[Closed] 9/11 documentary

[quote=wobbliscott ]2) Where did they bury the bodies from the planes
MH370...
And what about the bodies from MH370? So now the conspiracy has crossed international boarders involving another nations national airline. So now we're looking at around 400 bodies from the aircraft from 9/11 and the 300 or so bodies from MH370. Boy this thing is spiralling out of control. Not to mention finding all these pilots who are happy to go on suicide missions.
And lets not get onto the MH370 conspiracy. Its a chuffing big ocean. We knew where that Air France aircraft crashed and it still took well over a year to find it. We don't know exactly where MH370 went down so have very little hope of finding it in such a vast ocean.

thats because its in diego garcia...

edit: 😉 just in case...

CharlieMungus Any kind of chaotic behaviour which might have resulted in differential effects across the tower.

True.

But what matters is not the macro effects, but the major ones. Local beam failures cause other beams to take more load, then they fail, then the next beam takes the load, it fails, and on and on. And in the case of a minor overload, you would expect that mechanism to produce uneven loadings that could result in a non linear collapse. However we are not talking about a minor overload here. We are talking about a sudden, gross overload failure.

Here's the difference in laymans terms:

you are standing in the middle of a room, and asked you to put your hands above your head and hold up an object put into them. That object is, say a 50kg sand bag, chances are, you'd hold it up for a bit, probably wobble round on your feet, trying to get balance, but ultimately, you'd drop that sand bag, but it probably won't come down above where it was given to you to hold as you have been able to hold it up for a bit.

But instead of a 50kg sandbag, i'm going to use a crane to release a 5 tonne elephant into / onto your upstretched hands. Where do you think the elephant will come to rest in this case???

@maxtorque - a (the) classic example of probability being counter-intuitive is "How big a group of people do you need for it to become more likely that at least two of them share the same birthday?"

Even with a finite number of options (365 if you disregard leap years) most people would guess at some very large number but the answer is 23

what is the percentage probability in that case? something like 50.01% I'll wager?

how big does the group have to be to make the probability approach 100%

how big does the group have to be to make the probability approach 100%

100% would be a group of 367 people.

99.7% is a group of only 70 people.

TurnerGuy - Member

I missed out the 7 in that message, I meant WTC 7 at free fall speeds.

I said this earlier but it doesn't matter what you do to a building, unless you hollow it out completely then turn all the structural elements to dust it won't fall at free fall speed. Controlled demolition doesn't do it, flying a plane into it doesn't do it, setting fire to it then hitting it with a falling skyscraper doesn't do it. Essentially to get a building to fall at freefall, you need teleporters to remove the inside, or rocket motors on the roof providing the exact amount of thrust to overcome the resistance of the building

It happened in SEPTEMBER for heavens sake. And not only that (as if that wasn’t enough!) it happened in New York!!

I am culturally lost here.... Why?

No reason. I was just picking random bits of data, and drawing conclusions from them with no explanation or reasoning.

The same way TurnerGuy (and others) are doing with the freefall speed thing.

@jonnyboi - correct. The question asks how big does the group have to be to make it [i]more likely[/i], not 100% certain.

nealglover - Member

how big does the group have to be to make the probability approach 100%

100% would be a group of 367 people.

99.7% is a group of only 70 people.

So based on that we can assume that if there was a conspiracy to blow up the world trade centre at least one whistleblower would have been identified by now, no? 😉

Here's the short version again :

from 5.40 where WTC 7 is first discussed.

Several High-Rise architects then explaining why they wanted more investigation.

7.56 They complain about the lack of rigueur in investigating it and how fast they shifted stuff away from the site (400 truck loads a day), and the laws violated in the desctruction of any 'evidence'. A Dr and a Professor in the commentary.

Then another Professor from the Univesity of MA, awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999, saying how unscientific the investigation was.

11.43 - NIST says collapsed from office furnishing fires. Only steel framed hi-rise to ever collapse from office fires.

NIST claims the fires were very hot and long-lasting, but their cited locations and intensity were not what was observed.

12.50 Shyam Sunder of NIST actually said WTC collapsed at free fall for 100ft of its fall at the start - see 13.53.

13.39 - a structural engineer speaks !

14.28 - another structural engineer.

14.41 - another structural engineer questioning how could all the beam connections fail in the manner that they were suppossed to, without secondary explosions.

15.28 - a metallurgy engineer questioning the symmetry of the fall from suppossedly asymetric damage.

15.44 Explosives Technician specialising in controlled demolitions - says classic implosion - reckons NIST investigation is very suspect.

