Culture & Society Blog: Debunking Conspiracy Theorists Who Believe 9/11 WASN'T An Inside Job

Sep 10, 2015

Debunking Conspiracy Theorists Who Believe 9/11 WASN'T An Inside Job

Background investigations for this post:

1. Beltway Media Covers Up Reporting On A Bi-Partisan Senate Report Proving We Were Misled Into The Iraq War By The Bush Administration & Jon Stewart Makes Fun Of The Media's Coverup

2. The Fragmentation of Knowledge Part 1 [Or, The case against over-specialization in theory based academics]

3. Fragmentation Of Knowledge 2 - [Or, The case against over-specialization in theory based academics]

4. Major General Albert N. Stubblebine “I can prove that it was NOT an airplane” that Hit the Pentagon

5. A Look At How Easy Is It To Buy The Media & "Scientific" Studies

This is what a demolition looks like:

Does this look familiar?

The following are simple and straightforward answers debunking the belief that 9/11 wasn't an inside job (as GOP conspiracy theorists insist on without being able to read and while supporting people like the GOP and Fox News):

1. 9/11 Wasn't An Inside Job Cause Popular Mechanic Said So

First off, lets be clear that there is nothing in America that can't be bought. The Supreme Court made it legal to spend as much money as one wants on an election (basically, legalized bribery). Spending money on an election means you use the money to buy TV adds and media spotlight, i.e. you can literally buy yourself into political power. But that's another issue (though it may be tied to this one as the decision handing over America to the highest bidder was a GOP led one).

How one can buy a Popular Mechanic "study" (& would have to for something this big... it only costs money to buy the right publicity);
I Smash The Media: A Look At How Easy Is It To Buy The Media & "Scientific" Studies

The Koch brothers are not only one of the biggest buyers of politicians, EPA officials and other things like Fox Business (not a real business channel to begin with, at least not for a democracy but perfect for a dictatorship). We KNOW the Koch Brothers have literally bought studies to prove climate change wasn't real. We know others have too.

Finally, to close part 1 of the proof, a whole list of coverups by the media proving it can be trusted to do an impartial analysis on anything related to the Bush Dynasty

Although time has made it tougher to buy studies to prove climate change is a hoax it has been very easy to buy politicians as bribery is now legal (kinda like Congress's uninvestigated law allowing insider trading for themselves... I think they now just allow it for thier friends in some way). Buying Fox is unnecessary since Rupert Murdoch, Robert Ailes and Karl Rove seem intent on the craziest schemes possible to keep thier cultlike following... but this is America, how long can they keep and maintain a cult using thier fake media? I hope its not forever. Anyways.

Note: A Few Of The Ideas Used By 9/11 Truth Debunkers That Popular Mechanic Proves Is Wrong;

Popular Mechanics: "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires,"

Despite this being an UNPRECEDENTED phenomenon in the world of engineer and architecture... THE MEDIA KNEW BEFORE IT HAPPENED THAT IT WOULD!

Here is video evidence of news anchors/reporters knowing the impossible before it happened...

Popular Mechanics: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).

Doesn't really mater though... the whole building wasn't on fire anyways;

This is what a demolition looks like:

Does this look familiar?

By comparison, this is an image of a building that caught fire in Madrid, Spain;

Here is a close up of the building after a several hours of the fire... the fire is so hot the metal is bending (WTC7 isn't even a tenth as on fire as this building);

This last picture is the same building after the fire has been put out...it's still standing! (WTC 7 was on less fire & still collapsed FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY because of some cartoon NIST came up with using building architecture that does not exist);

2. I Found An Architect That Supports The Official Story Of 9/11

So what if a media channel brings out an architect or an engineer that agrees with the official analysis

Well, since people with a lack of intelligence will probably be in the same proportion amoungst PhDs as as it is amoungst uneducated people, we will probably have to go by the numbers. There is a 'professional qualified architect' on About.com that claims that the WTC towers were basically full or air and that's why the rubble was only 4 stories high. The original height was 110 stories. How any person with a degree can visualize a building 110 stories high compressed into one only 4 stories high when the fire only burned for a couple of hours and really high up, is beyond me. Do I need to repeat that? It was 110 stories high, filled with offices, elevators and steel beams. Clearly our education system is flawed at a fundamental level. Which I will talk about at some other time.

OK. SO where can you find large numbers of architects and engineers to fight the one or two found in the mainstream media? Here is an organization that collects em:

ARCHITECT & ENGINEER SIGNATORIES TO DATE: 2,353 

Response: I got 2,353 Architects & Engineers agreeing with me, how many do you have? 

