Shermer was really elegant and sportive while handling this, more than Hitchens when he faced something similar (see "How to deal with a truther video - Hitchens Style").
If Building 7 fell because of a strategically placed office fire, as advocates of the 9/11 cover story claim, then why haven't insurance rates for steel frame structures sky rocketed? Maybe it hasn't come up because those responsible are blissed out on oxytocin from the Zak-Shermer psy ops lab at Professor Griffin's school in California.
Any chance of shermer giving us the definitive answer about how the towers fell from 1 and 2 hour in air fires leaving a knee high rubble pile? 220X1 acre steel and concrete floors and their 220 attendant mazes of trusses turned to micron particles...FROM GRAVITY for the first and last time in history? (ssssch everyone)
it got hit by a falling building? both twin towers fell in on themselves so debris couldnt have landed on WTC7. and there was only 2 floors with fires on them. why dont you stop listening to mainstream media and the 9-11 commission report. trolllll
If by chance one of the more notorious Youtube truthers discovers this video, they'll highjack (irony) this page and add a ton of thumbs down. I'm surprised at how few dislikes there are. Very unusual.
I've seen idiotic "truthers" also. But I see many more idiots in government. But it's a good thing I don't go to idiots for my information. As a rational thinker, I look at evidence, from both sides (or as many different sides as possible), and arrive at a conclusion. There are a lot of very intelligent and rational "truthers" out there as well.
I think Michael should go back and review his baloney detection kit because he falls on his face in this video. For everyone claiming "No scientists!!!" and "No evidence!!!" involved in 9-11 truth, look at this channel. It takes just over an hour to watch the videos that destroy the NIST report using science and experiments. Where is the hard evidence for the official story?
@SpreadingtheMuse Please! I just finished reading that article... and you call that debunking?!? You call that science? Where are their sources? Where is their evidence?Did you look at the link I provided? Also, PM is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors.
YES. Popular Mechanics had more science in a paragraph than ten years worth of dorks yelling "BUSH SUCKS!" pretending that makes them an expert. But how can you "read" the article and not see the sources? THEY'RE AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE. You didnt read anything, and you're a lying sack of shit. Typical.
@SpreadingtheMuse lying sack of shit? thanks for taking the low road.I did read the entire article. And nowhere in that article are the names at the end sourced. It's like if I write this message and then list a bunch of names behind it and call it scientific.That's not how a scientific paper works.Did you know that the senior researcher on the piece, Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Shouldn't that ring an alarm?
@xjen7 The low road is all 911 dorks deserve. You're paranoid fear-mongering GED's at best who worship at the altar of any retarded ITS A HOAX webpage that spoonfeeds you any opinion you want to hear.
Chertoff. Thats where the fear-mongering comes in. I dont give a fucking rats ass who is related to who. And anyone who does is a hoaxaholic dork looking for secret government messages in his alphabet soup. Dont give us any more ammunition to laugh at you than we already have.
@xjen7@xjen7 The low road is all 911 dorks deserve. You're paranoid fear-mongering GED's at best who worship at the altar of any retarded ITS A HOAX webpage that spoonfeeds you any opinion you want to hear.
Chertoff. Thats where the fear-mongering comes in. I dont give a fucking rats ass who is related to who. And anyone who does is a hoaxaholic dork looking for secret government messages in his alphabet soup. Dont give us any more ammunition to laugh at you than we already have.
@xjen7 Popular Mechanics sources, BTW, is a high school text book. Either they said something scientifically inaccurate or they didnt. Did they break a law of physics? Fudge a calculation? WELL PROVE IT. Dont just sit there whining about it. I have yet to see any hoax retard post ANY intelligent rebuttal of either PMs article or their documentary. No science of any kind. They go WELL THEY WERE BOUGHT OFF and pretend that doesnt make them sound like conspiratard tools.
@SpreadingtheMuse I did send you a link that is scientific. Real science by experimentation... did you look at it? No worries though. You have resorted to ad hominem attacks. Your argument falls flat. You are not worth my time. Have a pleasant life.
And you wasted whole post weaseling out of even a single factual rebute of anything Popular Mechanics said. Hoax dorks are all the same. Whining, bluffing, stalling. You havent proven a damn thing in 10 years and you never will.
@xjen7 "Did you know that the senior researcher on the piece, Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Shouldn't that ring an alarm?"
@ConspiracyDebunked and so are brainwashed sheeple with absolutely nothing between the ears but only a dried prune !!! the fucking towers turned to dust in mid air and you think a man in a cave half ways around the world was responsible. Three buildings on the same day just discentigrate in front of our eyes, pulverized to dust..... i think the official story is a proper conspircacy theory....
"mid air" Several thousand tons slamming into the floors would tend to do that. Dont be an idiot on purpose. There's a reason the "hoax" is dependent on a pathetic minority of ostracized morons to stay alive.
Yes, several thousand tons slamming into the floors would tend to do that. Dont be an idiot on purpose. There's a reason the hoax is dependent on a pathetic minority of ostracized morons to stay alive.
@biskalero They didn't turn to dust; that was just the concrete. The metal bits remained relatively unchanged during the collapse.
He admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks, therefore he is responsible for the hijacking and crashing of four airliners. He couldn't have known beforehand that the buildings would collapse (at best, he might have been hoping for it), making the laws of physics directly responsible for the collapse.
@biskalero Considering that Towers 1 and 2 were attacked ~15 minutes apart, that the attacks were nearly identical and that the combined damage and fires make it possible (if not probable or certain) for a collapse to occur, it is not surprising in the slightest that, not only did they collapse on the same day, but that they collapsed within an hour of each other. And although it wasn't attacked directly, WTC 7 did sustain damage during the collapse of the North Tower.
@biskalero In addition to the damage, WTC also caught fire, and these fires would continue to burn throughout the entire day. So, considering that the time when the damage occurred and the fires started was less than two hours from the time of the initial attack and that, like in Towers 1 and 2, the combination of damage and fire make it possible for collapse to occur, it is also not surprising that Tower 7 collapsed on 9/11.
@biskalero In addition to the damage, WTC also caught fire, and these fires would continue to burn throughout the entire day. So, considering that the time when the damage occurred and the fires started was less than two hours from the time of the initial attack and that, like in Towers 1 and 2, the combination of damage and fire make it possible for collapse to occur, it is also not surprising that Tower 7 collapsed on 9/11.
@biskalero In addition to the damage, WTC also caught fire, and these fires would continue to burn throughout the entire day. So, considering that the time when the damage occurred and the fires started was less than two hours from the time of the initial attack and that, like in Towers 1 and 2, the combination of damage and fire make it possible for collapse to occur, it is also not surprising that Tower 7 collapsed on 9/11.
Michael Shermer is my idol and I agree with all of his views except that JFK wasn't a conspiracy. He has the right to deny other outrages crap about 911 or aliens but JFK NOT being killed by the CIA is pure denial.....but like I said that's only one issue, Shermer is awesome.
I don't understand the need to put the 9/11 incident on the US government. All the evidence points towards it being an act of terrorism, and not an act of treason by the government.
None of the other theories checks out as much as the terrorism theory.
