Reddit Reddit reviews Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

We found 23 Reddit comments about Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
American History
United States History
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
Check price on Amazon

23 Reddit comments about Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory:

u/KingShit_of_FuckMtn · 25 pointsr/todayilearned

Brings to mind this Monty Python line: Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

But seriously though, are you talking about this book?

Come on, dude. The guy is a professor of THEOLOGY and he's supposed to have a better understanding of engineering/physics than engineers? Just because some 9/11 Truther nut writes a book, doesn't mean it debunks actual science.

u/jscoppe · 16 pointsr/politics

Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Popular Mechanics (Hearst Publishing) pushed Fema's initial "pancake theory', which NIST ended up throwing out in favor of the "crush down" theory. Even the government doesn't agree with Popular Mechanics.

That's not to say everything Pop Mech's said was wrong. They debunked some of the obviously silly claims (no planes, etc.).

Addressing the credibility that Pop Mech's is an authority on mechanics and mechanical engineering, Jim Meigs was responsible for a lot of their work and is their major spokesperson, and he's just an editor. His last job was editing Entertainment Weekly.

u/gethereddout · 7 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Although the 5 min summary mentioned before is decent, none of the previous comments fairly describe the evidence being claimed by the truth movement. Short of reading a book like David Ray Griffin's definitive Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, I offer the following.

The strongest 9/11 truth arguments are related to the complete demolition of both towers and the nearby 47 story building 7, by two airplanes. Although these arguments are best presented by the videos at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, where over 1,600 professional architects and engineers have put their entire professional careers on the line for the sake of this evidence, I will try to summarize a few salient points.

The speed of the collapse of each tower approximated free fall, and in the case of building 7, was admitted as free fall by the NIST. In response, Truthers have asked the valid question: how is it possible for a steel structured building to fall through itself at that rate? What is the physical explanation for every connection in an undamaged section of a building failing at once? To this day the NIST and others such as Popular Mechanics have not provided a scientifically satisfactory explanation. Most people don't even know the pancake theory was abandoned. I would love to get into details, but to summarize, those reports work like a Hollywood set, they were written to give people a reason to believe, not to apply science and generate a hypotheses based on evidence. For example, did you know the NIST didn't even analyze the behavior of the building post collapse initiation, stating that what happened next was clear from the video?

That ain't science folks. Really, watch that video. It truly angers me when people say our arguments have no evidentiary basis. The evidence is extremely strong and it's been their tact to distort and hide the evidence, not ours.

To continue, there's only one method for bringing a heavily fortified steel structured building down in it's footprint at free fall speed: demolition. So the Truthers have also asked the valid question: was there any evidence of demolition. And the answer is yes many times over. First, there was molten steel in the rubble lasting for days (jet fuel is basically kerosene, doesn't get hot enough and doesn't burn for days). But again this fact was brazenly denied in full by the NIST despite tons of evidence to the contrary. Further, independent labs studying steel and dust from the towers have found unexploded red nanothermite chips. And the list goes on, from explosions in the basement prior to airplane impact, to explosions seen below the damaged area of the building, to thermite that can be seen pouring out of the building.

Really there's too much evidence to list here. And worse, the blatant lies proffered as explanations can be found in every strand of the fantastical official story. For example did you know that in order to accept NORADS current explanation for why scrambled jets never reached the hijacked planes you have to accept that they were lying for years previously? Or that the hijackers were staying with intelligence assets prior to the events?

It's also worth mentioning that all those claiming "too many people had to be in on it" are painfully naive about how the world works in our era. Go ahead, try and yell the truth from the mountaintops. See what happens.

TL;DR On 9/11 both the upper building sections pictured here fell at the same speed. Based on physics that is impossible without explosives, evidence for which was everywhere.









u/treebright · 5 pointsr/conspiracy

I'm not the person you asked, but I would look at David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", or this video of a talk he gave about the book.

u/SovereignMan · 5 pointsr/conspiracy
u/delelles · 3 pointsr/politics

Popular Mechanics, brought to you by the good folks at Hearst Publishing, the inventors of Yellow Journalism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Popular Mechanics has been thoroughly debunked here: http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

u/henry-jest · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

> Then can you explain why the overall time it took the building to descend was calculated to be 40% greater than freefall?

