Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Year Zero]

Clearly there HAS to be some kind of conspiracy if the government and all the media is lying about almost every detail of 9-11.

 

[Garrette]

I think it's deeper than that, YZ. I thin 9/11 never happened much the same way that the moon landings never happened.

thesyntaxera's impenetrable musings on how it came to be are the brilliant trappings of the conspiracy to hide the fact that it never was!

 

[Flaherty]

Hello, one of my hobbies is busting conspiracy theories, particularly those surrounding events. The 9-11 event has spawned a massive avalanche of crackpots and their logically-challenged theories involving remote-control planes, planes shooting missiles, and of course, those demolitions installed before the fateful day. Of course one must ask...of all the "experts" these conspiracy theorists cite from, why wouldn't they go to the ONE source that would unravel the whole thing- a building DEMOLITIONS expert. Sounds pretty simple- show what it would take to rig that building and how they could cover that up somehow.


Other than the Popular Mechanics article, does anybody here have some good arguments against the 9-11 conspiracy or links to people that do. I am always searching for up-to-date refutations.

Back in graduate school 10 years ago, I got interested in the various conspiracy theories involving the Federal Reserve and put some conspiracy-busting stuff on the internet. I don't maintain a web site any longer, but someone evidently is storing the essays I wrote here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html

 

[Ed]

I am curious about facts, and why a deductive, fact gathering investigation wasn't done.

You use this term like a mantra. Why is that? Can you see other ways an investigation might have been performed? Have you ever, anywhere, ever heard people performing an investigation use the term? Are there not deductive elements necessary in any investigation? Is this the only thing that would be acceptable to you? Does the fact that this approach direct you to absurd conclusions like 30 year old mortar mixed explosives give you pause?

Your behavior and thought processes lead me to deduce some things about you. Because the process is "valid" do you think that my deductions are too? If not, why not?

I am curious as to why there was an apparent gloss over of the environmental disaster that was the aftermath of 9/11.

Tell me, do you not look and then say "OMG, they didn't ..."? And now that I prove that this contention is codswallop, does your theory get altered in the slightest?

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/

One among 1,480,000 hits on "wtc environment 9/11"

I am curious to know why you fanatical skepterroists don't question an official story with so many holes in it.

Because 1) it is not clear that the "holes" are anything more than your own wishful thinking and 2) the alternative is absurd.

The only way a skeptic can not do this is by making absurd rationalizations to back up what they have chosen to believe.

Provide one clear and unequivical "hole" and one absurd rationalization.

You have no real facts either, and the few little facts you have, are just as questionable as a CT's claims.

Planes, Bin Ladens confession, numerous engineers explaining exactly how events transpired.

Sorry, wrong.
[/QUOTE]

 

[thesyntaxera]

You use this term like a mantra. Why is that? Can you see other ways an investigation might have been performed? Have you ever, anywhere, ever heard people performing an investigation use the term? Are there not deductive elements necessary in any investigation? Is this the only thing that would be acceptable to you? Does the fact that this approach direct you to absurd conclusions like 30 year old mortar mixed explosives give you pause?
Your behavior and thought processes lead me to deduce some things about you. Because the process is "valid" do you think that my deductions are too? If not, why not?
Tell me, do you not look and then say "OMG, they didn't ..."? And now that I prove that this contention is codswallop, does your theory get altered in the slightest?
One among 1,480,000 hits on "wtc environment 9/11"
Because 1) it is not clear that the "holes" are anything more than your own wishful thinking and 2) the alternative is absurd.
Provide one clear and unequivical "hole" and one absurd rationalization.
Planes, Bin Ladens confession, numerous engineers explaining exactly how events transpired.

Sorry, wrong.

My behavior and thought processes lead you to do what? You cannot possibly deduce anything about me, you have no idea who I am, nor to you have a close intimate knowledge of me to base any deduction on...even if you did, you are still making a guess because drawing conclusions about people is the worst kind of induction there is. There is nothing valid about your "investigation"...you have read some posts, and think you have me all figured out...that is induction.

I don't have a theory.


Clear holes...in the links that were provided....WTC7 no building steel saved...only 200 peices of WTC 1,2....no plane at the pentagon...and no way to tell....the NIST didn't investigate steel until several years later, how much we don't know....this epa report....2004....long time to wait and remove 500,000 tons of carcinogenic/radioactive particulate matter.....

My problem...all of the things that would disprove conspiracy are lacking in official detail or weren't explained at all...

