Apparently, there's this 9/11 myths site (911myths.com) that debunks (or at least attempts to debunk) most of our theories. It's quite ridiculous. They go so far to claim that the freefall theory is bogus because the towers (according to them) fell in 15+ seconds, and that WTC7 was a raging inferno (they those pictures argued about in that WTC7 thread on this page.) Also, they attempt to deny that "pull it" means implode. A friend showed me it and I'm writing up a debunkment of the site as we speak. If anyone could take a look at it and help me in this matter, it would be greatly appreciated.

Bon Apetite

Pasqualle [thumbsup]

Hmm... It would be fun to see them try to cover flight 93 and the pent stuff with the things we already know...

But if we show them we know, they might keep records on them and stuff...

On the stuff you said just now...

The tower fell in about 11-13 seconds, not 15 seconds. The most accurate recording I saw was somewhere between 12 and thirteen seconds.

Yes, "pull it" is a term used by demolition crews.

From what you say, the site sounds like real bullshit. I haven't been there myself, not yet, but that's my first impression. Apparently, their "debunking" is just spouting out bullshit.

listen...we all know any "debunks" of the truth theories is bullshit. no matter what new so called "evidence" they come out with, it'll never add up. only the stupid pathetic sheep will ever believe any refute of what we all know really happened. PERIOD. so why waste energy in your fingers to even type about it.

Because it's important to debunk the debunkers. Otherwise, people who don't want to believe will just assume any explanation used against us is correct.

true...but id rather spend time getting the original message out to new people than arguing with people who dont want to believe. if someone has seen LC2 and still doesnt believe it...LOST CAUSE...i cant see how you would even need anything else...maybe just reiterate WTC 7 a few times, and thats it...time spent trying to convince the un-convincable is time wasted...move on to someone new, or distribute more DVD's, or write websites on money, or whatever...the most important thing is to awaken NEW people to this.

Registered through: www.dynonames.com
Domain Name: 911MYTHS.COM
Created on: 13-Jan-05
Expires on: 13-Jan-07
Last Updated on: 01-Dec-05

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration 911MYTHS.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration 911MYTHS.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599

Domain servers in listed order:
NS01.DH2.NET
NS02.DH2.NET


Registry Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited



Apparently they value their privacy.

Thought it was a load of bs myself... there was this kid i was arguing and he was using it as his gospel and so i posted it here to see what fellow truth advocates think.

I've been getting the truth out...11 converts so far, friends and family [thumbsup]

But man some people are stubborn: One person's answer to the entire WTC 7 mystery was "Funny stuff happens sometimes." :lol:

Ah well. I'm spreading the word to everyone I possibly can.

Bon Apetite

Pasqualle

Indeed...here we have a site registered through an anonymous proxy, with absolutely no way to contact the webmaster, who apparently has gone to great lengths in an attempt to disprove anything that would suggest government complicity. In fact, this is probably the most often linked-to site in discussions I've had in other forums. The only hint we have about who operates this site is from a supposed email reply from an enginner, where we have a generic name in the To field.

Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:33:13 +0000
From: Asif S Usmani
To: Mike Williams
Subject: Re: WTC Query

Very suspicious indeed.

Their idiotic attempt to "debunk" the PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" statements shows they are a neocon mouthpiece. I would very much like to have one-on-one communication with the webmaster, but the webmaster has made sure I can't do that.

damn. i guess we lose then [smoke]

i think its essential that we debunk every piece of evidence they have. I know the people against our theories will quickly point to this website for their evidence, so we need to have answers. We need to be prepared to answer. We can't just go out and say 9/11 was a lie with our evidence that we have and than have them show us 911myths, that talks about more specifics than what we spread to them.

Let's create a website together to debunk 911myths

For what it is worth, I think it is the best so-called 911 myth site I have seen. It is funny, our conspiracy theory is the most straightforward and direct. You just have to accept it was an inside job.