INFO: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of architects, engineers, and affiliates dedicated to researching and disseminating scientific information about the complete destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, with the ultimate goal of obtaining a truly independent investigation and supporting the victims in their pursuit of justice.- http://www.ae911truth.org/

One thing that I found interesting is that I found even more proof for my fragmentation of knowledge series, i.e. there is an architect on About.com that explains that the reason the debris of the WTC towers was only 4 stories tall was because it was filled with air! I still can't believe a qualified architect would say such a thing but it clearly proves part 1 and part 2 of my proofs that PhD's tend to be incompetent to the same degree uneducated people are.

If the 9/11 attacks were real the buildings would have fallen like this;

Building Demolition Goes Wrong by DiagonalView

... and NOT like a demolition!

The whole argument of the architects and engineers bought by the GOP is that the buildings couldn't have fallen by demolition BECAUSE there was no molten metal found (it's like they were crying for help and no one heard them!).

There were many tons of molten metal captured on camera so this argument is the weakest of them all and a smoking gun in it's own right;

9/11 Mysteries: Citizen Journalists Report On The Molten Steel That Government Investigators Claimed Wasn't There

3. The 9/11 Commission Had No Mention Of WTC 7 Because The Investigation Was Only Of Terror Attacks And That Building Just Fell On It's Own From Fire & Thus Didn't Need An Investigation

This has to be the stupidest debunking ever, 'you can't look at any other strange occurrences on that day because they were not directly linked to the topic under discussion by the mainstream media'. Sounds like something the GOP's lawyers might say. Trying to get someone off on a technicality says alot. Anyways.

Any building falling on 9/11 within the immediate vicinity of the WTC towers should be a cause for concern and investigation. Besides that fact, the fires in WTC 7 were so fierce that they couldn't even be seen and there was almost no falling debris damage caught on camera so the whole excuse if just based on randomly put together thoughts.

We don't have any example of buildings falling like they were made out of paper. We DO have examples of buildings staying up even after burning for days. Which is more likely to be a true that a modern skyscrapper in the immediate vicinity fell from fire by a freak accident eventhough that is architecturally impossible or that some shenanigans must have taken place for the building to fall. Afterall, for something that even the NIST said was historical unprecedented ( The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires ), there was way too much coverage of the buildings fall before it actually fell,

The building wasn't even close enough for falling debris to cause much damage especially when you look at the buildings around it that escaped...

By comparison, this is an image of a modern skyscraper building that caught fire in Madrid, Spain;

Here is a close up of the building after a several hours of the fire... the fire is so hot the metal is bending (WTC7 isn't even a tenth as on fire as this building);

4. Building Wasn't In Free Fall - No Building Was

I heard one person say that the WTC towers fell over 12 seconds and thus couldn't have been demolished. How they think fire could make a modern skyscrapper, without even being totally on fire, to fall in 12 seconds is beyond me but since these sorts of answers tend to come from conservatives it is understandable.

So just focus on this... WTC 7 has been PROVEN to have fallen at freefall, i.e. it was definitely demolished and responses from Rudy Giuliani makes he clear he knew it before hand and covered it up later (with the media's continued help, obviously).

The Proof Of WTC 7 In Freefall

Hundreds of Engineers are saying this: WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

From the video: Uploaded on 12 Feb 2010: [This is a reposting of this video which was taken down from the original site, originally posted in August 2008 just after the release of the final draft of the NIST WTC7 Report, prior to the final version which was altered to admit a 2.25 second period of freefall.]
Proof of something weird going on with Rudy Giuliani that confirms that something is being covered up;

There is Rudy explaining (before running away) howhe knew a building was going to fall but was surprised that it imploded...

This is what a demolition looks like:

Does this look familiar?

5. Media likes to bring out a "licensed" psychologist or psychiatrist who believe (read somewhere) that "conspiracy theorists" have psychological problems such as an 'escape from reality'... as if thier entire field wasn't a joke.

First off, buying any one psychologist can't be as hard as buying whole studies and magzines which we know the GOP have done.

Secondly, the main influence factor is psychologist and doctor/PhD which creates a sort of immediate acceptance the way witch doctors must have. Of course, "having them say" may be a sort of over simplification. It's more like they find a psychologist who agrees with them and have them come on. Not everyone is intelligent no matter how many degrees or years of experience they have.

Thirdly, off the field of psychology is in no way a unified field. And it's biggest achievements in accomplishments seem to have come from outside of it and yet they still haven't achieved prominence (though they are more prevalent today than before).

