9/11 documentary

Home Forum Chat Forum 9/11 documentary

Viewing 45 posts - 541 through 585 (of 1,456 total)
  • 9/11 documentary
  • 5plusn8
    Member

    Doesn’t even need physics and maths and stuff. Forensics would do that

    Forensics is Physics and maths and stuff (chem and bio)..
    Plus there is no Forensic evidence of demolition.

    jimjam
    Member

    slowoldman – Member

    Doesn’t even need physics and maths and stuff. Forensics would do that. But of course the people doing the forensic investigation would be in on the conspiracy too wouldn’t they?

    Of course they would. Along with the people who decalled the military jets, and the people who designed and implemented the remote controls, along with the people who forced the passenger jets to land, and the soldiers who took them away to exterminate them, and the digger drivers who dug the mass graves they put the bodies in, and the demolition experts who trained the cia spies in controlled demolition, and the cia spies who secretly rigged the tens of thousands of tons and hundreds of miles of explosives while secretly drilling tens of thousands of giant holes at night when no one noticed….and then you have to assume that some of them might have told their families so maybe there’s an extra 30% on top of that number.

    How many conspirators are we up to now? I reckon it took at least 5000 people to plan, execute, order and execute the whole thing.

    Impressive level of coordination and secrecy for a country that elected a reality tv star as head of state.

    Of course they would. Along with

    Don’t forget the firemen. The ones working on WTC7 were all in on it – they knew the tower was being blown and were openly shouting about about it in public on the day. (…but strangely afterwards they all became tight lipped!)

    The firemen in the other buildings weren’t in on it though.

    TurnerGuy
    Member

    Presumably you think nobody else is, and you expect them to watch the video you posted instead of you presenting the evidence from it?

    you’re the ones argueing about it – I just said it was quite compelling.

    I’ll have a look at the short version at lunchtime maybe.

    TJ assertions in

    Nope – there is none whatsoever. There is opinion from unqualified people that shows gross misunderstandings of the science. The classic example of this is the idea the towers fell at freefall speed. they didn’t as can be easily seen from all the videos

    are rubbish as the video show well qualified, certainly a lot better qualified than TJ, people showing that WTC fell at free fall speeds.

    Where is the evidence for the massive amount of building works undertaken to rig the explosives?

    5plusn8
    Member

    are rubbish as the video show well qualified, certainly a lot better qualified than TJ, people showing that WTC fell at free fall speeds.

    I don’t agree with TJ, I don’t care though. I can’t see why it would not fall at about freefall speed. If you can measure it, or predict what it should be for a constantly changing shape. It is a non-sequitur.
    Find me a deliberately demolished building of comparable size and construction that falls at freefall speed anyway most of them take much longer? What does it prove?

    amedias
    Member

    Not really. The whole point of using this approach is to calculate or use conditional probabilities, exactly not non-sequitur.

    Bayes/Conditional is not the right tool for the job here

    For starters you can’t assume the starting position that you did, which is a starting probabiltiy that it was demolished.

    You’d have to start with a question like:

    “given a tower fell, what is the chance it was demolished”

    Which not only ignores the actual starting conditions (which include a plane hitting the building and a big fire), but requires having a rough idea of the probability of collapse in general. Just make a number up if you like…

    Your next part was:

    “given that it fell neatly what is the chance it was demolished”

    Bzzzzzzt, error! it can ONLY fall neatly therefore the probability of neat collapse is 100%, so no change in probability of demolition.

    You can only adjust your probabilities and use Bayes theorem if you have evidence with which to adjust it as you progress. Nobody has yet put forward any evidence of demolition.

    So until someone does we’re stuck on the made up number, which was a terrible place to start anyway. it would make more sense to start with the question:

    “Given there is little/no evidence of demoilition, and the observed colllapse can be explained by Newtonian Physics and knowledge of the building structure, what is the probability it was demolished?”

    Very very very ver very very very very low.

    If you have some evidence which we can use to revise our probability with then present it.

    whitestone
    Member

    The towers didn’t fall at freefall speed. They are roughly 1300ft high, if they fell freefall then the top floor would take 8.9 seconds to reach the ground. They actually took around 14 seconds, perhaps longer depending on when you decide that the top of the structure finally came to rest.

