[Closed] 9/11 documentary

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.

Goodness me, is this thread still going?

Well as regards the commission report, let's not forget:

The 9/11 Commission - The myth that the 9/11 commission report represents an adequate investigation into the events of 9/11 is perhaps best [b]exposed by the commissioners themselves, 6 out of 10 of whom have questioned the commission and its conclusions personally (namely Kean and Hamilton, Kerrey, Roemer, Lehman and Cleland). Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean once famously remarked that the Commission was "set up to fail." Commission members considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military's complete lack of response on that day. One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been "deliberately compromised by the president of the United States."[/b]

On the points regarding whistleblowers, the vitriol displayed on this one insignificant little MTB chat forum towards any form of reasonable scepticism

To be fair, if there has been any vitriol, it’s not been aimed at anyone displaying “reasonable scepticism”

It’s been aimed at the sort of people that repeatedly say “yeah but...,. Blah” whenever they are challenged with actual facts to counter their pet YouTube vid.

Just to clarify, this is the president of the united states they're referring to...

[img] [/img]

The guy on the left?

Eamon Holmes bit far fetched even for you JHJ

No ones provided an explanation as to where the debris from the collapse of ALL the wtc towers went.

Yes, it may have taken eight months worth of trucks to haul the debris out, but there were a lot of buildings involved.

I've yet to read the Judy woods book, (I'm holding out for the kindle edition!), but I believe that she mentions trucks arriving with dirt to 'dampen down' the fires, and then hauling it out to be replaced with fresh dirt...

No ones provided an explanation as to where the debris from the collapse of ALL the wtc towers went.

I can no longer tell what is a piss take and what some folk actually believe

The towers were processed with the weapon and turned to dust from within for a period before they collapsed. Watch steel turn to dust before your eyes.

Some of this shit make god sound credible, well researched and rational

The towers were processed with the weapon and turned to dust from within for a period before they collapsed. Watch steel turn to dust before your eyes.

There's something definitely not quite right about the way they collapse; watch them. You'll see they fall straight down like a controlled demolition, you can even see what looks like small explosions/charges being detonated.

But you did say no one had debunked the various claims you listed.

the video said that, all the comments in that list were derived from the video.

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

we woouldn't have got to 19 pages if someone didn't argue.

It was obvious no-one was watching the video, I was trying to spark some interest in watching it.

I think you misunderstand my questions. I am merely try to ask you for the data to inform any probabilistic calculations. So when you ask me to provide different modes and mechanisms, you miss the point

No ones provided an explanation as to where the debris from the collapse of ALL the wtc towers went.

I think you're onto something. Maybe the buildings were never really there to begin with. I mean, have any of you actually SEEN them, with your own eyes?

you can even see what looks like small explosions/charges being detonated.

Clearly they turn to dust you cannot explode DUST that's why flour mills are so safe !!

Goodness me, is this thread still going?

Well as regards the commission report, let's not forget:

\cut for brevity

What would you like us to take from that? I fail to see how it undermines any of the previous issues discussed so far.

Or are you trying to disprove science with politics again.

At risk of sounding tedious, no one on here has managed to provide an alternative explanation for the events on the day of 9/11 that’s has managed to stand up to the most basic level of scrutiny. Therefore the official explanation remains the only plausible account.

It was obvious no-one was watching the video, I was trying to spark some interest in watching it.

That’s becuase they are almost always bollocks.

As I said above, people have picked points from it you quoted at random and refuted them easily. How does that change your view that the video is compelling?

There's something definitely not quite right about the way they collapse; watch them. You'll see they fall straight down like a controlled demolition, you can even see what looks like small explosions/charges being detonated.

Read through the previous 18 pages and you’ll be given all the information you need to see that your assertion is incorrect.

the vitriol displayed on this one insignificant little MTB chat forum toward[b]s any form of reasonable scepticism[/b]

Not seen much reasonable scepticism here at all

davidtaylforth
There's something definitely not quite right about the way they collapse; watch them. You'll see they fall straight down like a controlled demolition, you can even see what looks like small explosions/charges being detonated.

Seriously, can we stop with this crap now!