I mean come on, the US government hijacking airplanes to blow up the World Trade center, to get an excuse to go to war on terror, that you believe, but that the Bible is a hokes, you don't believe.
@Gnurk If someone likes conspiracy theories, it should be obvious to ask more questions. My favourite question is who has benefits in debunking trust in our free society and governments. My theory is, lol, that muslims and countries like Saudi Arabia or China are very interested in collapsing our Western States.
@TMarche Oh get off WTC7. It got hit by a falling building! There was a fire which was made worse by gas tanks that were in the building. How about you actually come up with an answer. You guys always have questions but never any answers.
fucking 911 truthers is it that hard 2 believe that some sand nigger jihads crashed a plane into an american building?? AAAHHH DERRRRR america has so many retards makes the smart ones look bad
Give it up 'truthers', stop using the controlled demolition arguments with the TTs (I can understand B-7), you look retarded using it because you're wrong and refuse to acknowledge it. They did not fall at freefall speed nor did their collapse look like a CD. You see the buildings quiver from the bottom up w/ CD. Didn't happen with the TTs.
LOL, he states that nobody found any explosives in the debris.. how could they have since it was hastily shipped to China the next day without analysis?.......
@godno1god certainly smarter than you 12-watt dumbass, but Shermer's only argument against anything is appeal to authority and relies on people not checking the facts out for themselves, that's all he really does (oh the official story is full of holes/propaganda? you're c onspiracy theorist)
He stumbled over the question and completely refused to give an acceptable answer. The answers is; Yes, to both questions. Yes the 9/11 commission was a joke that bordered on obstruction of justice, and yes we the people have an obligation to find out what really happened. But asking the skeptics society is like asking a retarded 4 year old - they have no answers, only firmly-held opinions.
I'm disappointed to see the dishonest description "Harass" in the title. One audience member asked a sincere, polite question. Shermer immediately began ridiculing him as a "plant" (talk about conspiracy theories!) and finally responded with inaccuracies and distortions. I've been a Shermer fan for years, and a life-long skeptic, which is why I DO remain concerned with the unanswered and dubiously answered questions about 9/11. "Harassed?" Now you sound like a "persecuted" Christian!
Micheal shermer is the man. Not "the man" like "the man who runs everything", but "the man" as in "the man who is totally awesome and always satisfies".
Though if he were the former, this world would probably be a better place.
I don't get why "truth seekers" would have an agenda like this, i.e. sending their people and try to stea, some publicity from a skeptic Q&A. I guess they want to sell their own books.
The thing I want any "truther" to answer is: Why a controlled demolition? Controlled demolition is hard to do and would be virtually *impossible* to conceal the preparations. If you are going to bring down a building full of people, what do you care if it falls on other buildings on the way down? Why take the trouble and run the risk of discovery in order to kill JUST the people in the WTC?
Hey, Michael, thanks for posting this, but you should also post one of your book signing talks in its entirety. I'd be much more interested in hearing you talking about the your book itself, and related subjects, than fending off "truthers" (etc).
The point is that the truthers claim the building fell just like a controlled demolition, when in fact most, if not all, demolitions are done from the bottom up, there's flashes from the bombs, and there would be left over bomb debris afterwords. The WTC buildings fell from the top, no bomb flashes, and no traces of bombs at ground zero. So to the claim is bogus, to rationalize it, truthers will claim made it LOOK they fell from the plane crashes, hence circular reasoning = flawed argument.
Kinda funny that the "Truthers" aren't interested in the truth. They've already decided what they believe and no matter what you show them, they can't change their minds. Sound like some other dogmatic belief system? :D
For building 7 to to have fallen straight down, so suddenly, so smoothly and so symmetrically in to the direction of the columns, all columns would have to be removed simultaneously in a fraction of a second. There is no other way to make it come down the way it did without some kind of explosives being involved. It’s simply not possible any other way.
@WTFaboutWTC7 Oh you mean the jones-invented "paint chip er..nano thermite" the stuff he keeps promising to send to broadbased labs for testing but never does,only lands up with his sympathizer Harrit,sorry wtf,your standard for evidence is poor and you need to provide evidence of DEVICES that could create the incediary scenario you cant dust the building with nano thermite STUFF and watch it disintegrate, this is bullshit,get evidence or get jones to submit his nanocrap for testing
@WTFaboutWTC7 Besides Harrit was a truther before he checked the dust,have favorite belief,check dust,look for evidence to pander to favorite belief,conveniently avoid having dust checked by neutral parties,no mate piss off
@Asylum31 That would be ridiculous now would it? So what caused not one, not two, but THREE building to turn from full support to zero support. In a fraction of a second.
@WTFaboutWTC7 What, that a 9/11 "truther" used a fallacious argument? Not really. That's actually par for the course, but I digress. Both Towers 1 and 2 survived their respective plane impacts, otherwise, both would have collapsed immediately. What brought down Towers 1 and 2 was the combination of the damage sustained in the crashes and the post crash fires. The collapses of Tower 1 and 2 caused significant damage to many of the surrounding structures (which proves they didn't
@WTFaboutWTC7 collapse into their own footprint). WTC 3 was completely crushed due to both collapses. WTCs 4,5 and 6 were damaged beyond repair and demolished at a later date. WTC 7 recieved severe structural damage during Tower 1's collapse. This also started fires which would remain unfought for the entire day, eventually causing the collapse. So in all three cases, it was damage plus fire.
@WTFaboutWTC7 Also, it wasn't "full support to zero support. In a fraction of a second". The fires slowly weakened the buildings until they reached the point of collapse. This is why the second building to be hit by a plane was the first to collapse. It was trying to support more weight above the damaged section.
@Asylum31 Steelframe structures like the WTC towers ‘which were very robust, can never “collapse immediately” by fire. If they would ever collapse because of fire, it would always be a slow and unsymetrical process and never be completely. The path of destruction was straight down and the columns were “pused out” sideways. Ofcourse all the rubble can never stay within the buildings perimiter. It has to go somewhere doesn’t it?
What part of burning for 90 minutes counts as "collapsed immediately?" This is precisely the cherry-picking of facts and convenient ignorance that exposes hoax pushers as dishonest. Given your prejudicial screenname you're an obvious conspirasheep with no intention of engaging in legitimate discussion.
And unless you have a degree in engineering or physics sticking out of your ass, you're just another mcjob newb cut and pasting OTHER peoples talking points anyway.
@WTFaboutWTC7 Actually there are plenty of photographs that show the horizontal trusses sagging (with this sagging increasing over time) and the vertical columns bowing well before the collapses. Again, not full to zero.
@Asylum31 On the outside ‘besides where the impact zone was, there is no indication what so ever, that the perimiter columns are losing their supporting integrity. They still support the roofline of the building. And in a fraction of a second it goes from full support to zero support. The complete roofline starts to drop straight down in to the path of what was the most resistance.
@Asylum31 So you are saying that the moment a building has less than enough strength to stand that it has zero strength? A bit like standing on a beer glass. It hold's your weight but if it were to break it would lose all it's strength. Does this theory work for other materials like steel? If you stood on a steel can and someone attacked it with a blow torch, would that suddenly drop you to the ground? Maybe.
