[Closed] 9/11 documentary

it is to us to Jamby who knows 😉

The best conspiracy theory is of course the one which suggests that conspiracy theories are put out there to distract people from the [b]conspiracy theory that tells us that[/b] the real truth [b]is a comfortable conspiracy theory to cover up the alternate uncomfortable truth[/b].

F(***ed)TFY

I didn’t think this thread would last this long, once the drugs wore off I thought it’d fizzle out.

Good to see matrons been around again.

And are we widening the scope to include crop circles too? Because there have this year been a bumper crop reported, Wiltshire typically winning the top table spot.. makes you think.

[img] [/img]

*Further unconfirmed allegation.

sn’t the statistic that something like 30% of people in the Middle East and North Africa believe 9/11 was a joint operation by the Israeli and American secret service in order to make “Muslims look bad and give them an excuse to bomb/invade”

There is a significant number of people who believe this. The number varies wildly from country to contry. Doesn't make them right though.
Stuff here with charts and everything.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

A made up statistic about how many people believe something, to be fair it's better supporting evidence than he normally punts out.

Bloody hell.....still going???

I'd bette get more biscuits!!

Bloody hell.....still going???

I know. Imagine being able to keep a thread going for a whole DAY. Incredible isn’t it.

Bloody hell.....still going???
I know. Imagine being able to keep a thread going for a whole DAY. Incredible isn’t it.

Yeah. But why? Eh. Makes you think.

I found the analysis of WTC7 collapse here interesting: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

The real question is whether the US government knew it was planned and let it happen to get full support of the country behind any future dabbling in the middle east (In the sam way they let Pearl Harbour happen)

In the sam way they let Pearl Harbour happen)

Yeah of course they did. I mean allow a large number of your capital ships be destroyed which almost tips the balance of power completely to enter a war, which was pretty inevitable anyway.

More like a similar level of arrogance and incompetence.

gobuchul - Member

Yeah of course they did. I mean allow a large number of your capital ships be destroyed which almost tips the balance of power completely to enter a war, which was pretty inevitable anyway.

Actually only 2 were lost- Arizona and Oklahoma. (and Utah but it was retired). But it can definitely be explained by arrogance, a degree of incompetence, and the general workings of armed forces, and those things all seem simpler and more reasonable than a conspiracy.

Actually only 2 were lost- Arizona and Oklahoma. (and Utah but it was retired)

California and West Virginia didn't come back to service to 1944.

The US had 9 battleships in the Pacific in 1941, the Japanese 10.

After the attack the US had 5. 4 out of 9 seems a "large" proportion to me.

I can't be arsed to read all this but I have two comments:
1) Freefall - My sister is a concrete/cement scientist and told me that what people do not realise is that brittle fracture normally occurs at the speed of sound in the fracturing solid. Which is faster than freefall..
There is is this fallacy that you expect the building collapse to kind of pause at each level or meet obstacle or overcome them - but imagine the kinetic energy of 40 floors (that above the point of entry) after they have moved one meter it must have been massive - so every bit of concrete or steel it hit was way beyond its fracture or crush point so ti just swept all before it. The laws of physics tell you it should fall at about freefall speed.
2) As everyone else said, they couldn't keep a blow job in the white house a secret, don't you think we would have had lots of inside testimony by now?

Sure, but they weren't destroyed, that's the point I was making.

Sure, but they weren't destroyed, that's the point I was making.

The point I was making wa:

almost tips the balance of power completely

which the attack almost did. By 1944, those 2 battleships hardly made any difference, however, they would of been very useful in 1942.

from 9/11 to pearl Harbour - Stw at its finest - no offence meant i get hwy it got here and an interesting debate seeing as its the bright folk doing it

gobuchul - Member

The point I was making wa:

I think you're missing the point- you said they were destroyed, I pointed out they weren't, that's all.

I know. Imagine being able to keep a thread going for a whole DAY. Incredible isn’t it.

You're a sarcastic ass - best head for the EU thread, you'd fit in well over there.