16.20 - NIST claim a single column, 79 on level 12, failed. A Forensic Fire Protection Engineer says it just does not make any sense.

16.37 - high-rise architect, the principal of Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie (30 year controlled demolition expert), structural engineer - all saying controlled demolition.

27.50 NIST excluded the evidence of melting steel.

Couple of statements from some Ph.Ds.

Photos, etc.

28.20 - NIST guys saying he knows of no eye witnesses to melted steel, followed by loads of eye witnesses making statements. A captain in the NYFD saying molten steel, like a foundry.

29.06 - a structural engineer describing seeing a little river of steel.

Then that scientist complaining about the NIST guy not even considering the molten steel as it didn't fit his preconceived model - so more bad science accusations.

29.53 - a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley saying he saw melting of girders at WTC.

29.57 - that metallurgist talking about evidence of molten steel in the rubble pile and that seen pouring out of the tower.

32 - Chemical Engineer pointing out the 1400 degree temeratures and the length of the fires burning at ground zero. then discussion of thermite.

33 - discussion of the iron microsphere found in the dust. therefore 2700 degree F needed.

34.26 - Chemical engineer saying he contends that thermite was used, based on the thermite residue found.

35.26 Associate Professor. Emeritus, Uni of Copenhagen, saying that unreacted thermitic material was found in the dust. Prime indication of thermitic reaction.

Actually Nano-thermite - more sophisticated construction required.

36.58 - Paper in April 2009 Open Chemical Physics Journal "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe".

None of the papers have been refuted.

37.37 - chemical engineer saying that this is material of military use that really shouldn't be there.

38.25 - the Professor from MA critising strongly the NIST report again and their approach. NIST never looked at explosive and denied any explosions even though countless witnesses (which admittedly might have been confused but that's not a reason to completely not consider it).

Stopped there.

I said this earlier but it doesn't matter what you do to a building, unless you hollow it out completely then turn all the structural elements to dust it won't fall at free fall speed.

NIST say freefall speeds in WTC for the first 100ft of fall. See 12.50 in the video.

If there's another manner of collapse that you think is possible, please put it forward and explain it.

Well, for example not all columns failed at the same time or cracks propagated faster in some concrete, not all steel was affected in the same way. Any kind of chaotic behaviour which might have resulted in differential effects across the tower.

Minor details in a large structure, which might have an impact on the exact point at which collapses begins, but it still collapses in the same manner, 'downwards into it's own footprint'.

You've still not put forward another manner of collapse or explained how it would happen and look, if you think it could collapse in another way then please explain how so....Back to the question.

[i]If there's another manner of collapse that you think is possible, please put it forward and explain it.[/i]

There's only really 2 possible (and one impossible) scenarios

1 > structural failure initiates collapse, gravity + Mass means it collapses as observed, down and into its footprint (roughly)

2 > incomplete collapse, ie: bits of it collapse but not sufficient to progress and cause full structural failure, which would mean tower still standing but with a few small sections severely damaged <- clearly this didn't happen, and is unlikely to in a building of that construction type, any partial collapse is likely to initiate a further collapse.

3 > it topples over <- this is the impossible one.

Are you suggesting something like a 4th option?

4 > large chunks break off and fall off in bits/top section falls off sideways? because this also is impossible, for reasons discussed on previous pages.

Yup, the initial collapse where it was going through the part of the building that had lost integrity. But not the full fall.

I can’t believe you are still going on this 🙂

TurnerGuy - Member

NIST say freefall speeds in WTC for the first 100ft of fall. See 12.50 in the video

This is what they actually said

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

what conclusion do you reach from that?

If there's another manner of collapse that you think is possible, please put it forward and explain it.

This isn't supposed to be adversarial. I put forward another mode of collapse, that of uneven failure rates.

The nature of chaotic behaviour is precisely that the results are not minor.

I understand that you are saying that given the way it failed, there was only one possible mode of collapse (though 100% is very unusual). But... uneven heat distribution, loading, pre-loading or other effects could have resulted in it failing in a different way. The 'could have' is the important bit here. You seem very definite that the actual outcome was the only possible one.

In other batshit theories

[img] [/img]

turnerguy I just picked one at random

36.58 - Paper in April 2009 Open Chemical Physics Journal "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe".

2 minutes with google showed me several complete debunkings of this one

The samples tested in that "paper" had no documented chain of custody meaning that they could have come from anywhere and / or could have been contaminated. Thermite of this type cannot possibly have cut the beams.