I believe planes can take down buildings. Its called "Impact," "Kinetic Energy," and "Metal Fatigue," and several other science terms your hoax DVD's didnt bother to explain to you.
@SpreadingtheMuse Please read my comments @Asylum31. I would really like to believe your theory on this. In fact, I wish it was true. It's a much more comferting thought. But I don't see any other explanation for those three buildings to "collapse" the way they did without explosives being involved.
You can "tell" me anything you want about your alleged experience. But there's nothing on your page to support such a claim (unlike my own, which gives a detailed work history with self-produced physics films). Conspiracy lunatics with fabricated resumes are a dime a dozen around here. Your mere say-so isnt enough to convince anyone of anything.
@SpreadingtheMuse I had a peek at your page. It appears your living in a parallel universe. If you ever run in to Philip Zelikow wish him luck. He's going to need it. Anyway experiments disprove ( watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s ) the official theory.
Is a "Parallel Universe" an old indian phrase that means "I'm horribly outclassed by an actual professional so I'll fog the issue by hiding behind even more links to dork hoax videos?" ;)
The universe I live in says personal experience is more valuable than wild guesses of political partisans who scream "911!" with nothing more valid than a Mcjob on the resume.
I'll look at no more links. Dork movies cannot be used as evidence for dork ideas. Conflict of interest.
I could make a video about WTC7, but Popular Mechanics beat me to it. I have yet to see any hoax dufus refute their analysis anywhere or anytime. That is very telling.
This argument was about Shermer's behavior vs the conspiratard behavior. Neither I nor he are required to go through a laundry list of 911 debunks just because you're too lazy to do even rudimentary googling to stay informed.
@SpreadingtheMuse To "believe" something means your not sure. In my opinion it's better to assume. I assume Newton's law is still accurate. By the way, here's your kinetic energy at work: watch?v=JSCwwA2fmpE or watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s
"Assume" is the worst of all intellectual reactions. It has nothing to do with fact and everything to do with personal prejudice, picking the lazy answer that makes you feel better. Thats the best definition of conspiracy idiocy there is.
@WTFaboutWTC7 Can the topic switching,shove the negative evidence,fuck your speculation,let the generic scientists test the dust(which will never happen) and get concrete evidence
@VaiRoth Often when people overreact, start to call others names, call them truther and so on, when someone has a different opinion this is because they are told a side of the story they would rather not hear.
@WTFaboutWTC7 You're worse than a young earth creationist,I live in africa,I couldnt care less whether you're right or wrong about 9 11,what I do give a shit about is the methodology,what I would "rather not hear" so to speak is meaningless due to the above.You're speculating on my viewpoint without being sure,exactly as you do with the whole 9 11 crap,negative evidence,so therefore you form your own conclusion without hard evidence,science and reality dont work that way.
@VaiRoth You seem very insistent that you won't believe WTC7 was a demolition without hard evidence and scientific proof. Fair enough. Did the media use scientific evidence and hard proof to convince you that two planes brought down the three towers? Or do somethings not require proof, is a consensus good enough for you?
@VaiRoth Wow, that was a brief answer. Just two posts up from this one you say that hard evidence and science are required. Now you are satisfied with the simplest explanation which is probably the official one.
Here's a simple explanation, the building was rigged with explosives. A controlled demolition. It fits the videos of the collapse. Occams shaver. Now if you want to go complicating things with questions such as how did the explosives get there then that spoils the simplicity.
@WTFaboutWTC7 Also,you are not remotely interested in facts or going where the data may lead,you have already formed a 100% conclusive story ending in your own head,no amount of evidence will ever satisfy you.Youve formed your own conclusion and are trying to sift throught the available data to shoehorn bits to fit your story,which is exactly why your evidence is so puny and zero hard data.Let the generic scientists test the dust,if it doesnt suit your story you will conclude that its rigged
@WTFaboutWTC7 And how exactly do you go about establishing the truth,by further speculating that I "might not want to hear something"you are now yet another step away from hard evidence.You get some decent concrete evidence and I promise I will listen,plus you will have a good chunk of credibility on your side that you can show to the rest of planet earth that cannot be refuted,speculating on whether i do or dont want to hear something isnt adding to your collection of "evidence"its worsening it
@VaiRoth Johnathan Cole's video ( watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s ) explains why it's not possible. The fundametal laws of phhysics unvail that the way the towers fell is scientifically impossible without the use of some kind of explosives to remove the supprting columns in a fraction of a second. I assume Newtons laws of physics are still accurate. The top section of the building (which was turned in to a dustclowd after four seconds) accelerated through the lower part when it should have slowed down.
@SpreadingtheMuse So you have looked at the timings of say WTC7 and are happy that it's totally falling at free fall as noted by NIST for several floors? Don't you think there would be some resistance?
@SpreadingtheMuse Popular Mechanics bent the facts to suit their model. The fact that they did not time the video frame by frame but instead picked two points, one where something begins to happen to the building and one where the dust has settled showed me their intentions were not honest. It tends to make me lose interest in their findings.
I personally feel that you are being willfully ignorant. It is easy to prove that WTC7 fell at free fall speed for several seconds.
"bent?" I never see anyone say that except obvious conspiracy chasers with obvious axes to grind. I've seen the whole collapse with zero edits and it acts just like Pop Mech said it does.
@SpreadingtheMuse Well if anyone who disagrees is in a category who you dismiss then you won't ever learn anything unless it creeps up on you when you are not prepared. So how do you answer the the claim that the building fell at free fall? Yeah I know, you don't.
Anyone who talks out of their ass with zero education is categorically dismissed by me. Hoax dweebs are overwhelmingly ignorant and inexperienced, and I have yet to be given any justification for respecting anything they pretend to say accordingly.
@WTFaboutWTC7 Cole is full of it. I love that he includes the NASA thermal images without noting that the temperatures recorded by NASA are far below those required to melt steel. He lies when he says that the red-gray chips were "positively identified as nanothermite
@WTFaboutWTC7 One of the arguments for thermite that conspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
@WTFaboutWTC7 One of the arguments for thermite that conspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
@VaiRoth It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Richard P. Feynman. You've seen the experiment.
@Asylum31 I think evidence is relative. If someone else has proof and evidence but you don't then you can ignore it. Sherman says this when he says "if the building does not fall the way you think it should have fallen". What's needed is a common standard by which to judge the evidence. There are tested and agreed upon laws of physics which determine how fast an object falls in free fall. The evidence is available to all of us on YouTube to test for ourselves. Look for WTC7 collapse.
@WTFaboutWTC7 No he doesn't. His experiments are flawed because gravity doesn't scale. Therefore that makes his materials much stronger, proportionally, to the stress forces that they are being put under than the Towers were.
@VaiRoth Wrong, it's the steel that melted. Clearly glowing molten steel can be seen spilling from the building, so the fires were hot enough to melt steel as originally claimed. Only when it was pointed out that the jet fuel fire could not have made the steel white hot and molten was this claim changed to say that steel did not melt but simply got very hot and weaker.