    5plusn8
    Member

    8.9 seconds

    Only in basic GCSE physics.

    tjagain
    Member

    Turner guy. Thats the truth There is no plausible evidence for anything but the official explanation. None. Give me one piece that you think is credible and I will demolish it citing real scientists

    The towers did not fall at freefall speed. ~This is a simple fact. You can time the fall or you can watch the bits of debris that where falling at freefall speed that go faster than the tower.

    So until someone does we’re stuck on the made up number, which was a terrible place to start anyway.

    You appear to have used some Bayes at least. I’m not sure how you arrive at this

    “Given there is little/no evidence of demoilition, and the observed colllapse can be explained by Newtonian Physics and knowledge of the building structure, what is the probability it was demolished?”

    Not really a Bayesian formulation

    5plusn8
    Member

    It doesn’t matter TJ, so what if it did fall at near freefall speed, what does it prove. Don’t get hung up this.
    Think it through – lets assume it did fall at freefall speed – what does that show. Has any other demolition gone at freefall?

    tjagain
    Member

    Perfectly right 5plus8. The speed it falls at proves nothing. It however is a very good example of people making stuff up to suit their hypothesis and is very easily disproved.

    the tin foil hatters claim it feel at freefall speeds. this is clearly false. therefore anything that is extrapolated from this false premise is also false

    Bzzzzzzt, error! it can ONLY fall neatly therefore the probability of neat collapse is 100%, so no change in probability of demolition.

    So you are saying that there were no other possible failure modes for the tower?

    5plusn8
    Member

    the tin foil hatters claim it feel at freefall speeds. this is clearly false.

    Well its close enough to make you think though right?
    Which is why I prefer to look at what a fast descent proves.
    It proves the mass of the falling object had many orders of magnitude more energy than that required to breach the connections at each floor.
    I think had it been demolished in the way they think it would have collapsed at the same rate anyway.

    jimjam
    Member

    TurnerGuy – Member

    you’re the ones argueing about it – I just said it was quite compelling.

    I’ll find you some compelling videos that show the earth is flat, that god made it in 6 days and it’s 3000 years old.

    outofbreath – Member

    Of course they would. Along with

    Don’t forget the firemen. [/quote]

    Ah yes, those firefighters who were in on it. Cynical bastards let their colleagues die in such great numbers. Oh and I forgot the Saudi royal family. They all knew too. So there’s a few hundred more.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    are rubbish as the video show well qualified, certainly a lot better qualified than TJ, people showing that WTC fell at free fall speeds.

    Not that I could be bothered with the vid but what were their qualifications?
    Were they in the correct field (demolitions etc.)

    and finally this

    Of course they would. Along with the people who decalled the military jets, and the people who designed and implemented the remote controls, along with the people who forced the passenger jets to land, and the soldiers who took them away to exterminate them, and the digger drivers who dug the mass graves they put the bodies in, and the demolition experts who trained the cia spies in controlled demolition, and the cia spies who secretly rigged the tens of thousands of tons and hundreds of miles of explosives while secretly drilling tens of thousands of giant holes at night when no one noticed….and then you have to assume that some of them might have told their families so maybe there’s an extra 30% on top of that number.

    How many conspirators are we up to now? I reckon it took at least 5000 people to plan, execute, order and execute the whole thing.
    Unless of course it was 1 guy doing this over the course of about 10 years to rig it secretly, then managed to set up the fall guys and deal with all the logistics by remote control.
    And yeah why would you go to all the trouble of making a bunch of people disappear when you could just leave them in the plane and crash them.

    If you want to pick holes in tiny details of the way something looked on TV a few years back then start with the big picture.

    whitestone
    Member

    14 seconds is close enough to 9? (or whatever your freefall time is) That’s over 50% difference! If the theoretical FF time and actual time taken were within a reasonable margin then I’d agree that they’d be close.

    But they aren’t even close.

    amedias
    Member

    “Given there is little/no evidence of demoilition, and the observed colllapse can be explained by Newtonian Physics and knowledge of the building structure, what is the probability it was demolished?”
    Not really a Bayesian formulation

    Exactly, Bayes is not the right tool for the job because we have a better starting point. Observed collapse in an explicable manner.

    So you are saying that there were no other possible failure modes for the tower?

    We’ve been through this several times over the last few pages….it can only ever collapse ‘downwards into it’s own footprint’ due to a combination of it’s construction, its mass and its height.

    It can’t fall/topple over, what other modes (of collapse) are there?

    Or are you suggesting it shouldn’t have collapsed at all?