Fourthly, a psychologist is not qualified to make comments about architecture and engineering and nor can they compete with the military analysis of a Major General. So they have thier place in a cover-up and/or interrogation but should be able to be left standing looking stupid pretty easy for the prepared questioner.

Related post showing the problems with psychiatry & thus revealing a structural problem in the field of psychology:

Fragmentation Of Knowledge 2 - [Or, The case against over-specialization in theory based academics]

Conclusions & Notes;

After completing my investigation on the evidence on 9/11 easily available, I went around provoking people trying to get some responses. I managed to get a bunch of responses ranging from "conspiracy theorist" to it was jet fuel, it was jet fuel, it was jet fuel (a strange response since even the other thing the "9/11 wasn't an inside job" conspiracy theorists since the other item these nuts push is a piece from popular mechanics which, besides having some interesting flaws in it's story, makes it very clear that Jet Fuel wasn't the cause as ANY science student will know that Jet Fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. What is Popular Mechanics response to how the building fell like a pancake? It says there were "pockets" of high heat areas which made an impossible and unprecedented architectural phenomenon happen to not just the two towers hit by the planes but a third building that fell later that day. Fortunately Cheney was able to find "experts" that managed to find a way to "prove" that this unheard of phenomenon happen not just one but twice. Too bad half the country is uneducated in any science or visualization skill otherwise that would have been enough to catch the lie the first time when it was published as that's the only reason Cheney & Bush seem to have gotten away the first time. The second time is the media's responsibility. Anyways, on with the outline).

Since these tend to be the same people supporting the GOP the other side immediately becomes suspicious and starts looking at the evidence (if they don't already know). The GOP, as we know, is the anti-science party as well as being anti-facts that doesn't come out of thier mouthpiece Fox News (covered in detail on this blog and by Jon Stewart).

The Magical Passport Theory;

At no point did I say the jets were decoys. All of my proofs are carefully researched. I did discover that the intense fire in one section of the building that was so hot that it supposedly dissolved the whole building (despite that being IMPOSSIBLE as far as Architect are concerned), did not harm one of the 9/11 attackers passport. The passport managed to avoid all the heat and float out of the building and land ON TOP of the debris that was being carted away at breakneck speed.

It wasn't a 7 second fall but a 12 second fall and that's normal

I've noticed people like to point out that the WTC towers didn't fall EXACTLY at breakneck speed. It's a strange argument. The building wasn't designed to fall from fire - and couldn't have fallen from any sort of fire otherwise it wouldn't have been built (it's a metal skyscrapper for Christs sake!). IN any case, an MIT engineer has explained that it was impossible for the fire to reach the core of the building anyways so the way it fell was impossible anyways so if it fell a little slower than free fall all that proves is that they blew up the bombs slower to create more debris. The falling building is still an architectural impossibility. Here is the MIT engineer explaining this;

9/11 Mysteries: MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse With Forensics

Problem of Personal Belief: "One Engineer Is Enough To Prove Me Right, No Matter How Many Engineers You Bring Against My Belief & The Engineer That Supports my Belief"

The last thing I noticed is people's desperation to find one link or one engineer to back up thier beliefs. I can find many. There's a whole organization filled with hundreds of Architects and engineers saying what I'm saying (I got it form them). ALSO, the BBC documentary on WTC 7 (the post everyone is commenting on without reading) shows very clearly that foreign engineer say the way WTC collapsed is impossible while US Government appointed officials are saying its possible. That's suspicious enough. Even funnier is that basic science can't be denied by any scientific investigation and they try and find a way around it. Thus the most popular explanation by the conspiracy theorists who think 9/11 WASN'T an inside job, i.e. that Jet Fuel caused the collapse is debunked by Popular Mechanics while claiming that it still fell. And the NIST engineer who claims it wasn't an inside job (another crazy conspiracy theorist) had to claim that no molten metal was found at the WTC site DESPITE the tons of footage and eyewitness testimony AND pictures. If you have no proof and you keep making a claim THAT makes you a conspiracy theorist (as people seem to define the word "conspiracy" nowadays - It's the Corporation and Government appointed engineers that are making the conspiracy claims not the others.

A Major General talks about how difficult it was for him to accept the truth but his training in the army forced him to accept the truth that 9/11 is an inside job;

Major General Albert N. Stubblebine “I can prove that it was NOT an airplane” that Hit the Pentagon

(an intelligence general would know if something was a plane or a missile)

Disappearing plane debris;

Maybe the terrorists used a form of magic and made the plane debris sink?