[Closed] 9/11 documentary

I have now lost track of who are the truthers and who are the sane ones!

What's all this sugar cube business?

its to do with ponys. feeding of.

I'll just quote myself from two days ago, because I don't think I was too far off the mark.

jimjam

Multiple questionable or seemingly incongruous issues which open these rabbit holes in the conspiracy theorists mind and without expertise in multiple fields it's impossible to fully rebuke or rebuff them.

Taking 9/11 as an example - someone who wants to disprove the conspiracy theorists needs to have expertise in aerodynamics, aviation, architectural/structural engineering, metallurgy, demolition....etc etc etc

Even if you happen to actually be a world renowned expert in one of those fields the conspiracy theorist will simply switch to another "fact" or more "evidence" of something else. Something which renders your expertise in the previous field irrelevant, and you are suddenly back on a level playing field of guesswork and supposition.

Also, I think it's worth keeping track of the full spectrum of this conspiracy. Let me see if I can get this straight.

1. The jets which hit the Twin Towers were actually empty, and they were radio controlled.
2. The radio controlled jets were actually missiles disguised as planes, this is how they caused so much damage.
3. The twin towers were both destroyed by controlled demolition because it looked a bit like a controlled demolition.
4. WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, not fires caused by burning debris from the twin towers.
5. WTC7 had 91,000 litres of diesel in it, but this didn't contribute to the fire because they found all that diesel in the wreckage...so they managed to blow the building up with explosives, but avoided rupturing the diesel tanks.

Don’t forget the unicorns.

am bo - Member

Don’t forget the unicorns.

Ah yes. The unicorns were controlling the [s]jets[/s] missiles from the edge of the flat earth.

This is a democracy (sort of!) and we've now heard evidence from both sides, so lets vote on it (ive added my vote)

A) The WTC was hit and brought down by aircraft hijacked by terrorists: VOTES: 1

B) The WTC was brought down deliberately by some secret agency to cover some secret evidence or event, or to influence public opinion: VOTES: 0

Please copy /paste, adding your vote. At some point when we have the results we can close this thread with the relevant majority finding

maxtorque - Member

This is a democracy (sort of!)

Pffft. Clearly someone isn't woke enough to know that the (flat) earth is run by a secret cabal of illuminati shape shifting lizard pedophiles who maintain the illusion of democracy and freedom to suit their own nefarious purposes.

Begone with your talk of votes and "evidence". Come back when you're able to lift the veil of lies from your eyes and see the world for what it really is. You are living in a dream world, and delusion and all of your "evidence" is exactly what "they" want you to believe.

And /sarcasm /smiley /somekindoffunnyanimated.gif

C) There are many anomalies surrounding 9/11 VOTES: 1

I'm guessing the people who are trying to explain away science with politics still think it was a conspiracy, the people that don't understand science still think it's a conspiracy, and the people that understand science still think they can convince the conspiracy theorists, is that about right?

Nooooo! the Towers are NOT like Jenga.

The point was not to compare the Towers to Jenga, but to give you and example of a system which has no external lateral force, yet lateral displacement occurs.

[quote=jivebunny]C) Due to my lack of knowledge There are many [s]anomalies surrounding[/s] things I don’t understand about 9/11 VOTES: 1

FTFY

C) There are many anomalies surrounding 9/11 VOTES: 1

I'm not saying it's the mind control dolphins.

[img] [/img]

fire too intense...

mostly due to structural failure...

ground zero...

from one minute in should do you.

...oh and just some people who were actually there ....

Nope but there were one or two other people there and I'm led to believe that there might have been some news coverage too. Spookily enough no one has ever reported hearing explosives which, had they been used, would certainly have been heard.

Just look at these two liars 😉

A) The WTC was hit and brought down by aircraft hijacked by terrorists: VOTES: 2

B) The WTC was brought down deliberately by some secret agency to cover some secret evidence or event, or to influence public opinion: VOTES: 0

Jive do you think two big passenger plains with passengers on flew into the sides of the WTC towers ?

A) The WTC was hit and brought down by aircraft hijacked by terrorists: VOTES: 2

B) The WTC was brought down deliberately by some secret agency to cover some secret evidence or event, or to influence public opinion: VOTES: 1

I'd have to be pretty mental to regularly mention Bandar Bin Sultan's links to the hijackers and Mohammed Atta at Huffman Aviation if I didn't think planes flew into the WTC towers.

But as I've said, there are many anomalies...

Cheekyboy's video is a good example:

Of course, it doesn't prove anything outright... but it's reasonable to imagine experienced firefighters have a grasp on the difference between an explosion and structural collapse or any other phenomenon which would've bought the lobby down.

I'd highly recommend watching this film:

In addition to covering a lot of ground, it goes a bit more into the background of the security arrangements of the buildings.

On top of that, it's really well made, entertaining and in some parts funny. Brilliant work considering it's all just the one guy and jam packed with plenty of solid research.