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

    5plusn8
    Member

    whitestone – Member
    14 seconds is close enough to 9? (or whatever your freefall time is) That’s over 50% difference! If the theoretical FF time and actual time taken were within a reasonable margin then I’d agree that they’d be close.

    But they aren’t even close.

    I agree, but to the layperson even 14 seconds is very fast, anyway it is hard to measure accurately given the constantly changing shape of the thing. Which also makes it hard to predict what the freefall speed should be.
    My point is that the speed of collapse, even if it were 9 seconds, does not prove any evidence of demolition.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    @whitestone
    1) When did they place the charges
    2) Where did they bury the bodies from the planes

    Premier Icon jam bo
    Subscriber

    2) Where did they bury the bodies from the planes

    MH370…

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Ah it makes sense now….

    nealglover
    Member

    My point is that the speed of collapse, even if it were 9 seconds, does not prove any evidence of demolition.

    Exactly.

    If the people who are quoting “freefall speeds” would like to go one step further, and explain what this PROVES ?

    That would be greatly appreciated.

    TJ asked for one piece of evidence that proves something other than the official findings.

    The whole freefall/not freefall thing is NOT evidence of anything. It’s data, nothing more.

    5plusn8
    Member

    That is why I am happy to accept that speed of collapse makes you wonder, because it does. However it is easy to explain. All those arguing that its not freefall are implicitly accepting that if it was freefall then it would be evidence of something nefarious. I don’t think it is. I am happy to discuss that with anyone who doubts the official theory.

    whitestone
    Member

    Working out the time an object takes to fall 1300ft (even with a margin of error for local air pressure) isn’t difficult.

    As noted by others, the material ejected from the towers is falling faster than the top of the upper section. Next question (rhetorical): why isn’t the upper section falling at the same rate given that it’s already on the move and had several seconds to build up speed?

    I know the above is a sideline. It’s the assertion that the towers fell at freefall speed therefore there was some extra mechanism (known only to those questioning the official version of events) allowing this to happen that I’ve issue with. Since the towers didn’t fall at the claimed speed why is there any need for the supposed extra mechanism?

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    As noted by others, the material ejected from the towers is falling faster than the top of the upper section. Next question (rhetorical): why isn’t the upper section falling at the same rate given that it’s already on the move and had several seconds to build up speed?

    Nope, you get to answer a couple first….
    When did they get in and rig the charges?

    jonnyboi
    Member

    1. There was a big plot to fly planes into the twin towers, terrorists were behind this. Conspiracy theorists believe that a huge network of USA political elites knew about it and either actively supported it or actively frustrated legitimate attempts to stop it. None of this is proven, there is no plausible evidence to suggest that a US conspiracy existed. If there is then none of the established investigative news outlets are interested in that.

    2. two planes were flown into the twin towers – FACT

    3. The towers both caught fire – FACT

    4. Within a couple of hours both towers collapsed – FACT

    5. The available evidence strongly identifies structural failure due to fire as the cause of the collapse. There is a significant amount of evidence to support this assertion. No plausible alternative theory for the collapse backed up by evidence has been provided.

    6. Many theories have been put forward by conspiracy theorists, they are all highly implausible and do not stand up to practical scrutiny. For example the amount of people required to be in on any conspiracy to demolish the towers with explosives would be in the thousands, and be supported by physical evidence that hasn’t ever been provided.

    7. There is not one single whistleblower who has publically said their were PART of a US conspiracy to demolish the twin towers.

    8. The twin towers collapsed in a way that is consistent with structural failure due to fire. based on the expert review.

    9. the towers did not fall at free fall speed – FACT

    10. All available credible evidence points to the officially accepted historical record.

    5plusn8
    Member

    Indeed Whitestone, you are correct. You are arguing with the wrong guy. 8)

    nealglover
    Member

    Anyway, there is literally no way this could have been a Government conspiracy.

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

    Just think about that, before typing out your conspiracy nonsense 🙄

    sbob
    Member

    jivehoneyjive – Member

    Since you’ve googled the passport, perhaps you should google John P O’Neill…

    Done.
    He didn’t bring WTC down either.
    That would have been the planes.

    Put down the scattergun of lunacy and go and have a sandwich.

    whitestone
    Member

    Nope, you get to answer a couple first….
    When did they get in and rig the charges?

    Oh! Oh! Me sir! Me!

    It was the invisible shift shaping lizards sir! It was them wot did it.