Absurd rationalization-that the pile of circumstantial evidence/leads doesn't mean anything because a group of skeptics have determined independently with no evidence at their disposal other than official web site claims that nothing but the official story took place.

Your nothing but guessers yourselves...accept it and move on....the only thing keeping you and CT freaks seperated is your stance on the issue, and the fact that you prize your intellect/logical ability over everything else. As far as I can tell, if you are making guesses, there is no logic involved....there is no deduction, just questions...that why so many people beat this drum...they want answers...even if the end result is that Bush Inc. was right all along...

it just needs to be proven better.

 

[Year Zero]

All your claims have been debunked already, and you keep repeating them over and over. How can you possibly impress us?

 

[Ed]

Without a theory all you have, at best, are random factoids.

 

[kookbreaker]

My behavior and thought processes lead you to do what? You cannot possibly deduce anything about me, you have no idea who I am, nor to you have a close intimate knowledge of me to base any deduction on...even if you did, you are still making a guess because drawing conclusions about people is the worst kind of induction there is. There is nothing valid about your "investigation"...you have read some posts, and think you have me all figured out...that is induction.

From our own experience, we can deduce a lot about you. You use of a bogus budget figure for the investigation, for example. Even more telling was your subsequent rejection of the figures given to you. Inductive or not, that speaks volumes about your nature and what you are rally after.

I don't have a theory.

However, you are far more willing to attack the work of experienced engineers than the ramblings of website cranks.

Your 'points' have been answered, you just don't like the answers.

 

[Manny]

Clear holes...in the links that were provided....WTC7 no building steel saved...only 200 peices of WTC 1,2....no plane at the pentagon...and no way to tell....the NIST didn't investigate steel until several years later, how much we don't know....this epa report....2004....long time to wait and remove 500,000 tons of carcinogenic/radioactive particulate matter.....

My problem...all of the things that would disprove conspiracy are lacking in official detail or weren't explained at all...

Absurd rationalization-that the pile of circumstantial evidence/leads doesn't mean anything because a group of skeptics have determined independently with no evidence at their disposal other than official web site claims that nothing but the official story took place.

What you seem to be missing is the element of common sense and the burden of proof. Planes hit the Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is undisputed (yes, even for the Pentagon -- people who don't believe that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon should be disregarded as, at absolute best, idiots. Hundreds of people saw the plane. Passengers on the plane reported its flight path in real time. The flight data recorder was recovered.) The mechanics of how the towers fell is well understood. Skeptics, whatever silly re-spelling you choose to apply to them, are always interested in evidence, but there is NO evidence to ANY of the various conspiracy theories. Skeptics run the political gamut from left to right to radical to nonpolitical -- you can be quite sure that if any of the various theories had even tantalizing bits of evidence which would make the President or the prior President or anyone else look bad at least some skeptics would be all over it. All the stuff you're bringing up (without even having the stones to claim agreement with) has been gone over many times by many experts and interested lay people. For pretty much all of it, there's just nothing to it.

Some criticisms do seem to hold water, but only with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Yes, the airlines were concerned about the cost of impassible cockpit doors and yes, they underestimated their usefulness. But remember, the "old" way of dealing with a hijacker was to cooperate. Under the old FAA regs, a pilot was supposed to cooperate with a hijacker in hopes of saving the lives of the people on the plane. So under that circumstance an impassible cockpit door indeed seems like an unnecessary expenditure; a pilot would agree to open the cockpit door and let the hijacker in if for no other reason than to facilitate communication between the hijacker and negotiators on the ground. And yes, the EPA might not have done as good a job taking air samples as they ought to have and/or applied a different standard than one might choose. It strains credulity for them to say that the level of airborne petrochemicals was undetectable when we were walking to work through the stench of plastic. But whatever that level was, it was less than one would encounter on the New Jersey Turnpike or along the chemical plants of Houston on a "normal" day -- I've experienced all three sources. And even if one applies hindsight retroactively none of the "legitimate" criticisms point to any kind of conspiracy, nor do they point to any other cause than the one which you so derisively call the "official" version -- on the morning of September 11, 2001 a group of very bad men hijacked four commercial airliners and successfully steered them into three targets without the prior knowledge of anyone in government.

 

[thesyntaxera]

All your claims have been debunked already, and you keep repeating them over and over. How can you possibly impress us?

Ooh, the question should be...why would I want to impress you...?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Without a theory all you have, at best, are random factoids.

Thats right....just about the same as what you got isn't it?

 

[Ed]

Thats right....just about the same as what you got isn't it?