I must debunk you. The "40% longer" story is obsolete for years now. It was NIST line of defence BEFORE they admit, there was free fall. So update your info, because you are not telling truth.
QUOTE:
"In response [to NIST early claims that collapse "was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall"], high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was allowed to submit a question to this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity. Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone understanding elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds… , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”53 (This is, of course, free fall through the air, not through a vacuum.) In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST—rather amazingly—admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”54 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case—except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics."

>Once that column buckled, it caused more of the floors to collapse, leaving adjacent columns unstable, and also impacted adjacent columns, damaging them. This triggered a chain reaction in which

What chain reaction? What a nonsense!
It was not house of cards, it was steel!
You are saying that failure of one column collapsed whole 82 coulumns and whole building. Sorry, that makes no sense.
Can you give any other example from history, where fire collapsed building in few seconds with free fall? Of course you cant...


> As for your question 2.
> Unfortunately for you, I managed to find the actual paper that you quoted.
> The authors clearly state that:
> "The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the.....

You presented nothing new. What's more presence of sulfur is another red flag that explosives (Thermate) were used:

"...Second, the WPI professors reported not merely that there was sulfur in the debris, but that the steel had been sulfidized. This means that sulfur had entered into the intergranular structure of the steel (which the New York Times article had indicated by saying that sulfur had “combined with atoms in the steel”). As chemist Kevin Ryan has said, the question NIST would need to answer is: “[H]ow did sulfates, from wallboard, tunnel into the intergranular microstructure of the steel and then form sulfides within?”118 Physicist Steven Jones added: [I]f NIST claims that sulfur is present in the steel from gypsum, they should do an (easy) experiment to heat steel to about 1000°C in the presence of gypsum and then test whether sulfur has entered the steel… . [T]hey will find that sulfur does not enter steel under such circumstances.119 Chemistry professor Niels Harrit has explained why it would not: Although gypsum contains sulfur, this is not elemental sulfur, which can react with iron, but sulfur in the form of calcium sulfate, which cannot.120 The official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center, therefore,implies that the sulfidized steel had been produced by a twofold miracle: Besides the fact that the fires, as we saw earlier, could have melted steel only if they had possessed miraculous powers, the sulfur in the wallboard could have entered into this melted steel only by virtue of supernatural powers. Once again, a non-miraculous explanation is available: We need only suppose that thermate, a well-known incendiary, had been employed. As Steven Jones has written: The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is in general faster than basic thermite in cutting through steel due to the presence of sulfur. (Elemental sulfur forms a low-melting-temperature eutectic with iron.)121 Besides providing an explanation for the eutectic reaction, thermate could also, Jones pointed out, explain the melting, oxidation, and sulfidation of the steel: When you put sulfur into thermite it makes the steel melt at a much lower temperature, so instead of melting at about 1,538°C [2,800°F] it melts at approximately 988°C [1,820°F], and you get sulfidation and oxidation in the attacked steel."

...and that's why you have melted steel in 1000C temp and signs of sulfur.

PS. Please do read any book by David Griffin, I recommend "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory "
I dont have all day to copy-paste and correct all misinformation that you provide.
Read it and you will find plenty information and answer to your "debunking" there.

u/marcy_anon · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

you're not arguing. you're posting a link.. here's my rebuttal for your link.. they can go have their own argument.

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

too bad you can't think or argue for yourself. what a shit job. next.

u/ShiftSurfer · 2 pointsr/911truth

If we must go there...

I would rather suggest that people read "debunking 9/11 debunking".

u/D-Style · 2 pointsr/politics

POPULAR MECHANICS! Wow is that your secret weapon? Popular Mechanics itself has been proven dozens of times to be deceptive, building strawmen arguments and never really addressing the issue. Not only in this book or this article but in dozens of interviews and videos

You call yourself rational while you only accept what confirms your pre-conceived belief.

u/scrumpydoo23 · 2 pointsr/videos

It's not concise; it's incredibly well researched but it's quite a large book of around 300-400 pages. Unfortunately I don't think you can find it online, but it's the only book you would need to understand 9/11 alternative theories. Here's a link to the amazon page.

u/corbettreport · 2 pointsr/reddit.com

And here is a point-by-point refutation of the attempts to refute 9/11 truth. Just tell me who the hijackers were on the airplanes and I may believe the official conspiracy theory. Or look up the Wall Street Journal article on General Mahmud Ahmad of the ISI wiring $100,000 to Mohammad Atta and the Washington Post article that proves he was meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham (House and Senate Intelligence Committee leaders) on the morning of 9/11. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence and definitely NOT worth investigating, right?

u/bennybenners · 1 pointr/worldnews

"The sprinkler system and the FDNY"

That is not structural redundancy. A single column failing should not lead to a 100% collapse. Wouldn't you agree?