~from Wiki
"Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[7][8][9][13] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[89] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[90] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[91]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

I can't be arsed copying and pasting the references but once again we get the total bollox being spoken. that theory has been comprehensively debunked contrary to what turnerguy says

35.26 Associate Professor. Emeritus, Uni of Copenhagen, saying that unreacted thermitic material was found in the dust. Prime indication of thermitic reaction.

@turnerguy, is there a written report detailing how this was established?

I find the use of 'unreacted' particularly incendiary, seeing as thermite is basically iron oxide and aluminum powder?

Have a read through [url= http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101279 ]Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers[/url] Chapter 9 - Probable Collapse Sequences and tell me what you think is implausible.

There is much supporting information/analysis/modeling earlier in the document should you need it.

redsox - Member
In other batshit theories

[img] [/img]

lol

Only steel framed hi-rise to ever collapse from office fires.

Plasco Building in Tehran.

This isn't supposed to be adversarial. I put forward another mode of collapse, that of uneven failure rates.

Adversarial or not you haven't actually put forward another manner of collapse, you've said things like 'differential loading' and chaotic interaction but not said how you think this would chnage the mode of collapse, what difference would you expect to see? how would you explain such differnces?

If as you posit, bits failed at differnt rates, what do you think the outcome of that would be? I'm genuinely asking you to explain what you think would happen.

For example, do you think left side of tower collapses, with right side left standing or some thing like that?

though 100% is very unusual

Fine, there's always the 0.000000000000000001% chance that something else might happen, but if you're arguing for us paying attention to the 0.000000000000000001% then you still need to explain the mechanisms at work.

The only way to get that building to do anything other than fall into it's own footprint would be with massive external lateral forces acting on the majority of the mass of the building as it fell, something which demonstrably did not happen.

in it failing in a [i]different [/i]way.

define different, this is the bit I'm asking...

CM, what I can't work out from your postings is whether you genuinely don't understand and are trying to further your knowledge, or if you think you know better already?

If it's the former then you questions would perhaps be better resolved by you listening to the explanations given and doing some more research/learning on the mechanics and physics involved so you can actually discuss specific points with whch you disagree, so far some of your comments suggest a lack of understanding.

If it's the latter than we await your alternative explanation so we can review your workings accordingly and discuss any points which raise disagreement.

redsox & rhinofive: flat earth thread is this way:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/these-make-the-truthers-look-sensible

(and that flat earth image is all wrong. Only an imbecile would believe that. Where are the ice walls dammit?)

How big was the room to accommodate the five tonne elephant dropped from a crane?

whitestone - Member
@maxtorque - a (the) classic example of probability being counter-intuitive is "How big a group of people do you need for it to become more likely that at least two of them share the same birthday?"

Even with a finite number of options (365 if you disregard leap years) most people would guess at some very large number but the answer is 23.

I take it you mean more than 50% likely otherwise that makes no sense whatsoever .

Adversarial or not you haven't actually put forward another manner of collapse, you've said things like 'differential loading' and chaotic interaction but not said how you think this would chnage the mode of collapse, what difference would you expect to see? how would you explain such differnces?

no, i was talking of another mode. What would i expect to see? As the result of a chaotic process?

Well, anything. For example, it would collapse unevenly, or stop collapsing, or topple, or split, anything really. The mechanism isn't the issue here. The probabilistic approach only needs to know that it is possible.

If as you say
"The only way to get that building to do anything other than fall into it's own footprint would be with massive external lateral forces acting on the majority of the mass of the building as it fell, something which demonstrably did not happen." Then as an aside you would have to accept that all the talk of 6 months of demolition planning etc. was just wrong. I can't remember if that was a point you made. But just for clarity. Pretty much any large randomly placed internal explosion would have produced the same result?

It's not to make a point, it's to establish a probability. but if you say that probability is .00000001% then fine. For all intents and purposes, that's the only way the building can fall. It allows us to move forward.

Well, anything. For example, it would collapse unevenly, or stop collapsing, or topple, or split, anything really. The mechanism isn't the issue here. The probabilistic approach only needs to know that it is possible.

Which is why we discussed such things over the last few pages to refute the possibilities.

It can't topple because 'physics'
It can't only collpase half way and then stop becasue 'physics;
It can't split because 'construction type'

"it would collapse unevenly" <-- I don't know what [i]you [/i]actually mean by this as you've provided no description. To me it sounds like a catch-all term for the above.