What's the relevance of "free fall speed"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/NationalGeographic/cache/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067.html

Whathaveisaidnow - Member
WT7 was a controlled demolition,.... please look into it.

The video that you posted shows 7WTC collapsing and shows a controlled demolition for comparison.
Why does 7WTC collapse in one corner first?
Many seconds before the rest of the building?
That's not how a controlled demo happens.

You're a sarcastic ass

Sarcastic [b]Arse[/b]

I’m from Yorkshire not Yonkers

delete - canny make the link work

slowoldman - Member
What's the relevance of "free fall speed"?

It is some kind of conceptual fallacy that the falling building should fall at less than the speed due to acceleration of gravity cos it crashes into itself and has to kind of pause at each level.

And anyway they did fall at less than freefall speed precisely because hitting each lower layer slowed it

What is the relevance? It's just evidence that is created, covered up or true. Just delete as appropriate to fit your ideas.
What if jfk elvis and marylin did it?

And anyway they did fall at less than freefall speed precisely because hitting each lower layer slowed it

My understanding is that the "freefall speed" adherents expected it to fall much much slower, and to kind of klunk at every level, whereas it fell more or less in the amount of time it would take a single object to fall. Any pauses were microscopically short because the kinetic energy was massive compared to the energy devoted to the work of destroying the material below.

The implication to the uninitiated is that the close to freefall speed means the building was destroyed from below, ie conspiracy. Woooooo

I can believe that Trump is actually a lizard, so it all makes sense now, and I want to change sides please.

I can't believe it's gone 6 pages & no-one's mentioned the plane hitting the Pentagon and not a single of the 500000 security cameras in the area seen it happen 😉

My understanding is that the "freefall speed" adherents expected it to fall much much slower, and to kind of klunk at every level, whereas it fell more or less in the amount of time it would take a single object to fall. Any pauses were microscopically short because the kinetic energy was massive compared to the energy devoted to the work of destroying the material below.

So, using only the assistance of gravity, 15-20% of each tower was able to pulverise, obliterate the undamaged remaining 80-85%? A small, relatively fragile object was able to almost totally ignore the resistance of an enormous, rigid object and make it to earth before falling apart itself? Or it fell apart on the way down but still remained compact enough to effectively retain its mass, allowing it to continue smashing through the intact structure below without resistance? Why do I not use tea bags to hammer in nails?

you could if you used thirty ton tea bags

15-20% of each tower was able to pulverise, obliterate the undamaged remaining 80-85%?

Junkyard - lazarus

yes floor by floor as no floor was designed to withstand the impact of 15-20 % of the mass of the tower hitting it [ why does this surprise you?]- its a cascade fall

Why even indulge the argument? If you just assume a devils advocate position and say "okay, it was a controlled demolition, now lets hash that out" you are into an even more fanciful and far fetched conspiracy - ie that thousands of government employees conducted massively destructed and invasive pre-demolition prep on the twin towers which would easily have taken 6 months to a year and no one noticed. No one questioned anything. None of the survivors recall seeing strange men drilling strange holes into support structure,

and none of the giant demolition team came forward.

Find out what the biggest controlled demolition thus far has been and look at the level of work, prep and time that goes into something like that. It's completely idiotic to suggest the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

I am only an accountant so I am not used to such big numbers, and I haven't had my coffee yet however:
It was 20 floors I just read, of 120. So thats 16% of the mass which was 450,000,000 KG. ( https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml)

lets get it moving by say 1/2m the gap it fall through when it started to fall.
PEi=mgh
Potential energy (i means intial, lets make that zero)
=0.16x450000000x9.8x0.5 =352million joules. That much energy to give up in the first half metre..

it is not relatively small its 16% of the total mass below it, and it only needs to destroy one floor below it ie 1%, the mass is now 1% bigger and still accelerating. By a few more meters. Every floor it increases mass and is going faster.
Plug in the original mass, having now moved a single floor (2 metres) and its 4 times as much energy as we had in the beginning..