"NIST says they were fairly run-of-the-mill office fires."

So why have steel framed skyscrapers burned hotter, and longer, and more completely, without a 100% collapse? Have you seen any photos of the fires that day? The fires are frankly pretty minimal. Nothing that would have turned the building to dust.

"What do you expect them to do, rebuild WTC7, set it on fire and see what happens"

I expect them to not destroy a crime scene and haul away the evidence without a thorough forensic investigation. I expect the data to be real. Since the data was speculative, the resulting computer simulation is completely unscientific. I expect them to admit that their simulation is magical, not scientific.

"paradigm of collapse no truther has been able to rebut"

So many people have rebutted the unscientific nonsense of the NIST report. It took 10 years of avoiding the subject for NIST to finally slap together a wholly unscientific and nonsensical explanation for why a building that was clearly demolished wasn't.

If you are interested in hearing both sides, I recommend this book. Not written by a loony and you can probably find it at the library:

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

But seriously, that animation doesn't reflect an sense of reality does it?

It is also interesting that both John Kerry and Larry Silverstein have already admitted that WTC7 was demolished. They both did so before the NIST report came out.

u/suspiciouswhentailed · 1 pointr/conspiracy

ok so you either know nothing about this subject or you are working it. if it is the former and you actually have the stomach to face the truth try reading this: [Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory] (http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X)

u/Uncerntropy · 1 pointr/politics

Woah. I'm dealing with a know-nothing. Do you know what a straw man argument is. Your whole argument is not based off of evidence but essentially saying that, because someone hasn't made tons of money with absolute proof that 9/11 was an inside job, it wasn't one. Well guess what, dumbass, people have made money off of proving 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

This will be a complete waste of time, but I'll go ahead anyway

  1. They're called passports. Look into it. Try thinking. Here's a clip that explains it, watch the whole thing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu0xfz4DEN4&feature=related

    And some of the suspected hijackers were alive after 9/11. Even the BBC reported on it. Explain that to me dipshit.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

    Watch this whole clip below. Focus on the Able Danger part.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n2bBYwNojY&feature=related

    People who came out about 9/11 inside our government were forced to no longer investigate terrorism.

    Watch "Fabled enemies" for free on youtube or google video to its entirety. You won't though because you are willfully ignorant, and a little stupid on the side.

    2)And then there are the scientists, engineers, architects and eyewitnesses that flat out fucking agree with my claims. Below is plenty of testifiers reporting that what they heard sounded like bombs before the collapse

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRHPlAxkpHc

    You haven't done a spec of research, very pathetic. Come on, you're so dumb, forget about whether I should have children, it's a shame you were ever born in the first place.

    Damning evidence? Plenty of it. Remember, 9/11 was never proven to be done by 19 hijackers alone. Where's your damning evidence. I've read the whole 9/1 commission report, and I can assure you, that poor excuse for an investigation resolved nothing.

    http://www.anomalynews.com/index.php?s=crater

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s

    http://projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93_transcript.html

    Here's a picture of the crash at Shanksville. Compare that to any plane crash image ever, and you might notice something about this pic, THERE ISN'T A PLANE!!!

    http://theoldoak.info/shanksville16.jpg

    Can you disprove that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset? No.

    You are very ignorant, now I know that you haven't done any research even though you claimed that you had read every book I would propose before I ever proposed one.

    And what a surprise, you couldn't disprove any of my claims could you. Notice how I have links to evidence, you know why, because I've done my research.

    Poor baby. It's time to gut up to the fraudulent War on Terror. I'm done with you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. You can show an idiot the truth but you can't make him think.