No. You are the one with the preposterous claims. I have knowledgeable, stable people who are well versed in their disiplines. I have a cogent story that does not require elaborate (nd unstated) frameworks to be at all plausable. In short, I am operating in the real world.

 

[Year Zero]

Ooh, the question should be...why would I want to impress you...?

The question is, why do you continue to repeat things you know are false. It is a proven fact that plane debris including flight recorders WERE FOUND in the Pentagon. You simply ignore that, among other facts. Why should we take you seriously?

 

[Garrette]

Be nice, Year Zero.

He did post two links.

Of course, they did not in any fashion support his position, but he posted them nonetheless.

 

[thesyntaxera]

From our own experience, we can deduce a lot about you. You use of a bogus budget figure for the investigation, for example. Even more telling was your subsequent rejection of the figures given to you. Inductive or not, that speaks volumes about your nature and what you are rally after.

Actually, you can't...obviously you don't understand deduction, which would explain a lot about why your head is soo big and thick, and why, like teflon, all of these points don't seem to stick.

I didn't reject the figures...the figures if I remember right were for an investigation begun in 2004...not the 9/11 commision. If I argued with you it was because even though X-million was ear marked for the commision, that doesn't mean that all of it was spent, and since you have yet to point out how much was actually spent...(something I don't think you will find out, although I could be wrong) what am I left to believe? You?

It should speak volumes you creature of poor reasoning. I don't pass blanket judgements based on text.

However, you are far more willing to attack the work of experienced engineers than the ramblings of website cranks.

Your 'points' have been answered, you just don't like the answers.

I will attack it because by the engineers own admission the building should not have fallen the way it did. The entire building if you are familiar with it's design was created specifically to cancel the effects of a fire no matter what. Most of the fuel blew up on impact, what was left should have smoldered out due to the flame retardant regulations on office equipment, and building materials. By all pictoral accounts it did just that, the photo that you all criticized featuring the "woman" in the hole...there should be a raging inferno in there clearly visible. The engineers had to use inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion they didn't think was possible because the official story demanded it...

And any follow investigation is woefully lacking in the evidence department. 200 pieces of steel? For the whole event?

If I don't like the answers it's because your answers suck.

 

[Year Zero]

Actually the engineers in question ALL believed the buildings would collapse.

 

[kookbreaker]

Actually, you can't...obviously you don't understand deduction, which would explain a lot about why your head is soo big and thick, and why, like teflon, all of these points don't seem to stick.

I see your mostly up to posturing.

I didn't reject the figures...

Yes you did. You claimed they made no report,then implied that they had not spent their budget. Both unfounded claims to dodge the fact that you were wrong

the figures if I remember right were for an investigation begun in 2004...not the 9/11 commision.

Irrelevant. Your initial point was to claim that virtually nothing was spent on the investigation of 9/11, when in fact ther was much spent on it!

If I argued with you it was because even though X-million was ear marked for the commision, that doesn't mean that all of it was spent, and since you have yet to point out how much was actually spent...(something I don't think you will find out, although I could be wrong) what am I left to believe? You?

You are left to believe who you want. The point is that you tried to put up a deceptive claim and got burned on it. Badly. I don't really have figures for exaclty how much was spent, but it was much, much more than you were claiming.

It should speak volumes you creature of poor reasoning. I don't pass blanket judgements based on text.

I do pass judegement on fools who try to decieve, then reufse to admit their were grossly in error.

I will attack it because by the engineers own admission the building should not have fallen the way it did.

That is completely wrong. You should know this by now. But I think you prefer willful ignorance.

The entire building if you are familiar with it's design was created specifically to cancel the effects of a fire no matter what.

Uh. No. It was not designed to be hit with several ton, hunreds-of-mile-per-hour fireball. It was design to withstand an accidental hit from a plane (one not going full throttle and full of fuel), it was designed to be protected from fires that start internally. That was all.

Most of the fuel blew up on impact,

Wrong, not to mention a complete misunderstanding of physics and chemistry. Fuel in packed liquid form does not blow up that way.

what was left should have smoldered out due to the flame retardant regulations on office equipment, and building materials.

If you had read the reports given to you, the flame retardant material on the building were blown off by the impact. The level of fire retardance in ofice equipment is not as strong as you might like.

By all pictoral accounts it did just that,

It seems to me that you are saying there was no fire. Interesting. So all the people who managed to escape are liars. All the people who jumped to escaped the flames deluded. Really.

the photo that you all criticized featuring the "woman" in the hole...there should be a raging inferno in there clearly visible.

