Penn and Teller on 9/11 conspiracy

[jetsetlemming]

Penn and Teller's take (http://thatsjuststupid.com/911.htm) on 9/11. Can you debunk what they have to say?

[PhilosophyGenius]

My 2 cents is that, according to this logic, anybody with a blow torch can knock down sky scrapers and steel buildings by just setting one or two floors on fire, since WTC 7 just had a small fire with no jet fuel or a giant whole and just imploded the way it did....the 9/11 experts here will debunk the rest.

[jschurchin]

Penn and Teller's take (http://thatsjuststupid.com/911.htm) on 9/11. Can you debunk what they have to say?

If I am not mistaken, Penn and Teller are magicians. When they get a few years under their belt CONSTRUCTING buildings have them get back to me. In the meantime, I have no use for two people who KNOW NOTHING about what it makes to keep a building standing or making one fall down.

[ZachM]

Penn and Teller are pulling out some of the more outlandish theories as strawmen. You don't have to believe that the planes were fake to question the official story. We don't cite the melting point of steel as proof. We do however point out that no steel-frame skyscraper has collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11/01, and we ask how the WTC towers could have fallen straight down at near freefall speed. There are many sources that address these points in more detail.

At one point they suggested in the video that if you see anyone carrying a copy of Eric Hufschmid's book Painful Questions, you should push them down a flight of stairs. Was that supposed to be comedy? Sorry guys, I enjoy your magic tricks, but you owe Mr. Hufschmid an apology.

[jetsetlemming]

If I am not mistaken, Penn and Teller are magicians. When they get a few years under their belt CONSTRUCTING buildings have them get back to me. In the meantime, I have no use for two people who KNOW NOTHING about what it makes to keep a building standing or making one fall down.
The link is to a site not written by Penn and Teller, but a debunking site with scientific evidence. It, in turn, has a video of Penn and Teller talking about 9/11. I haven't heard about anyone here with a few years of constuction, either.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Everyone knows Nastrodamus was the real deal, everyone exept Penn & Teller. There argument against him was that if he's accurute then people should have been able to stop 9/11 and predict things in advance.

[jschurchin]

The link is to a site not written by Penn and Teller, but a debunking site with scientific evidence. It, in turn, has a video of Penn and Teller talking about 9/11. I haven't heard about anyone here with a few years of constuction, either.

12 Years in commercial building construction and 4 years as a building maintenance engineer. What would you like to know?

[jetsetlemming]

1) Did you have to learn about steel's melting point, the temp. at which it's weak enough under the pressure of the building on top of it brings it down anyway, and the effects the concussion from the enitial explosion would have? And 2) Do you doubt that the fire and pressure and force of the two planes could bring down the twin towers? I don't have any more knowledge than laymen, just like most everyone else, but the explaination of the fires and the beams weakening and how it spread seems to make sense.

[jetsetlemming]

someone mentioned the WTC7, but I don't know anything about it. Until seeing the info on this site, I didn't even know anything but the twin towers and a couple building right next to them collapsed.

[DeadMoney6545]

WTC7 was a controlled demolition after the two towers were hit and collapsed. Five hours after. The guy that owns the property (don't remember name, help plz) Is in an interview that i saw saying he was contacted on 9/11 by the feds after the initial hit, telling him they were gonna "pull" WTC7. "Pulling it" is a demolition term which usually means to demo the building. Usually it takes weeks to rig a building of that size with enough explosives to successfully "pull it". On 9/11 they did it less than 5 hours and somehow had enough incite to know immediately that is was going to be needed after seeing the initial damage to WTC1 and WTC2.


I'm not very good at linking shit and what not... but i believe it was in InPlaneSite.com...

[Good Doctor HST]

WTC7 was a controlled demolition after the two towers were hit and collapsed. Five hours after. The guy that owns the property (don't remember name, help plz)

The guy's name is Larry Silverstein.

[Good Doctor HST]

Penn and Teller's take (http://thatsjuststupid.com/911.htm) on 9/11. Can you debunk what they have to say?

I thought Teller didn't speak. Wasn't one of them mauled by a tiger? Wait, that was the other magic (ambiguously gay) duo.

I don't feel I have to debunk what they have to say. They're celebrities with opinions on the what, where, and why in regards to 9/11, just like Charlie Sheen. Does it matter what any of them think? I'm just glad the 9/11 debate continues on major media outlets.

[jetsetlemming]

WTC7 was a controlled demolition after the two towers were hit and collapsed. Five hours after. The guy that owns the property (don't remember name, help plz) Is in an interview that i saw saying he was contacted on 9/11 by the feds after the initial hit, telling him they were gonna "pull" WTC7. "Pulling it" is a demolition term which usually means to demo the building. Usually it takes weeks to rig a building of that size with enough explosives to successfully "pull it". On 9/11 they did it less than 5 hours and somehow had enough incite to know immediately that is was going to be needed after seeing the initial damage to WTC1 and WTC2.