(buildings fall down when they either are structurally weakened by a controlled demolition, or when they are structurally weakened by fire, impact, corrosion or any other factor) The reason you think it "looks like a controlled demolition" is simply because that is all you have ever seen. How many people have seen a building collapse from anything else? (earth quakes are of course the main thing that knocks down buildings, but those building are not structurally weakened first before the fall down due to massive lateral displacement)

Obviously stuff gets ejected sideways, principally the air that was inside the building (forming what looks to morons "puffs of dust from explosion" given that what "explosions" actual are is moving pressure waves though, duh, air!

Consider one tower

[img] [/img]

110 floors, 63.5m x 63.5m x 3m per floor, so that's (approximately) 1.3 Million cubic meters of air in each tower. As the towers fell, that air had to go somewhere. Have a go at moving 1.3M m3 of air in 15 sec, and then tell me "ooh, what a surprise, some stuff got blown around".....

Look at the plan, like most high rise buildings, the WTC towers have horizontal floors punctured by lift shafts and stair wells. It's not in the least bit surprising that air got pushed down the building at high velocity as it collapsed, and when it found a way out (broken windows, broken structure etc) it produced lateral puffs of debris

@maxtorque. The towers were 95% air so yes, there was a fair bit inside the building!

Incidentally that’s also the reason for the relatively small amount of debris compared to expectation

Maxtorque, I can't tell with some of the others on this thread but I'm pretty sure davidtaylforth isn't being serious. 😉

More interesting is the lack of markings on those planes and the extra bits on the underside of the fuselage that were similar to those seen on military remote control planes, and the eye witneses saying no commercial markings :

go from 2.10

[video]

and at 4.50 where the engine found is from the wrong plane type to be a united flight.

And as to the commissions report being "incomplete" that's because they weren't asked to report on stupid, impossible or irrelevant claims.

For example, go read this Hillsbrough tragedy report:

[url= http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/ ]http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/[/url]

Notice how incomplete that report it. At no point in the report do they even consider the fact that the tragedy was caused by aliens, or another bunch of conspirators! I mean, how lax were the report authors?

The fact is this: The WTC attack was watched by millions of people, who saw planes hit the towers, the towers burn and collapse. The Report (rightly) was focused on understanding how that occurred, both as an explanation to the events of that terrible day and to see if anything could be learned that could be used in future large building design to mitigate against similar events.

By starting, encouraging or championing stupid conspiracy theories, those idiotic theorists are rubbing the names of the thousands of innocent victims of the 911 attacked through the mud, and trivializing there deaths......

TurnerGuy - Member
More interesting is the lack of markings on those planes and the extra bits on the underside of the fuselage that

the top 60 floors of the south tower on the 8th and 9th sept were on a 36 hour power down. fact. Pretty disruptive for such high profile tennants. The guy who reported this had worked there for 3 years prior and had never had this while he was there, and he asked colleagues who had been there longer and they said the same. Workers in overalls were seen coming and going.

must just be coincidence. 8)

Seriously, can we stop with this crap now!

😀

Hadn't been on since Sunday, saw this was up to nineteen pages so presumed we must've started from scratch again.

Thanks for providing an explanation though, I can remove my tin foil hat now 😉

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

[img] [/img]

If you believe this sheep worrier, Sandy Hook, Vegas, anywhere there's been a mass shooting in the last 20 years.......oh, and water makes frogs gay or something

[video]

If any of the "false flags" actually happened, then why let the nutters put forward the ideas?

I'm not reading all that.

Can someone just provide a list of forum users who believe in this conspiracy theory so I know who to add onto the 'Completely and utterly hatstand' list.

Ta.

and at 4.50 where the engine found is from the wrong plane type to be a united flight.

No it isn’t, that’s been debunked. Go do some research.

The rest of the video is crap as well.

if so where are the original passengers

1) landed elsewhere and killed/or given the option to live with a new identity and a big wedge of cash on the condition they always keep their mouth shut or death would ensue. Entirely possible.

...on this, if this did happen? if you were in their situation, would you have chosen instant death?

Hmm, that's strange.

[img] [/img]

Workers in overalls? Wow.

Anyone care to explain?

[img] [/img]

the top 60 floors of the south tower on the 8th and 9th sept were on a 36 hour power down. fact.

Incorrect, and debunked. You do know the observation deck was open dont you?

You can’t be a truther by repeating lies