@WTFaboutWTC7 Well I had formed my opinion which by default was the official version without having seen the collapse videos. If not for YouTube I would never have been shown the damning evidence. It's not necessary for something to be scientifically proved to me for me to accept it. However understanding a bit of science I could see from the YouTube videos that the collapse was not as per the official version. That it was clear to me to be explosives involved.
@RavenPrecept Try and tell that to some of the people here... For all I know they are payed to place certain comments to brainwash the less educated or ignorent. And maybe even you are one of them to provoke certain comments from me. : )
@WTFaboutWTC7 Stay suspicious. If this has taught me one thing, it's to question anything that you are expected to just accept. Compare Fukashima to last years volcanic ash cloud. I have no evidence that I can personally grasp that either are real. At least with the ash cloud I could look up and see no planes. I could not see the ash nore can I see the radiation. People are right to mistrust Steven Jones and his evidence. When it comes down to it, gut instinct told me it helped Bush.
"either are real" LOL Please dont tell me you're that big of a conspiratard. ;)
One, the world has better things to do that "Lets find ways to GET stupid youtube dummies!"
Two, what possible job experience do you have to understand any 'evidence' about Fukashima? You one of the retards who think you can cut and paste "RADIATION!" and pretend to be an expert?
You cant hide under your bed like a ignoramus only to then naively wonder why everything goes over your head.
@RavenPrecept I have no reason to mistrust Steven Jones because he's got Sir Isaac Newton on his side. The top section could never ever ACCALERATE through the path of wat was the most resistance.
@SpreadingtheMuse WTC1 and 2 do not look like a conventional demolition being as they start at the top and whizz down the structure. However WTC7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition in that it starts at the bottom and the building collapses neatly stright down and in slightly. Please explain why WTC7 does not look like a controlled demolition. I am not asking you to say that it is or is not, just why it does not look like that.
Unless you're a credentialed demolition engineer, I dont give a flying rats ass what you "think" WTC 7 looked like. You're an attention begging newb until you can prove that you're not.
@VaiRoth I am a conspiracy theorist so saying that generic scientists will never test the dust strikes a cord with me. Why do you think generic scientists will never test the dust?
@RavenPrecept You're getting it completely the other way round,Neils Harrit has dust samples which he claims he will allow generic scientists,yet it never happens,there is no shortage of scientists who are very keen to test the dust Neils has,just he never seems to allow access to it.
@VaiRoth Well if that is the case then that is suspicious. Personally I don't like that Steve Jones who found thermite in the dust. Too slippery. He pulled a fast one on the Cold Fusion people back in the late 1980's.
I still wanna know WTF happened to the planes that didn't hit the WTC. I'm not a truther. I am curious as to what happened to them? I would like to have someone explain how that much debris can "vaporize" so to speak. If you're a truther don't bother answering. I want to know what others think. It's just wierd to me.
@Thayer79 They disintegrate, if plane goes at great speed and hits a hard object it disintegrates. For the one that crash on the ground the speed was very great and is basically vanished like in this video watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY . I don´t know how it can work in the Pentagon, but I gue
Shermer was really elegant and sportive while handling this, more than Hitchens when he faced something similar (see "How to deal with a truther video - Hitchens Style").
ghrabi33 1 week ago
If Building 7 fell because of a strategically placed office fire, as advocates of the 9/11 cover story claim, then why haven't insurance rates for steel frame structures sky rocketed? Maybe it hasn't come up because those responsible are blissed out on oxytocin from the Zak-Shermer psy ops lab at Professor Griffin's school in California.
raprockprof 1 week ago
"Thi is gonna end on youtube or something..." CLEARVOYANCE!
LOL
RiddickTheKiller 2 weeks ago
Any chance of shermer giving us the definitive answer about how the towers fell from 1 and 2 hour in air fires leaving a knee high rubble pile? 220X1 acre steel and concrete floors and their 220 attendant mazes of trusses turned to micron particles...FROM GRAVITY for the first and last time in history? (ssssch everyone)
TODB0AMER 3 weeks ago
it got hit by a falling building? both twin towers fell in on themselves so debris couldnt have landed on WTC7. and there was only 2 floors with fires on them. why dont you stop listening to mainstream media and the 9-11 commission report. trolllll
TMarche 1 month ago 2
OWNED
Greyhipo 1 month ago
These truthers are rabid.
If by chance one of the more notorious Youtube truthers discovers this video, they'll highjack (irony) this page and add a ton of thumbs down. I'm surprised at how few dislikes there are. Very unusual.
HellRehab 1 month ago
According to South Park: the Truther conspiracy is a conspiracy by the government to make it look like the government is in control, but really isn't
breedlove94 2 months ago
Shermer's awesome!
eswyatt 2 months ago
The US government cant be responsible for 9/11
They fuck up everything else so why did this "conspiracy" work then?
WTF is wrong with these people
sonykroket 4 months ago
Truthers are so idiotic.
BlameRepublicans 4 months ago
I've seen idiotic "truthers" also. But I see many more idiots in government. But it's a good thing I don't go to idiots for my information. As a rational thinker, I look at evidence, from both sides (or as many different sides as possible), and arrive at a conclusion. There are a lot of very intelligent and rational "truthers" out there as well.
xjen7 5 months ago
I think Michael should go back and review his baloney detection kit because he falls on his face in this video. For everyone claiming "No scientists!!!" and "No evidence!!!" involved in 9-11 truth, look at this channel. It takes just over an hour to watch the videos that destroy the NIST report using science and experiments. Where is the hard evidence for the official story?
xjen7 5 months ago
@xjen7 oops... this channel /user/physicsandreason
xjen7 5 months ago
@xjen7 And I've seen the "truthers" exposed as idiots as well. Look at the evisceration they got from Popular Mechanics for god sake.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Please! I just finished reading that article... and you call that debunking?!? You call that science? Where are their sources? Where is their evidence?Did you look at the link I provided? Also, PM is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors.
xjen7 5 months ago
@xjen7
YES. Popular Mechanics had more science in a paragraph than ten years worth of dorks yelling "BUSH SUCKS!" pretending that makes them an expert. But how can you "read" the article and not see the sources? THEY'RE AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE. You didnt read anything, and you're a lying sack of shit. Typical.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse lying sack of shit? thanks for taking the low road.I did read the entire article. And nowhere in that article are the names at the end sourced. It's like if I write this message and then list a bunch of names behind it and call it scientific.That's not how a scientific paper works.Did you know that the senior researcher on the piece, Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Shouldn't that ring an alarm?
xjen7 5 months ago
@xjen7 The low road is all 911 dorks deserve. You're paranoid fear-mongering GED's at best who worship at the altar of any retarded ITS A HOAX webpage that spoonfeeds you any opinion you want to hear.
Chertoff. Thats where the fear-mongering comes in. I dont give a fucking rats ass who is related to who. And anyone who does is a hoaxaholic dork looking for secret government messages in his alphabet soup. Dont give us any more ammunition to laugh at you than we already have.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xjen7 @xjen7 The low road is all 911 dorks deserve. You're paranoid fear-mongering GED's at best who worship at the altar of any retarded ITS A HOAX webpage that spoonfeeds you any opinion you want to hear.