Jive do you think two big passenger plains with passengers on flew into the sides of the WTC towers ?

On this: planes were swapped in flight (youtube is your friend), with military planes, adapted/loaded with lord only knows,.. passenger planes were diverted landed (lord only knows what became of the passengers, don't even want to think about that)... planes hit buildings. no plane hit WT7, that was demolished, so...that means 1 and 2 were too.

...there were supposed mobile phone calls made from loved ones....this has been proved impossible in 2001 from the height the planes were at at the time.

Wow, just wow!!

The point was not to compare the Towers to Jenga, but to give you and example of a system which has no external lateral force, yet lateral displacement occurs.

I see what you were getting at, but it's still misplaced. I've tried to explain to that it behaves differently because it's a different kind of structure. You might expect some toppling with a rigid structure but not a structure like the Towers, and especially once you take the scale difference into account.

There is still no external lateral force by the way (other than an initial push maybe), your Jenga tower topples due to the vertical force of gravity, the toppling is because it is able to transfer load between it's rigid components and essentially pivot, at least until the pivot point moves, it doesn't move sideways because of a continuing lateral input force, it topples due to gravity and the rigid nature of the structure. Once the bricks separate it all falls downwards of course, it doesn't continue moving sideways other than any existing horizontal momentum.

TLDR, Jenga is different so not relevant.

" planes were swapped in flight (youtube is your friend), with military planes, adapted/loaded with lord only knows,.. passenger planes were diverted landed (lord only knows what became of the passengers, don't even want to think about that"
Why? Why swop the planes if you were going to"disaster " the passengers , why not just hijack the planes and crash the actual planes into the towers ?
". planes hit buildings. no plane hit WT7, that was demolished, so...that means 1 and 2 were too." If you plan to demolish the buildings without the planes why bring planes into the equation just blow the buildings up.

Of course, it doesn't prove anything outright... but it's reasonable to imagine experienced firefighters have a grasp on the difference between an explosion and structural collapse or any other phenomenon which would've bought the lobby down.

Hang on, earlier in the thread, firefighters couldn't possibly have predicted the collapse of WTC7 because they just spray water on fires, they're not structural engineers or anything clever like that.

You really need to conspire with your fellow theorists to come up with a consistent story.

Edit:

" planes were swapped in flight (youtube is your friend), with military planes, adapted/loaded with lord only knows,.. passenger planes were diverted landed (lord only knows what became of the passengers, don't even want to think about that"

Why? Why swop the planes if you were going to"disaster " the passengers , why not just hijack the planes and crash the actual planes into the towers ?
". planes hit buildings. no plane hit WT7, that was demolished, so...that means 1 and 2 were too."
If you plan to demolish the buildings without the planes why bring planes into the equation just blow the buildings up.

Exactly. At lizard/illuminati HQ they got together and said "right then lads, we're going to blow up the world trade centre" and someone said "oh, how, with a bomb?". And they said "no, with what looks like planes. We've got our best men on it, and they've realised that actually a plane won't make the building fall down so we're going to make it look like planes but actually use *something else?!?!?* to get the job done".

And nobody said "well, if planes wouldn't do the job, wouldn't someone figure it out?"

It's like putting together a false-flag terrorist 'atrocity', only the bad guys are armed with supersoakers instead of AKs, and just hoping that nobody notices that supersoakers aren't usually fatal.

...don't even want to think about that...

Thinking doesn’t appear to be one of your strong points anyway. So I wouldn’t worry too much.

From memory there were only two cell phone calls placed on 9/11. Both were from UAL93. Both were when the aircraft was below 7,000ft. Both did not last longer than a minute or so. Both took several attempts before the calls were connected due to poor reception.The bulk of the calls were from airphones the built in phones in the seatbacks. I guess the hostages were not worried about their credit card bills.

Wow, there are some seriously diverse viewpoints one here.

Who said the UK wasn’t both diverse and divided 😆

From memory there were only two cell phone calls placed on 9/11. Both were from UAL93. Both were when the aircraft was below 7,000ft. Both did not last longer than a minute or so. Both took several attempts before the calls were connected due to poor reception.The bulk of the calls were from airphones the built in phones in the seatbacks. I guess the hostages were not worried about their credit card bills.

Indeed. Given if it was a conspiracy the amount of planning that must of gone into it, letting cell phone calls slip out, or make up a story that's impossible would be a pretty big gaff.

Thinking doesn’t appear to be one of your strong points anyway. So I wouldn’t worry too much.

Oooh get you. 8)

5:40 ...more people who knew WT7 was about to collapse...

Did you hear that? Keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon...

wow, everyone is an expert, or everyone got to have a nice chat with an expert with a crystal ball

So a video where fire fighters describe "explosions" means there were bombs?

