due to a fire.

But no building EVER has.

Watch out, Mr. Mulder. You have to be careful with how you word things around Mr. Roark.

You should say "skyscraper," or "steel skyscraper" when you're referencing those specifically. If you just say "building," Howard will have a field day posting pictures of wooden two-story buildings that have burned down.

Just sharing some experience.