Chertoff. Thats where the fear-mongering comes in. I dont give a fucking rats ass who is related to who. And anyone who does is a hoaxaholic dork looking for secret government messages in his alphabet soup. Dont give us any more ammunition to laugh at you than we already have.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@xjen7 Popular Mechanics sources, BTW, is a high school text book. Either they said something scientifically inaccurate or they didnt. Did they break a law of physics? Fudge a calculation? WELL PROVE IT. Dont just sit there whining about it. I have yet to see any hoax retard post ANY intelligent rebuttal of either PMs article or their documentary. No science of any kind. They go WELL THEY WERE BOUGHT OFF and pretend that doesnt make them sound like conspiratard tools.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I did send you a link that is scientific. Real science by experimentation... did you look at it? No worries though. You have resorted to ad hominem attacks. Your argument falls flat. You are not worth my time. Have a pleasant life.
xjen7 5 months ago
@xjen7
And you wasted whole post weaseling out of even a single factual rebute of anything Popular Mechanics said. Hoax dorks are all the same. Whining, bluffing, stalling. You havent proven a damn thing in 10 years and you never will.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@xjen7 "Did you know that the senior researcher on the piece, Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Shouldn't that ring an alarm?"
That is a perfect example of an ad hominem.
Asylum31 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 5 months ago
Very funny, how everyone at the end are rightly demanding the "next question".
baseballplayer1251 6 months ago
Truthers are the fucking antichrist, scum of the earth.
ConspiracyDebunked 7 months ago
@ConspiracyDebunked and so are brainwashed sheeple with absolutely nothing between the ears but only a dried prune !!! the fucking towers turned to dust in mid air and you think a man in a cave half ways around the world was responsible. Three buildings on the same day just discentigrate in front of our eyes, pulverized to dust..... i think the official story is a proper conspircacy theory....
biskalero 7 months ago
@biskalero
"mid air" Several thousand tons slamming into the floors would tend to do that. Dont be an idiot on purpose. There's a reason the "hoax" is dependent on a pathetic minority of ostracized morons to stay alive.
SpreadingtheMuse 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@biskalero
"mid air"
Yes, several thousand tons slamming into the floors would tend to do that. Dont be an idiot on purpose. There's a reason the hoax is dependent on a pathetic minority of ostracized morons to stay alive.
SpreadingtheMuse 7 months ago
@biskalero They didn't turn to dust; that was just the concrete. The metal bits remained relatively unchanged during the collapse.
He admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks, therefore he is responsible for the hijacking and crashing of four airliners. He couldn't have known beforehand that the buildings would collapse (at best, he might have been hoping for it), making the laws of physics directly responsible for the collapse.
Asylum31 7 months ago
@biskalero Considering that Towers 1 and 2 were attacked ~15 minutes apart, that the attacks were nearly identical and that the combined damage and fires make it possible (if not probable or certain) for a collapse to occur, it is not surprising in the slightest that, not only did they collapse on the same day, but that they collapsed within an hour of each other. And although it wasn't attacked directly, WTC 7 did sustain damage during the collapse of the North Tower.
Asylum31 7 months ago
@biskalero In addition to the damage, WTC also caught fire, and these fires would continue to burn throughout the entire day. So, considering that the time when the damage occurred and the fires started was less than two hours from the time of the initial attack and that, like in Towers 1 and 2, the combination of damage and fire make it possible for collapse to occur, it is also not surprising that Tower 7 collapsed on 9/11.
Asylum31 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@biskalero In addition to the damage, WTC also caught fire, and these fires would continue to burn throughout the entire day. So, considering that the time when the damage occurred and the fires started was less than two hours from the time of the initial attack and that, like in Towers 1 and 2, the combination of damage and fire make it possible for collapse to occur, it is also not surprising that Tower 7 collapsed on 9/11.
Asylum31 7 months ago
@biskalero In addition to the damage, WTC also caught fire, and these fires would continue to burn throughout the entire day. So, considering that the time when the damage occurred and the fires started was less than two hours from the time of the initial attack and that, like in Towers 1 and 2, the combination of damage and fire make it possible for collapse to occur, it is also not surprising that Tower 7 collapsed on 9/11.
Asylum31 7 months ago
@biskalero They didn't disintegrate, they collapsed. There is a difference between the two concepts.
Again, only the concrete turned to dust, not the entire building.
How so? The "official story" has evidence that supports its claims.
Asylum31 7 months ago
Why do you still agree with Jesse, though? I proved his very first claim (about 9/11, anyway) to be a lie.
And why don't you think that Al Qaeda could have done it?
Asylum31 7 months ago
Right at the end you can hear him saying "I'm not putting forth any theories." Then what the hell are you doing?
zyxek 8 months ago
dumbass loser with a camcorder
beradification 8 months ago
Michael Shermer is my idol and I agree with all of his views except that JFK wasn't a conspiracy. He has the right to deny other outrages crap about 911 or aliens but JFK NOT being killed by the CIA is pure denial.....but like I said that's only one issue, Shermer is awesome.
kushsmokkeralt 8 months ago
I respect this guy a lot he has always been the a great voice of reason, and never belittles others, regardless whether they need to or not.
hank1972 8 months ago
Comment removed
mixtzin 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't understand the need to put the 9/11 incident on the US government. All the evidence points towards it being an act of terrorism, and not an act of treason by the government.
None of the other theories checks out as much as the terrorism theory.
I mean come on, the US government hijacking airplanes to blow up the World Trade center, to get an excuse to go to war on terror, that you believe, but that the Bible is a hokes, you don't believe.
Gnurk 9 months ago 8
@Gnurk If someone likes conspiracy theories, it should be obvious to ask more questions. My favourite question is who has benefits in debunking trust in our free society and governments. My theory is, lol, that muslims and countries like Saudi Arabia or China are very interested in collapsing our Western States.
Wyga23 9 months ago
@Gnurk idiot. how did WTC 7 collapse then?
TMarche 1 month ago
@TMarche Oh get off WTC7. It got hit by a falling building! There was a fire which was made worse by gas tanks that were in the building. How about you actually come up with an answer. You guys always have questions but never any answers.
saumyab44 1 month ago
fucking 911 truthers is it that hard 2 believe that some sand nigger jihads crashed a plane into an american building?? AAAHHH DERRRRR america has so many retards makes the smart ones look bad
FedorCroCop44 9 months ago
Give it up 'truthers', stop using the controlled demolition arguments with the TTs (I can understand B-7), you look retarded using it because you're wrong and refuse to acknowledge it. They did not fall at freefall speed nor did their collapse look like a CD. You see the buildings quiver from the bottom up w/ CD. Didn't happen with the TTs.
HybridD91 9 months ago
LOL, he states that nobody found any explosives in the debris.. how could they have since it was hastily shipped to China the next day without analysis?.......
DREwestcoast 9 months ago
I must admit, Shermer is a very smart man.
godno1god 10 months ago
@godno1god certainly smarter than you 12-watt dumbass, but Shermer's only argument against anything is appeal to authority and relies on people not checking the facts out for themselves, that's all he really does (oh the official story is full of holes/propaganda? you're c onspiracy theorist)
DREwestcoast 9 months ago
Shermer rocks!