Edit - as I was typing this junkyard and Jim jam replied with the same point.

mcj78 - Member
I can't believe it's gone 6 pages & no-one's mentioned the plane hitting the Pentagon and not a single of the 500000 security cameras in the area seen it happen

[img] http://tinypic.com/02/1/11793/0506/63ax9xg [/img]

They did it to cover up the fake moon landing and the fact gwb was a woman

So, using only the assistance of gravity, 15-20% of each tower was able to pulverise, obliterate the undamaged remaining 80-85%?

It didn't have to, the top 15-20% only had to crush the floor below. Now, instead of it being 20% of the total mass it's 21% (give or take as there were 110 floors) so it's got a bit more energy (remember this is kinetic energy not static) on its descent and it crushes the next floor so the total mass is 22%. Some of the mass was ejected to the sides but there was enough remaining that nothing below could stop its descent destroying each floor in turn.

jimjam - Member

Why even indulge the argument? If you just assume a devils advocate position and say "okay, it was a controlled demolition, now lets hash that out" you are into an even more fanciful and far fetched conspiracy - ie that thousands of government employees conducted massively destructed and invasive pre-demolition prep on the twin towers which would easily have taken 6 months to a year and no one noticed.

The whole "freefall" thing is classic conspiracy theory thinking- it doesn't have to be credible, it just has to contradict the official account. A controlled demolition wouldn't completely take away the resistance of the structure below either so the same "issue" with the official version would also apply to the consipracy version. But that's not actually important.

Northwind - Member

The whole "freefall" thing is classic conspiracy theory thinking- it doesn't have to be credible, it just has to contradict the official account.

Yes I agree, and that's why debating it is futile. It's like someone saying "Jesus walking on water is proof he was the son of god" and you start arguing about the surface tension of water or the buoyancy of Jesus' sandals....no prove that god exists first.

If a secret army of invisible demolition specialists rigged the twin towers to blow up then why not just drive a lorry into it and then detonate the whole thing and claim Al Queda did it ❓

Why the elaborate rouse with Saudi nationals training in Afghanistan, then getting their pilots license then hijaking planes and flying them into buildings, and of course non of that happened because they were radio controlled planes, which were actually missiles designed to look like.........gaaaaaaa

People like to think they can peak behind the curtain and see secret hidden details we are blind to. They are Rowdy Roddy Piper in "They Live". We are blind and we won't put on the damned glasses.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Double agree ^^^^^

Christ mods just kill this nonsense.

TurnerGuy, If you want people to think you're an idiot, just say you like Donald Trump. Saves all that nonsense you posted.

I only really said the documentary was compelling - not true.

It presented their points is a quite compelling manner, which I thought was quite impressive, considering that if you look their web site it is the usual type of mess that is on most conspiricy sites.

I thought the Sand Wars documentary, which was not a conpsiracy theory, was really good and compelling, and posted about that as well.

Most of the argument on the 9/11 documentary was about WTC 7 and how it came down, and it does look like that warrants more investigation.

Even if it was all a planned job, with controlled explosions, then why bother at all with WTC 7, not sure I see any point in that as the twin towers were the 'main show' and bringing down WTC 7 just opens the door wider to the conspiracy theorists.

Those who think it’s a government conspiracy keep ignoring those who point out that nobody has leaked the smallest factual detail, and are also ignoring all of the info that’s being leaked by Snowden into Wikileaks, and Shadow Brokers, the hacker group who have access to hacking tools developed and leaked from the NSA and other tools from the FBI, which would, you’d think, mean any files pertaining to 9/11 would be fair game; except nothing has been released, probably because [b]there’s no sodding conspiracy![/b]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/nsa-shadow-brokers.html

Most of the argument on the 9/11 documentary was about WTC 7 and how it came down, and it does look like that warrants more investigation.

Those who think it’s a government conspiracy keep ignoring those who point out that nobody has leaked the smallest factual detail

So whilst I think the government conspiracy line is rubbish it is conceivable that for some variations of the theories where the number involved are fairly low it could be kept secret. Of course once it gets to the ones where random police officers, firemen and bbc reporters are in on it does seem rather hopeful.