The myth site that supports the gov'ts conspiracy theory requires that you believe a couple dozen strange and usual things for things to have happened the way they say.

It takes way more faith to believe their story than ours.

Go here and read post #30. You'll see 911myths.com

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=2647&st=0

Yeah...working on debunking a ton of their stuff

The easy ones are the Bin Ladens and the Project for a New Century

Of course, they also support the FEMA and NIST reports, so that should be a piece of cake.

Bon Apetite

Pasqualle [thumbsup]

Amen.

...and? lol

Of course it's disinfo, I guess I'd rather just explain those points when they come up rather than spend hundreds of hours creating "www.911mythsislying.com".

More power to anyone who feels like doing that of course.

so does anyone else want to help create a debunking website? I love doing this kind of stuff. It pumps me up.

Yeah I've already started debunking, we need a central area to do this from. any ideas? maybe a chatroom or something?

*bump*

From their site:

"The story...

Mohammed Atta, and other hijackers are said to have drank alcohol, gambled, visited strip joints and so on. Surely that means they weren’t the fanatically religious Islamists that we’ve been told?

Our take...

This isn't the most convincing of arguments, as religious men have been breaking the rules they should be following since the beginning of time. What’s more, there are precedents to show that Islamists don’t always behave as you might expect.

Atta has been associated with a sect called Al Takfir wal Hijra, run by al Quaeda second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri. This is an extreme fundamentalist sect, however...

"A major element of Takfir religious practice is subterfuge. The threat of Takfir is that its cold, heartless killers could easily be the boy or girl next door. Takfir Wal Hijra members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies.

In other words, Takfirs can have sex with loose women, drink alcohol, eat pork and do whatever else they feel is appropriate to advance their mission...

Mohammed Atta, although puritanical in his behavior, was believed to be Takfiri. He's not the only al Qaeda operative you could point the finger at. Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed went to discos, drank alcohol and dated call girls. Yousef in particular is renowned for being generally unIslamic and non-observant of prayers and fasting. Although no one has suggested openly that Yousef and KSM were Takfiri, it's hardly a stretch"."

Isn't it interesting that they know so much about this guy after the fact?

What a cowinkidink.

JBR [whistle]

You know, what if we had a debunked forum at this forum? Then we could organize a 911myths thread and debunk each piece of their evidence one by one.

Or we could plan to meet in an AIM chat room or some other forum. What do you guys think? I might start doing my research this weekend.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

I think this site could help a lot...look and read through it all...

Sounds good...considering 911myths.com is a central website to Sheeple and skeptics of our facts.

It is really odd how there is no way to contact the website's administrator.

I'll start new threads on the forum debunking each pieve of their argument one by one.

Pasqualle [salute]

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9785

Thanks. Where did you find an email address for the site? I think it is very telling the author refuses to publicly debate. Sounds like a government op...we disseminate the disinfo, if you want to ask questions you can do so privately but NOT IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE.

I'll try and contact "Mike" myself.

I dunno, try to ask to Jon Gold in that yourbb forum or under the comments of 911blogger, he is a tireless activist and writes there too.

That 911myths site is a little weak when it comes to any visual evidence.

This is definitely one Faith Based site. :rolleyes:

I guess our fellow knuckle dragging shills at least have a shrine.

http://www.911myths.com/html/site_faq.html:

"Who are you?

I'm Mike Williams (mike@911myths.com), a software developer and freelance writer from the UK.

Why are you doing this?

It all started on an Internet message board, a couple of years ago...."


Very suspicious indeed...

The facts with regards to WTC #7 are quite simple.

FEMA stated in it's report that fire brought down WTC #7, and gave its own report a 'low probability of being right.' The world insurance market read the FEMA report, and agreed with FEMA's assessment of their own report, and dismissed FEMA's findings as, indeed, having 'low probability of being right.' If the world insurance market had agreed with FEMA's findings, then we would have witnessed a sky-rocketing of fire insurance premiums for steel and concrete structures. What we witnessed instead, was no change at all.