Nakkikassi 10 months ago
He stumbled over the question and completely refused to give an acceptable answer. The answers is; Yes, to both questions. Yes the 9/11 commission was a joke that bordered on obstruction of justice, and yes we the people have an obligation to find out what really happened. But asking the skeptics society is like asking a retarded 4 year old - they have no answers, only firmly-held opinions.
HueyTheDoctor87 10 months ago
I think what Michael just did there is known in the trade as "intellectual ownage".
markoos88 10 months ago 18
@markoos88 ad hominems are intellectual now? you're a fucking idiot
DREwestcoast 9 months ago
@DREwestcoast I hope you realise the outrageous irony in that statement. Haha!
markoos88 9 months ago
I'm disappointed to see the dishonest description "Harass" in the title. One audience member asked a sincere, polite question. Shermer immediately began ridiculing him as a "plant" (talk about conspiracy theories!) and finally responded with inaccuracies and distortions. I've been a Shermer fan for years, and a life-long skeptic, which is why I DO remain concerned with the unanswered and dubiously answered questions about 9/11. "Harassed?" Now you sound like a "persecuted" Christian!
ivyshoots 10 months ago
Sorry I just looked at the "message stream" and that one appeared out side it. Thank you for that.
WillShakespeare2007 10 months ago
lol. the twoofers are so freaking awesome.
KirbyNp 10 months ago
Excellent!!
MISTERASMODEUS 10 months ago
Micheal shermer is the man. Not "the man" like "the man who runs everything", but "the man" as in "the man who is totally awesome and always satisfies".
Though if he were the former, this world would probably be a better place.
uberchops 10 months ago
Micheal Shermer is the man.
uberchops 10 months ago
LOVED your answer, Dr. Shermer! Good job.
dearashad 10 months ago
220 military experts are idiots. Its all juvenile partisan Bush hating. I'm sick of this immature fear-mongering.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
I don't get why "truth seekers" would have an agenda like this, i.e. sending their people and try to stea, some publicity from a skeptic Q&A. I guess they want to sell their own books.
lfgavalas 10 months ago
The thing I want any "truther" to answer is: Why a controlled demolition? Controlled demolition is hard to do and would be virtually *impossible* to conceal the preparations. If you are going to bring down a building full of people, what do you care if it falls on other buildings on the way down? Why take the trouble and run the risk of discovery in order to kill JUST the people in the WTC?
CombinatorialImplosi 10 months ago
Hey, Michael, thanks for posting this, but you should also post one of your book signing talks in its entirety. I'd be much more interested in hearing you talking about the your book itself, and related subjects, than fending off "truthers" (etc).
tommyru 10 months ago
The point is that the truthers claim the building fell just like a controlled demolition, when in fact most, if not all, demolitions are done from the bottom up, there's flashes from the bombs, and there would be left over bomb debris afterwords. The WTC buildings fell from the top, no bomb flashes, and no traces of bombs at ground zero. So to the claim is bogus, to rationalize it, truthers will claim made it LOOK they fell from the plane crashes, hence circular reasoning = flawed argument.
m0destmitch 10 months ago
"Truthers" "Geocentric" "Religion" Providing Humor for hundreds of years #LOL
HighPoweredLasers 10 months ago
Conspiracy theories are the new religious movement of the 21st century...and anyone who disagrees with me is an Illuminati shill! :P
niriop 10 months ago 5
Kinda funny that the "Truthers" aren't interested in the truth. They've already decided what they believe and no matter what you show them, they can't change their minds. Sound like some other dogmatic belief system? :D
laalki80 10 months ago
Nice one shermer
mrchoochoohead 10 months ago
I love you Michael Shermer. You handle trolls so well. =]
riotpatch 10 months ago 3
Skeptics attacking the Darth Vader of Skeptics?
“Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims.”
Provisional: existing only until permanently or properly replaced; temporary
“But Mr. Shermer, how can you say 9-11 was not a inside job, when you cannot even prove your own consciousness exists as an absoulte?”
Eat it Mr. Shermer! Face your own monster. :oD
hsfbunny 10 months ago
Truthers = real life tr0lls
niriop 10 months ago
Truthers are more annoying than almost any wingbat fringe.
powerpopmonkey 10 months ago
For building 7 to to have fallen straight down, so suddenly, so smoothly and so symmetrically in to the direction of the columns, all columns would have to be removed simultaneously in a fraction of a second. There is no other way to make it come down the way it did without some kind of explosives being involved. It’s simply not possible any other way.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Speculation,bring evidence of explosive devices,then different story,but until then,bullshit
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@VaiRoth They've found just that.
Niels Harrit ( watch?v=qgS1_6telNY )
Steven Jones ( watch?v=Shnvs1Nrhdc )
Jeff Farrer ( watch?v=czsRIIbvsao )
Mark Basile ( watch?v=xkr00kS-O6k )
Now what's this stuff doing in the dust?
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Oh you mean the jones-invented "paint chip er..nano thermite" the stuff he keeps promising to send to broadbased labs for testing but never does,only lands up with his sympathizer Harrit,sorry wtf,your standard for evidence is poor and you need to provide evidence of DEVICES that could create the incediary scenario you cant dust the building with nano thermite STUFF and watch it disintegrate, this is bullshit,get evidence or get jones to submit his nanocrap for testing
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@VaiRoth "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" - The Open Chemical Physics Journal.
Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists found nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center.
Chemical Engineer Mark Basile Found Nanothermite in WTC Dust.
I guess people are finding something that appears to be an explosive.
mattghtpa 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Besides Harrit was a truther before he checked the dust,have favorite belief,check dust,look for evidence to pander to favorite belief,conveniently avoid having dust checked by neutral parties,no mate piss off
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@VaiRoth Let me get this right. Do you actually believe that the impact of two planes can completely destroy THREE highrise buildings?
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 It's not about believing, it's about what we know, what we witnessed and the evidence. It's not about what we believe.
melkihasan 10 months ago
@melkihasan Exactly!
And here is a half an hour of Explosive Eyewitness Testimonies.
watch?v=c2cViy34b1A
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Yep. I saw it happen on 11th September 2001.
metalebd 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Yes.
m0destmitch 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Lets get this right. Claiming that it was the planes' impacts which brought down the buildings is a strawman.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@Asylum31 That would be ridiculous now would it? So what caused not one, not two, but THREE building to turn from full support to zero support. In a fraction of a second.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 What, that a 9/11 "truther" used a fallacious argument? Not really. That's actually par for the course, but I digress. Both Towers 1 and 2 survived their respective plane impacts, otherwise, both would have collapsed immediately. What brought down Towers 1 and 2 was the combination of the damage sustained in the crashes and the post crash fires. The collapses of Tower 1 and 2 caused significant damage to many of the surrounding structures (which proves they didn't
Asylum31 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 collapse into their own footprint). WTC 3 was completely crushed due to both collapses. WTCs 4,5 and 6 were damaged beyond repair and demolished at a later date. WTC 7 recieved severe structural damage during Tower 1's collapse. This also started fires which would remain unfought for the entire day, eventually causing the collapse. So in all three cases, it was damage plus fire.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Also, it wasn't "full support to zero support. In a fraction of a second". The fires slowly weakened the buildings until they reached the point of collapse. This is why the second building to be hit by a plane was the first to collapse. It was trying to support more weight above the damaged section.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@Asylum31 Steelframe structures like the WTC towers ‘which were very robust, can never “collapse immediately” by fire. If they would ever collapse because of fire, it would always be a slow and unsymetrical process and never be completely. The path of destruction was straight down and the columns were “pused out” sideways. Ofcourse all the rubble can never stay within the buildings perimiter. It has to go somewhere doesn’t it?