I can see fires to the right of the scar and above it. The rest in darkness, probably smoke. What are you expecting? Is the flame level not to your satisfaction?

The engineers had to use inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion they didn't think was possible because the official story demanded it...

The engineers know what happened based on their century old professions' knowledge of materials and their limitations. No looking at a single photo and saying there isn't enough fire for their liking.

And any follow investigation is woefully lacking in the evidence department. 200 pieces of steel? For the whole event?

Do you have any more pieces that were damaged by fire and you know the original location of? They could have tested unheated metal all year, but what good would that do?

If I don't like the answers it's because your answers suck.

My answers are backed by pretty much every structrual engineer on this planet. The best you can do is point to a photo and say there isn't enough flame for your tastes, oh, and you can lie and waffle about budgets.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Yes you did. You claimed they made no report,then implied that they had not spent their budget. Both unfounded claims to dodge the fact that you were wrong

I personally don't believe I ever adamantly claimed anything...I did recite other CT claims after stating that I am not latched onto them.

Irrelevant. Your initial point was to claim that virtually nothing was spent on the investigation of 9/11, when in fact ther was much spent on it!

a lot of money was allocated, that doesn't mean it was all spent...where does it say what the final cost was VS. the budget?

You are left to believe who you want. The point is that you tried to put up a deceptive claim and got burned on it. Badly. I don't really have figures for exaclty how much was spent, but it was much, much more than you were claiming.

I didn't put up any deceptive claims to be burned with, I cited others claims, stated I did not adhere to them, and then asked you dorks to debunk them...you just couldn't resist the urge to make this a personal assault on me because of your poorly preconcieved notion of who I am and what I represent.

I do pass judegement on fools who try to decieve, then reufse to admit their were grossly in error.

Again, I never tried to decieve, if you were reading closely from post one, you would know this. I never refused, but I did maintain my argument from the only position that can be argued.

That is completely wrong. You should know this by now. But I think you prefer willful ignorance.

Probably, I suppose.

Uh. No. It was not designed to be hit with several ton, hunreds-of-mile-per-hour fireball. It was design to withstand an accidental hit from a plane (one not going full throttle and full of fuel), it was designed to be protected from fires that start internally. That was all.

but it was designed to withstand the air pressure blowing against it's surface, which if I heard correctly is at least equal to if not greater than the strength of the impacts, and it was designed to do that everyday of it's existence.

Wrong, not to mention a complete misunderstanding of physics and chemistry. Fuel in packed liquid form does not blow up that way.

Really, since you are obviously so well versed in physics and the physical properties of office building material perhaps you could tell me where I am wrong? Also, just to point out the fuel, regardless of physics, blows up that way...that much is obvious in the explosion caught on multiple video angles.

If you had read the reports given to you, the flame retardant material on the building were blown off by the impact. The level of fire retardance in ofice equipment is not as strong as you might like.

Really, all of it? Why is there flame retardant on the outside? Isn't steel and glass flame retardant already? Or are you refering to the asbestos that covered the steel in the core of one of the buildings? As far as the office/building materials...I am well aware of their perfromance, having held a job at HON manufacturing them during my early college days. First off for this line of logic to be accurate you would have to throw out all the test trials proving how flame retardant the material is, and would then have to say that there is a conspiracy in the flame retardant office furniture business that involves them putting out poor quality office supplies that burn like the dickens.

It seems to me that you are saying there was no fire. Interesting. So all the people who managed to escape are liars. All the people who jumped to escaped the flames deluded. Really.

Yeah right brain, thats what I am saying There was obviously a fire, just one that doesn't seem strong enough to bring down one building let alone 3...not to say it wasn't...maybe it was the fire in building 7 than made it all fall down simultaneously like a demolition?

I can see fires to the right of the scar and above it. The rest in darkness, probably smoke. What are you expecting? Is the flame level not to your satisfaction?

Yeah, it probably is smoke...but smoke tends to hang above the fire, not in it..there should be roaring flames visible at the bottom.

The engineers know what happened based on their century old professions' knowledge of materials and their limitations. No looking at a single photo and saying there isn't enough fire for their liking.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames

While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94–98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.

Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.

I'll let you read through the whole article when you feel like it.


and read this to its a pretty in depth dissection of the claim that steel was melted by jet fuel....make sure you got your Nix comb handy.

Implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD, was also misled by the picture. Having observed the collapses on television news, Loizeaux said the 1,362-ft-tall south tower failed much as one would fell a tree ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/cache/usyd1.html).

 

[kookbreaker]

I personally don't believe I ever adamantly claimed anything...I did recite other CT claims after stating that I am not latched onto them.