Really? How would you describe the sounds, pressures,vibration, dust and smells of a large building collapsing all around you?

At no point do they say "a bomb went off and the building collapsed".

It's also a well known phenomena that eye witness accounts to dramatic incidents are highly un-reliable. Confusion on the ground is rife. After the event, it's easy, with the benefit of collation and hindsight to say "oh yeah, a plane flew into the building and it fell down" but i bet if you were in it at the time, an weren't looking out the window to see the approaching plane you'd not have a clue what had occured.

Anyone who thinks a video of some firefighters describing a build collapsing as "an explosion" and somehow gets to "a bomb was deliberately set off" is a moron.

BTW, What did conspiracists do before You tube?

Guess they just sat in their bedsits alone knocking one out whilst normal people, who have long ago given up trying to talk to them, went out and actually had real social interactions........ 😆

I suppose if they're all on this thread, then at least the rest of the forum is safe, right?

Is this thread a STW conspiracy?

It's also a well known phenomena that eye witness accounts to dramatic incidents are highly un-reliable. Confusion on the ground is rife. After the event, it's easy, with the benefit of collation and hindsight to say "oh yeah, a plane flew into the building and it fell down" but i bet if you were in it at the time, an weren't looking out the window to see the approaching plane you'd not have a clue what had occured.

Anyone who thinks a video of some firefighters describing a build collapsing as "an explosion" and somehow gets to "a bomb was deliberately set off" is a moron.

The silly thing is, I actually agree with you on those points... I was even going to edit the original post to point out the mention of bomb in the caption could be misleading, but was worried someone would jump down my throat in the usual forum fashion.

To get to the bottom of this though, we need to establish if they came out after the complete collapse of the building (I'd be very surprised if that was the case, but stranger things have happened)

5plusn8 - Member
except at the edges
lots of stuff got ejected sideways, have you seen the videos.

The thing about conspiracy theorists... If you believe that They are running a massive conspiracy to control the world, and that They will happily kill anyone that crosses their path... How are all the people speading the Truth still alive?

bails - Member

It's like putting together a false-flag terrorist 'atrocity', only the bad guys are armed with supersoakers instead of AKs, and just hoping that nobody notices that supersoakers aren't usually fatal.

Bails for king

Drac - Moderator
He’s not a troll he seriously believes it

Nah, he avoids any questions that might trap him into agreeing with something that is true and could undermine his conspiracy.

Questioning simple answers to complex questions does not necessarily mean one believes in conspiracy. It might be driven by a desire to understand what happened.

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

5:40 ...more people who knew WT7 was about to collapse...

Did you hear that? Keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon...

😆
Do you think that maybe they could hear the structure failing? Over some time, not instantly as in a controlled explosion?

Large structures make noise as they fatigue.
Fatigue perhaps caused by fire.
*Fire that didn't set off any explosives prematurely, and didn't burn through any wires used in the detonation of said imaginary explosives.

This is your proof? 😆

Pulling the building?
You mean pulling your men from the building. This context makes sense in every batshit video you link to, demolishing the building does not.

Get a new hobby.

*I have professional experience in the use of explosives. You don't.

CharlieMungus - Member
Questioning simple answers to complex questions does not necessarily mean one believes in conspiracy. It might be driven by a desire to understand what happened.

Yeah but no but yeah but no but

What is deeply unpleasant about this thread, and all discussions like it, is the sneering derision.

Some are asking intelligent questions in order to fill gaps in their understanding.

I don't have the knowledge to seriously pick holes the official account, but there are a lot of people who are, and do - a decent chunk of those 2945 professional architects and engineers who have put their name down in their professional capacity to ask for a fuller understanding.

NIST had to come up with a complex computer model to try and explain how the towers came down (apparently, "gravity = down, duh" was deemed not to be a sufficiently full and complete explanation)

Apparently there are aspects of this which don't make sense and differ to the observable facts of the event, but NIST won't release the numbers and assumptions behind their model, so those experts are campaigning for fuller disclosure.

Those people (again, most more qualified to comment than some or all on here; most will have spent more time looking into it than some or all on here) are saying there are aspects which aren't explained.

It's sort of fun having a play with concepts on here, but I think anyone who thinks they can fully explain the collapses in a paragraph is kidding themselves.

it's important to be able to question things. BUT if you accept the answers as gospel, without considering commentary from a whole lot of other people with have expertise in those areas etc. Then you are heading fast to a position that's just as much a belief system as a "nut job conspiracy theorist's".

There is accepting as gospel and accepting that planes were seen flying into the towers and suggesting a mega conspiracy that involved professional demolition.

Perhaps more information could be released it would it disprove the facts above?

Very true, it's important to be able to question things. BUT if you don't listen to the answers, don't accept that other people have expertise in those areas etc. Then you are heading fast to nut job conspiracy theorist

Of course, but we should question the experts too.

Of course, but we should question the experts too.