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
What part of burning for 90 minutes counts as "collapsed immediately?" This is precisely the cherry-picking of facts and convenient ignorance that exposes hoax pushers as dishonest. Given your prejudicial screenname you're an obvious conspirasheep with no intention of engaging in legitimate discussion.
And unless you have a degree in engineering or physics sticking out of your ass, you're just another mcjob newb cut and pasting OTHER peoples talking points anyway.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Actually there are plenty of photographs that show the horizontal trusses sagging (with this sagging increasing over time) and the vertical columns bowing well before the collapses. Again, not full to zero.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@Asylum31 On the outside ‘besides where the impact zone was, there is no indication what so ever, that the perimiter columns are losing their supporting integrity. They still support the roofline of the building. And in a fraction of a second it goes from full support to zero support. The complete roofline starts to drop straight down in to the path of what was the most resistance.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@Asylum31 So you are saying that the moment a building has less than enough strength to stand that it has zero strength? A bit like standing on a beer glass. It hold's your weight but if it were to break it would lose all it's strength. Does this theory work for other materials like steel? If you stood on a steel can and someone attacked it with a blow torch, would that suddenly drop you to the ground? Maybe.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept "Full to zero" was not a claim that I made.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
Since when is burning with severe structural damage for 90 minutes counted as 'In a fraction of a second?"
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
I believe planes can take down buildings. Its called "Impact," "Kinetic Energy," and "Metal Fatigue," and several other science terms your hoax DVD's didnt bother to explain to you.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Please read my comments @Asylum31. I would really like to believe your theory on this. In fact, I wish it was true. It's a much more comferting thought. But I don't see any other explanation for those three buildings to "collapse" the way they did without explosives being involved.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
[citation needed]
LarsJanZeeuw 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
Bear in mind, if you're just another mcjob with zero professional experience, why would you expect to understand "without explosives being involved?"
You cant skip a decades education only to then naively wonder why so much goes over your head.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Does it matter if I told you I am an engineer with over 20 years of experience?
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
You can "tell" me anything you want about your alleged experience. But there's nothing on your page to support such a claim (unlike my own, which gives a detailed work history with self-produced physics films). Conspiracy lunatics with fabricated resumes are a dime a dozen around here. Your mere say-so isnt enough to convince anyone of anything.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I had a peek at your page. It appears your living in a parallel universe. If you ever run in to Philip Zelikow wish him luck. He's going to need it. Anyway experiments disprove ( watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s ) the official theory.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
Is a "Parallel Universe" an old indian phrase that means "I'm horribly outclassed by an actual professional so I'll fog the issue by hiding behind even more links to dork hoax videos?" ;)
The universe I live in says personal experience is more valuable than wild guesses of political partisans who scream "911!" with nothing more valid than a Mcjob on the resume.
I'll look at no more links. Dork movies cannot be used as evidence for dork ideas. Conflict of interest.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse With all your experience maybe you could do a video explaining why the fall of WTC7 is how you would expect?
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept
I could make a video about WTC7, but Popular Mechanics beat me to it. I have yet to see any hoax dufus refute their analysis anywhere or anytime. That is very telling.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Personal attacks are not science are they? You have not attempted to explain what happened.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept
This argument was about Shermer's behavior vs the conspiratard behavior. Neither I nor he are required to go through a laundry list of 911 debunks just because you're too lazy to do even rudimentary googling to stay informed.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse To "believe" something means your not sure. In my opinion it's better to assume. I assume Newton's law is still accurate. By the way, here's your kinetic energy at work: watch?v=JSCwwA2fmpE or watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
"Assume" is the worst of all intellectual reactions. It has nothing to do with fact and everything to do with personal prejudice, picking the lazy answer that makes you feel better. Thats the best definition of conspiracy idiocy there is.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Can the topic switching,shove the negative evidence,fuck your speculation,let the generic scientists test the dust(which will never happen) and get concrete evidence
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@VaiRoth Often when people overreact, start to call others names, call them truther and so on, when someone has a different opinion this is because they are told a side of the story they would rather not hear.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 You're worse than a young earth creationist,I live in africa,I couldnt care less whether you're right or wrong about 9 11,what I do give a shit about is the methodology,what I would "rather not hear" so to speak is meaningless due to the above.You're speculating on my viewpoint without being sure,exactly as you do with the whole 9 11 crap,negative evidence,so therefore you form your own conclusion without hard evidence,science and reality dont work that way.
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@VaiRoth You seem very insistent that you won't believe WTC7 was a demolition without hard evidence and scientific proof. Fair enough. Did the media use scientific evidence and hard proof to convince you that two planes brought down the three towers? Or do somethings not require proof, is a consensus good enough for you?
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept occams razor,end
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@VaiRoth Wow, that was a brief answer. Just two posts up from this one you say that hard evidence and science are required. Now you are satisfied with the simplest explanation which is probably the official one.
Here's a simple explanation, the building was rigged with explosives. A controlled demolition. It fits the videos of the collapse. Occams shaver. Now if you want to go complicating things with questions such as how did the explosives get there then that spoils the simplicity.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Also,you are not remotely interested in facts or going where the data may lead,you have already formed a 100% conclusive story ending in your own head,no amount of evidence will ever satisfy you.Youve formed your own conclusion and are trying to sift throught the available data to shoehorn bits to fit your story,which is exactly why your evidence is so puny and zero hard data.Let the generic scientists test the dust,if it doesnt suit your story you will conclude that its rigged
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 And how exactly do you go about establishing the truth,by further speculating that I "might not want to hear something"you are now yet another step away from hard evidence.You get some decent concrete evidence and I promise I will listen,plus you will have a good chunk of credibility on your side that you can show to the rest of planet earth that cannot be refuted,speculating on whether i do or dont want to hear something isnt adding to your collection of "evidence"its worsening it
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@VaiRoth Johnathan Cole's video ( watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s ) explains why it's not possible. The fundametal laws of phhysics unvail that the way the towers fell is scientifically impossible without the use of some kind of explosives to remove the supprting columns in a fraction of a second. I assume Newtons laws of physics are still accurate. The top section of the building (which was turned in to a dustclowd after four seconds) accelerated through the lower part when it should have slowed down.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
As the only professional physicist here, I say the building fell correctly.
You cant just cut and paste big scary words like "Fundamental law of physics" and pretend that makes you an expert.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse So you have looked at the timings of say WTC7 and are happy that it's totally falling at free fall as noted by NIST for several floors? Don't you think there would be some resistance?