With comments like the one below, I'd say you are pretty attached to that idea:

a lot of money was allocated, that doesn't mean it was all spent...where does it say what the final cost was VS. the budget?

Q.E.D.

You are not showing the signs of a person wanting to learn things.

I didn't put up any deceptive claims to be burned with, I cited others claims, stated I did not adhere to them, and then asked you dorks to debunk them...you just couldn't resist the urge to make this a personal assault on me because of your poorly preconcieved notion of who I am and what I represent.

Boo-hoo. You are pretned to be an intellectual conspiracy agnositc when you use claims that just scream CT. You list off factoids like a JFK buff and then ignore the replies.

<snippage.

but it was designed to withstand the air pressure blowing against it's surface, which if I heard correctly is at least equal to if not greater than the strength of the impacts, and it was designed to do that everyday of it's existence.

Impacts, yes. Again you have been ignoring the info we have been given you. The impacts, solely, were not what brought down the tower. It was the impact, combined with the fire, that resulted in the failure.

Really, since you are obviously so well versed in physics and the physical properties of office building material perhaps you could tell me where I am wrong? Also, just to point out the fuel, regardless of physics, blows up that way...that much is obvious in the explosion caught on multiple video angles.

To say that was all the fuel is ignorant. The fireball, while very impressive, was nowhere near all the fuel in the plane. Hollywood pyrotechnicians make explosions larger than that all the time and they sure as heck aren't using 90,000 litres of fuel to make them!

So yes, fuel explodes, it cannot explode all of it at once. By your physics a molotov cocktail would explode in a fireball and leave no pool of flame!

Really, all of it? Why is there flame retardant on the outside? Isn't steel and glass flame retardant already? Or are you refering to the asbestos that covered the steel in the core of one of the buildings?

Yes.

As far as the office/building materials...I am well aware of their perfromance, having held a job at HON manufacturing them during my early college days. First off for this line of logic to be accurate you would have to throw out all the test trials proving how flame retardant the material is, and would then have to say that there is a conspiracy in the flame retardant office furniture business that involves them putting out poor quality office supplies that burn like the dickens.

Flame retardant materials are assuming normal causes of ignition. This was not a normal cause. You still have no sense of scale.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm

"The typical WTC office workstation furnishings were able to sustain intense fires for at least an hour on a given WTC floor."

They burned. Deal with it.

Yeah right brain, thats what I am saying There was obviously a fire, just one that doesn't seem strong enough to bring down one building let alone 3

By your judgement...looking at a single picture from the outside.

...not to say it wasn't...maybe it was the fire in building 7 than made it all fall down simultaneously like a demolition?

WTC7 didn't fall like a demolition. It showed serious failures around the penthouse well before the full collapse. It also had one heck of a fire raging in it.

Yeah, it probably is smoke...but smoke tends to hang above the fire, not in it..there should be roaring flames visible at the bottom.

When smoke has limited places to go (as in when inside a building) it tends to stick around and obscure things. There are two rather hefty fires burning in that pic that I can see. Why is there no ragin inferno right there. I cannot be certain, but if that is the entry point then


There are plenty of shots on the internet showing lots of flame.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

You are quoting an effing economist as an authority?

Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames"

Wow. 'Did Not Appear to be extensive and intense enough'. There are so many erronious assumpitions in that last sentence. But hey! He must no more than firemen and structural engineers! He's an economist!

"While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94–98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. "

'Did not appear'. Wow. Apparently out supereconomist ahs X-ray vision.

"The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. "

Our economist seems to feel that moving debris in hopes of finding survivors was a sinister act on the part of FEMA.

FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.

So they tagged the debris? Assuming this is true, what of it? This seems like generic issue paranoia.

I'll let you read through the whole article when you feel like it.

Why don't you read this instead:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

as well as:

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

and:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

and the links here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

and perhaps:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf

But, none of that can be true! An Economist said the damage and fire didn't look too bad!

and read this to its a pretty in depth dissection of the claim that steel was melted by jet fuel....make sure you got your Nix comb handy.

The steel was not melted. Why do you persist in making that mistake?

 

[Flange Desire]

SNIPPETY SNIP SNIP
My problem...all of the things that would disprove conspiracy are lacking in official detail or weren't explained at all...
SNIP SNIP

... and the God Of The Gaps makes a not-quite-surprise appearance.

There is no need to "disprove conspiracy".
Properly, the onus is on the claimant (in this case, the CT) to provide credible evidence to support the incredible claim.