The insurance markets' have proved that FEMA's report did have a 'low probability of being right', and went further by dismissed the claim that fire brought down the 48 story WTC #7 as being incorrect in its entirety.

Yes, I did find this out chipmunk stew. It's a little hard to find and you can't get to it just through a single click from the main navigation but it's there. I've been corresponding with Mike, I try to give people a chance even when they seem suspicious. I'll let you know how it goes.

Respectable way of handling it Robo.


Funny though, a site dedicating to the debunking of the debunkment of the official story.

And now we're going to debunk the debunking of debunkment of a set of facts. :huh:

Sounds about right.

let the debunking of the debunking of our debunking of 9/11 begin!

HAHAHA Nice Way of looking at it -

OK - first off I have a real issue with the whole non freefall speeds thing. This site just completely attempts to shut it down, never mind that this was freefall speed in atmoshperic sea level conditions, not the perfect laboratory conditions some people describe. Even if the building collapsed in pancake format, I have heard and read some engineers thoughts on the subject saying it would have taken at least a half second to overcome each floor (half second was the minimum timeframe encountered.) This presents in itself a serious dilemma, however; 80 remaining stories for WTC 2 and 95 remaining floors for WTC 1. Result? 40+ second pancaking!!!! That means that pancaking would have taken at least 35 seconds longer than the actual implosio- i mean, collapse - of the Towers!!!!

What more proof could you ask for?

BTW the half second thing i got from this video called Revisiting 9/11, See Thread New Video: Elaborates and Reiterated Loose Change!!!

Well the site is correct about the freefall speed, it is not freefall speed. Freefall speed would have been 8-9 seconds. It was closer to 14 seconds, if you watch the best available videos. So it was still less then double the speed of freefall. Still, that is extremely fast and it's still accurate to say "near freefall speed" for the towers.

See the other thread in the WTC forum.

Hers is another site which I got from a debate in another forum.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/

and for those interested in the debate

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96453

cool, we should work on 911myths first, then the rest of the pack. This is actually great stuff, it will not only help us expose the truth, but help us be better critical thinkers and help us defend our stances against ANYONE.

I don't want to stand back and just tell people to watch loose change or visit some 911 truth website. I wanna be prepared against opposing views.

This requires some clarification.

Freefall is a rate of acceleration, not velocity (speed), specifically 9.8 m/s/s.

It's accurate to say that the towers fell in less than twice the amount of time they would have at freefall. But since we're dealing with acceleration, that can be misleading.

If the towers had fallen at freefall, they would have fallen in about 9.2 seconds:
height = (acceleration x time-squared) / 2
415m = (9.8m/s/s x t^2) / 2
t = 9.2s

To figure the actual rate they fell at, given a time of 14 seconds, we can use the same formula:
height = (acceleration x time-squared) / 2
415m = (a x 14^2) / 2
a = 4.2m/s/s

So the actual collapse rate (4.2m/s/s) was only about 43% of freefall (9.8m/s/s).


To illustrate what a big difference this is, we can compare their velocities upon hitting the ground:
4.2m/s/s * 14s = 58.8m/s
9.8m/s/s * 9.2s = 90.2m/s

Clearly, they fell at nowhere near freefall.

Close enough to draw suspision. And the actual time is debateable. NOW WTC7 is a totally different story, fell in a neat little pile AT freefall speed... or do you still think fire brought that one down too CMS?


If the buildings had infact PANCACKE'D and taken 40 seconds to fall I dont think wed be here right now.

The debris falling inside of the building fell nearly as fast as the debris outside of the building, which was slowed by air. Therefore the intact floors offered no more resistance than air. Impossible.

Can we put this idiotic notion of a pancake collapse to rest? The floors were pulverized from the onset of the collapse and most of the building fell outside of its footprint.