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept
"Some resistance" You've obviously never seen the Popular Mechanics computer model of the structure. I wont argue with deliberate willful ignorance.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse - Can you give me a link to the popular mechanics video as I would like to see it - thanks
WillShakespeare2007 10 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007
Its 2 hours long total, here's the link to part 1 to get you started: watch?v=X1Gc_Wyotzw
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007
They start talking about WTC 7 in part 7
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse - Part 7 of what?
WillShakespeare2007 10 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007
Did you see my other post that had the link in it? Here it is again. Thats part 1. Flip thru the links til you find part 7
watch?v=X1Gc_Wyotzw
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Popular Mechanics bent the facts to suit their model. The fact that they did not time the video frame by frame but instead picked two points, one where something begins to happen to the building and one where the dust has settled showed me their intentions were not honest. It tends to make me lose interest in their findings.
I personally feel that you are being willfully ignorant. It is easy to prove that WTC7 fell at free fall speed for several seconds.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept
"bent?" I never see anyone say that except obvious conspiracy chasers with obvious axes to grind. I've seen the whole collapse with zero edits and it acts just like Pop Mech said it does.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Well if anyone who disagrees is in a category who you dismiss then you won't ever learn anything unless it creeps up on you when you are not prepared. So how do you answer the the claim that the building fell at free fall? Yeah I know, you don't.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept
Anyone who talks out of their ass with zero education is categorically dismissed by me. Hoax dweebs are overwhelmingly ignorant and inexperienced, and I have yet to be given any justification for respecting anything they pretend to say accordingly.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept
"Free fall" is a cliche that you cut and paste with zero scientific understanding, pretending to be smart.
How fast SHOULD it have fallen? No hoax nerd has ever answered.
I say it fell fine, and guess what, I'm the one with the Physics degree. :) So sit down, shut up, and let the adults do the thinking. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Cole is full of it. I love that he includes the NASA thermal images without noting that the temperatures recorded by NASA are far below those required to melt steel. He lies when he says that the red-gray chips were "positively identified as nanothermite
And evidence of explosive devices,10 years,zip
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 One of the arguments for thermite that conspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 One of the arguments for thermite that conspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
Dont get your other bit should have slowed down,
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@VaiRoth It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Richard P. Feynman. You've seen the experiment.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 So far, nothing that any "truther" has claimed has been backed up by experiments or evidence.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@Asylum31 I think evidence is relative. If someone else has proof and evidence but you don't then you can ignore it. Sherman says this when he says "if the building does not fall the way you think it should have fallen". What's needed is a common standard by which to judge the evidence. There are tested and agreed upon laws of physics which determine how fast an object falls in free fall. The evidence is available to all of us on YouTube to test for ourselves. Look for WTC7 collapse.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept None of the buildings on 9/11 collapsed at a free fall speed.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@Asylum31 Yes it has. Jonathan Cole explains it perfectly. But that's not what you want to hear.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 No he doesn't. His experiments are flawed because gravity doesn't scale. Therefore that makes his materials much stronger, proportionally, to the stress forces that they are being put under than the Towers were.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@Asylum31 What do you think he should have used : )
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@VaiRoth Wrong, it's the steel that melted. Clearly glowing molten steel can be seen spilling from the building, so the fires were hot enough to melt steel as originally claimed. Only when it was pointed out that the jet fuel fire could not have made the steel white hot and molten was this claim changed to say that steel did not melt but simply got very hot and weaker.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Yeah, how did a dust cloud crush the rest of the structure?
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept And how did the top section (about 30 floors) turn in to a dust cloud? In about 4 secs.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Jet fuel, DUH!
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Well I had formed my opinion which by default was the official version without having seen the collapse videos. If not for YouTube I would never have been shown the damning evidence. It's not necessary for something to be scientifically proved to me for me to accept it. However understanding a bit of science I could see from the YouTube videos that the collapse was not as per the official version. That it was clear to me to be explosives involved.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept Unfortunately for you, explosives were not found.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept Try and tell that to some of the people here... For all I know they are payed to place certain comments to brainwash the less educated or ignorent. And maybe even you are one of them to provoke certain comments from me. : )
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Stay suspicious. If this has taught me one thing, it's to question anything that you are expected to just accept. Compare Fukashima to last years volcanic ash cloud. I have no evidence that I can personally grasp that either are real. At least with the ash cloud I could look up and see no planes. I could not see the ash nore can I see the radiation. People are right to mistrust Steven Jones and his evidence. When it comes down to it, gut instinct told me it helped Bush.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept
"either are real" LOL Please dont tell me you're that big of a conspiratard. ;)
One, the world has better things to do that "Lets find ways to GET stupid youtube dummies!"
Two, what possible job experience do you have to understand any 'evidence' about Fukashima? You one of the retards who think you can cut and paste "RADIATION!" and pretend to be an expert?
You cant hide under your bed like a ignoramus only to then naively wonder why everything goes over your head.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept I have no reason to mistrust Steven Jones because he's got Sir Isaac Newton on his side. The top section could never ever ACCALERATE through the path of wat was the most resistance.
WTFaboutWTC7 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 Disappeared behind a dust cloud, actually.
Asylum31 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7
The video you linked showed obvious controlled demolitions which looked nothing like WTC7 by any stretch. So whose side are you on? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse WTC1 and 2 do not look like a conventional demolition being as they start at the top and whizz down the structure. However WTC7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition in that it starts at the bottom and the building collapses neatly stright down and in slightly. Please explain why WTC7 does not look like a controlled demolition. I am not asking you to say that it is or is not, just why it does not look like that.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept
Unless you're a credentialed demolition engineer, I dont give a flying rats ass what you "think" WTC 7 looked like. You're an attention begging newb until you can prove that you're not.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@VaiRoth I am a conspiracy theorist so saying that generic scientists will never test the dust strikes a cord with me. Why do you think generic scientists will never test the dust?
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@RavenPrecept You're getting it completely the other way round,Neils Harrit has dust samples which he claims he will allow generic scientists,yet it never happens,there is no shortage of scientists who are very keen to test the dust Neils has,just he never seems to allow access to it.
VaiRoth 10 months ago
@VaiRoth Well if that is the case then that is suspicious. Personally I don't like that Steve Jones who found thermite in the dust. Too slippery. He pulled a fast one on the Cold Fusion people back in the late 1980's.
RavenPrecept 10 months ago
@WTFaboutWTC7 try debunking 911 dot com / pull dot htm
VaiRoth 10 months ago
I still wanna know WTF happened to the planes that didn't hit the WTC. I'm not a truther. I am curious as to what happened to them? I would like to have someone explain how that much debris can "vaporize" so to speak. If you're a truther don't bother answering. I want to know what others think. It's just wierd to me.
Thayer79 10 months ago
@Thayer79 They disintegrate, if plane goes at great speed and hits a hard object it disintegrates. For the one that crash on the ground the speed was very great and is basically vanished like in this video watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY . I don´t know how it can work in the Pentagon, but I gue