I'm not very good at linking shit and what not... but i believe it was in InPlaneSite.com...
I went out and looked info up on this one. When he said "pull it", he was talking to a fire chief, who was talking about a team of firemen inside the burning tower trying to get people out. The guy said "pull it" in reference to them, to get them out of the building and avoid any more casualties. I've also seen people who were on the scene describe the building as "collapsing", rather than "imploding" like a demolished building does. I've seen demolished buildings (always something fun to watch), and I've seen a house gutted from fire fall down. A building collapsing from fire damage looks a lot different from a demolished building.

[jetsetlemming]

I thought Teller didn't speak. Wasn't one of them mauled by a tiger? Wait, that was the other magic (ambiguously gay) duo.

I don't feel I have to debunk what they have to say. They're celebrities with opinions on the what, where, and why in regards to 9/11, just like Charlie Sheen. Does it matter what any of them think? I'm just glad the 9/11 debate continues on major media outlets.
Aw, c'mon good doctor. That's a cop-out. The info on that site are legitimate arguements against the conspiracy. If you don't like Penn and Teller, talk about that stuff, instead.

[Gold9472]

I went out and looked info up on this one. When he said "pull it", he was talking to a fire chief, who was talking about a team of firemen inside the burning tower trying to get people out. The guy said "pull it" in reference to them, to get them out of the building and avoid any more casualties. I've also seen people who were on the scene describe the building as "collapsing", rather than "imploding" like a demolished building does. I've seen demolished buildings (always something fun to watch), and I've seen a house gutted from fire fall down. A building collapsing from fire damage looks a lot different from a demolished building.

If you look at what Larry Silverstein said, and how he said it, he could ONLY be referring to controlled demolition.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

"telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire"

That means the firemen thought they weren't going to be able to contain the fire. If they couldn't contain the fire, then that means what? They were going to let it burn? That's not safe is it? Controlled Demolition is a way old fire companies used to make sure fires within cities didn't spread.

What I find interesting is that a small fire on two floors was beyond the FDNY's capability of extinguishing. Especially when you take into account exactly what was in those buildings. The Secret Service, the CIA, the SEC, Mayor Rudy Guiliani's emergency bunker, etc...

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Again, he couldn't be referring to letting the fire continue to burn. That's not safe.

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

He didn't say, "We pulled the firefighters out of there just in time because the building was about to collapse." or, "The firefighters informed me that the fire was going to bring down the building, and we should pull everyone out".

He said, "they made that decision to pull", period. "And we watched the building collapse", period.

Also, your statement...

"A building collapsing from fire damage looks a lot different from a demolished building"

How do you know? It's never happened before.

[jetsetlemming]

What do you mean, it's never happened before? Are you trying to say nothing's ever collapsed from fire? I've seen it. In person. I've seen video of buildings and towers gutted from fire falling down.

[Gold9472]

What do you mean, it's never happened before? Are you trying to say nothing's ever collapsed from fire? I've seen it. In person. I've seen video of buildings and towers gutted from fire falling down.

A steel framed structure or building has never collapsed due to fire.

[Good Doctor HST]

Great quote from a lewrockwell.com article on what's being discussed.

"A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7. Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology secret."

The whole article can be found here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html).

The whole WTC 7 collapse is fishy. It took 7 seconds for the building to collapse into its own footprint. A steel beam dropped from 47 stories up takes 6 seconds to hit the ground. The upper floors have to hit the floors below them when they fall, causing a pretty hefty force of friction against straight gravitational pull. So what gives?

[911=inside job]

jetsetlemming said-- What do you mean, it's never happened before? Are you trying to say nothing's ever collapsed from fire? I've seen it. In person. I've seen video of buildings and towers gutted from fire falling down.

youre a fucking liar!!! what a fool you are... why do you even post here??

[jetsetlemming]

you call me a fool and yet don't know how to use the quote function? Fucking retard. Gold was talking about "steel-framed buildings" though he didn't specify. I don't know what kind of frames the buildnig I saw collapse from fire, but fall it did. It was an apartment building, some kids dropped a cigarette in their closet and forgot about it, and the place burnt down, and I saw it. I post here because most of the people aren't an utter peice of shit like you are.

[jschurchin]

1) Did you have to learn about steel's melting point, the temp. at which it's weak enough under the pressure of the building on top of it brings it down anyway, and the effects the concussion from the enitial explosion would have? And 2) Do you doubt that the fire and pressure and force of the two planes could bring down the twin towers? I don't have any more knowledge than laymen, just like most everyone else, but the explaination of the fires and the beams weakening and how it spread seems to make sense.

Actually the melting point of steel was not a topic discussed. Fire is always a concern this is why our suppression system was tested and checked weekly.

As far as the pressures exerted on the buildings by the impact of the aircraft and the subsequent fires, I do not believe these, in of themselves, would be enough to totally destroy the buildings.

The towers were very complicated structures, as far as building load calculations are concerned. The main thing to remember is that the VERTICAL load was on the core. To collapse the structure you MUST remove the core. In my opinion, from the evidence I have seen, this was not done by the aircraft impacts.