Hence the repeated 'it could only ever collapse downwards into its footprint', this is not evidence of demolition, nor does it increase the possibility of it having been demolished. The only thing that could increase the probability of demolition would be acutal evidence of demolition of which 'falling neatly' is not, and nor has any other such evidence yet been presented.

I will gladly change my mind about demolition if and when credible evidence is presented, so far it has not been. I happen to not think it's likely either, but thats another matter...I'm still willing to consider it if it does appear.

It's not to make a point, it's to establish a probability. but if you say that probability is .00000001% then fine. For all intents and purposes, that's the only way the building can fall. It allows us to move forward.

There's been nothing stopping us moving forward at all! But if it takes a stranger on the internet to say .00000001% then so be it...

There's been nothing stopping us moving forward at all!

Charlie - you do it in an ontological hermeneutic manner

I'm rapidly approaching the point at which I stop interacting with this thread and revert to observation only. A position I perhaps should have stayed at from the beggining...

I know what you mean, it was a laugh for while but in the end you just get more and more meaningless response.

As i said way back on page 1, you cant' argue with a CT. They've already made their mind up.

It's like Moon Hoax theorists, when one says "we never landed on the moon" the best response is to simply punch them, as hard and fast as possible in the face. When they've regained consciousness, wiped the blood up and say "why did you do that" you simply reply "do what?".... 😉

(and that flat earth image is all wrong. Only an imbecile would believe that. Where are the ice walls dammit?)

[img] [/img]

I can't be arsed copying and pasting the references but once again we get the total bollox being spoken. that theory has been comprehensively debunked contrary to what turnerguy says

so you can't be arsed, but I took the time out documenting what and where the video said things 🙄

Note again that I never said this stuff was true, I just the video was compelling.

For example, it would collapse unevenly, or stop collapsing, or topple, or split, anything really. The mechanism isn't the issue here. The probabilistic approach only needs to know that it is possible.

Charlie, see the first one that went down, it started to topple. it moved towards the point of impact where the most damage was. When this movement was enough to break any remaining connections in the undamaged area then gravity took hold and it went straight down. Eg, once 40 odd floors was free to move it was actually constrained by its mass and gravity to go straight down. There was nothing in its way strong enough to deflect it.
To me that means because of the building design and construction there is only one failure mode of collapse once it starts to collapse.

But you did say no one had debunked the various claims you listed. Two mins gave me links to 3 papers in reputable peer reviewed papers debunking one of the ones you said had never been debunked.

the paper I looked at that you said was never debunked was also published on a self publishing journal where the editor resigned over it being put on there before approval

I did leave you the wiki link where you can find the links

the video is only compelling if you are credulous. As soon as you actually look into the claims they are complete nonsense.

so you can't be arsed, but I took the time out documenting what and where the video said things

Note again that I never said this stuff was true, I just the video was compelling.

And at least two of us picked a point at random and managed to refute them quite easily. Considering all the factual evidence that has been put to you, do you still consider the video to be compelling?

Apart from 9/11 has America ever done any other false flag operations?

on its own soil with this level of destruction?

Was it not over 50% of americans were willing to bomb a Muslim sounding country that never existed?

Even if they wanted a false flag op, to justify a war, it did not require this level of death and destruction

Note again that I never said this stuff was true, I just the video was compelling.

But when people pointed out it wasn’t true you argued against them. 😐

So to sum up can I assume that all of the believers have read in full the official 9/11 commission report and that they are in full agreement of all of its findings ?

Were you all similarly convinced by the Whitehouse assertions prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I wasnt.

I am a total sceptic to the whole official story and will definitely read the commission report to see if it can alter that.

On the points regarding whistleblowers, the vitriol displayed on this one insignificant little MTB chat forum towards any form of reasonable scepticism is proof in itself that any one person coming forward would be silenced, smeared, derided and basically hung out to dry.

So based on that we can assume that if there was a conspiracy to blow up the world trade centre at least one whistleblower would have been identified by now, no?

Absolutely. According to this peer-reviewed research paper, less than 800 people had to be in on it for it to have had a whistleblower by now.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

So to sum up can I assume that all of the believers [b]and none [/b]believers have read in full the official 9/11 commission report and that they are in full agreement [b]or disagreement [/b] of all of its findings ?

I am a total sceptic to the [b]whole [/b]official story

Fair enough.

and will definitely read the commission report to see if it can alter that

Ah. So you haven’t actually read the official report that you are “a total sceptic” of 🙄

How about you get on with that first. And then come back and tell us about the bits you don’t agree with, and explain why.