    Don't be a classic case of denial.
u/conspirobot · 1 pointr/conspiro

SovereignMan: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

> Popular Mechanics already debunked every single thing that there was to be debunked

The Popular Mechanics article and book has itself been completely debunked 6 years ago. You're a little behind the times.

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

u/diode1001 · 0 pointsr/politics

NO, why don't you READ SOMETHING. Why don't you use Google and do some research?

Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years. This is a translation of a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, Information, on 31 March 2007.

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf

Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf
Conspiracy Theories, Myths, Skepticism, and 9/11: their Impact on Democracy http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeConspiracy&Myth7.pdf

Faulty Towers of Belief Part I http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/FaultyTowersofBeliefPart_I.pdf

Faulty Towers of Belief Part II http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ManwellFaultyTowersofBeliefPartII.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/11-American-Empire-Intellectuals-Speak/dp/1566566592/ref=sr_1_1/104-7818252-4773562?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188480023&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Synthetic-Terror-Fourth/dp/0930852370/ref=pd_sim_b_4_img/104-7818252-4773562?ie=UTF8&qid=1188480023&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=pd_sim_b_1_img/104-7818252-4773562?ie=UTF8&qid=1188480023&sr=8-1

u/[deleted] · 0 pointsr/conspiracy

Are you going to refute or just slander with insults? It seems to be debunkers do minimal debunking and just attack and slander the truth movement when we bring up irrefutable evidence, or just dance around the question and then claim to have debunked it.

All the eye witness testimonies from molten steel at Ground Zero and the photographs to prove it?

"No evidence of molten steel" is your explanation.

Just one example of the straw man arguments made by debunkers.

90 % of the articles on www.911myths.com are "Oh, that proves nothing!" and Popular Mechanics makes incredibly flawed arguments easily debunked themselves.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

u/jsmithers · -4 pointsr/reddit.com

AS A BRIT it's still tragic to see so many of you dismiss so confidently the notion that 9/11 was an inside job.

I know it's not because you're stupid, but it is DEFINITELY because you are ignorant of the facts, and also because you are scared. Scared to face the truth. The EASY way out, which I am sad to say most of you have taken, is to conform to peer pressure, side with the pack, and angrily dismiss the idea with a snort of derision and some insults.

All I can say is you are definitely wrong, and you will one day be forced to confront the truth. If it helps, the truth is not THAT big a deal in the grand scheme of things. People with power and money fall into temptation sometimes and do horrible, dirty things. Like faking 9/11 so as to get the country behind the war on terror, and use that to prosecute multiple wars, and curb the freedoms of the American people.

When I first came across the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, I reacted angrily and with derision too. And I'm not even American. But then I took the step most of you have not done, and took an impassioned and objective look at the evidence. And no, I'm not talking about a couple of youtube videos like 'Loose Change'. I mean a proper in depth read of who and why and what and where and when.

And it is GLARINGLY, BLINDINGLY obvious - the most obvious thing really, that 9/11 was most definitely an inside job. Not by "the government" but by a limited set of military industrial complex insiders. If you look at the VAST amount of evidence, there is no other explanation I'm afraid.

And if you're clinging confidently to claimed debunking of all the alleged facts that 9/11 was an inside job, then I urge you to read "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" by Professor David Ray Griffin which clears away the smoke and mirrors, and lies, and sets the record straight. http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299410694&sr=8-1

I often see people write "well, I think the official version needs looking into, it didn't feel right", or some sort of half hearted response like that. You know, no need to go over the top, don't want to look like kooks do we!?
Well, have some guts. Look like a kook. Except you won't. One day the people that fought for 9/11 truth will rightly be lauded across America as TRUE heroes, far more heroic than even those who go to fight in war daily.
And you will admit it to yourselves. And somewhat like Germany after WW2 will recognise with contrite hearts, that you were, mostly through no fault of your own, taken advantage of by evil, and seduced by it.

You can start the healing process now. Take a fresh look at 9/11 and ask yourself "was I wrong to dismiss the truthers?"

u/spays_marine · -4 pointsr/Documentaries

Yes, read that if you want to be fooled and lulled back to sleep. Maybe follow it up with something from popular mechanics to really knock you out.

Or read a book and see how these "skeptics" pull the wool over your eyes: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X