    5plusn8
    Member

    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?

    deviant
    Member

    JHJ…are you seriously suggesting the towers were brought down to eliminate John P Oneil?…seems hard work, why not just car bomb him individually?…no government would go to that effort to take out a former FBI investigator…fair enough he was one of the first to ‘discover’ Al Qaeda and investigate (and link) the Saudi, Yemen and original WTC bombings but why leave his colleague Ali Soufan alive?…especially as he has been particularly scathing in his criticism of the CIA and says he could have prevented 9/11 if they’d released certain information to him?…in fact Ali Soufan is still alive and well, publishing books and is wheeled out for TV sometimes for debate on this matter…seems odd leaving him alive and taking out John P Oneil?

    …or its just conspiracy theory horsecrap and John P Oneil was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    TurnerGuy
    Member

    Turner guy. Thats the truth There is no plausible evidence for anything but the official explanation. None. Give me one piece that you think is credible and I will demolish it citing real scientists

    The towers did not fall at freefall speed. ~This is a simple fact. You can time the fall or you can watch the bits of debris that where falling at freefall speed that go faster than the tower.

    I missed out the 7 in that message, I meant WTC 7 at free fall speeds. There are several things about its collapse that have confused some qualified people and they are complaining that NISTs explaination and examination is deficient.

    If I was an architect building steel framed buildings that I assumed would not come down from normal office fires then I might also want to know all the details, instead of the ‘whitewash’ that they think NIST did.

    Note that has nothing to do with any conspiracy theories…

    5plusn8
    Member

    If I was an architect building steel framed buildings that I assumed would not come down from normal office fires then I might also want to know all the details, instead of the ‘whitewash’ that they think NIST did.

    Architects are generally not structural engineers. Most architects I know (I work with 20 odd) would not know one end of a beam calc from another..
    I’m not a practising structural engineer but I can at least remember them from Uni.
    So the word

    assumed

    is important because most architects take structural ratings and work with them rather than understanding it.
    Is it possible that the forces on WTC7 due to impacts caused damage that was not measured – of course so, because it all happened so fast and then it fell down. It got smacked by some huge bits of material from the collapsing towers and then had a massive fire. If nobody was looking for conspiracy and were busy dealing with a world of shit, I can see why the investigators were a bit over zealous.
    So the reality is that because the building did not meet some architects expectations maybe because the design codes were not meant for events of this type.

    sbob
    Member

    normal office fires

    It was only last Wednesday my office was set on fire by a plane based terrorist attack.
    I remember thinking it was odd as our normal office fires occur on a Tuesday.

    This is ridicule, Turbo-belm is just around the corner.

    tjagain
    Member

    I meant WTC 7 at free fall speeds. There are several things about its collapse that have confused some qualified people and they are complaining that NISTs explaination and examination is deficient.

    ~Who are these qualified people then?

    jonnyboi
    Member

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

    WTC 7 did not collapse at free fall speed.

    Take a read of this and we can discuss the parts you disagree with if you can explain why you do so.

    https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    maxtorque
    Member

    It’s also worth pointing out that a single positive or negative correlation is not PROOF of anything. Probability theory is a complex and very counter intuitive branch of science, and is misunderstood my most people.

    For example:

    STATEMENT: Last month someone was killed in a knife attack in my local town.
    If the Police come and search my kitchen they will find my kitchen draws full of knives.

    QUESTION: Did I murder the guy in town?

    In this case, a positive correlation (guy killed with a knife, i own a knife) does not a PROOF make.

    In the case of the WTC attack:

    The WTC center employed approximately 30,000 people. If we include tourists and service personnel etc, the peak population of the WTC center was in the region of 50,000 people.

    So, what is the probability that within those 50,000 people, we could find a suitable back story that could be erroneously used to justify a plot to destroy the towers?

    I’d suggest that with a sample of 50k people, it’s not a possibility, it’s a certainty. Therefore using a single case (that ex FBI bloke) as PROOF of something is ridiculous

    (and that’s before we get to the situation that any organisation capable of secretly destroying the twin towers to eliminate a single suspect could also have just sent a couple of guys around to his house, waited till he was alone, bundled him into a bag, into a van, tied a concrete block to the bottom and chucked him into the Hudson, never to be seen again, which seems like a rather cheaper and easier solution to me!)

    jonnyboi
    Member

    Architects are generally not structural engineers. Most architects I know (I work with 20 odd) would not know one end of a beam calc from another..

    when we had our house built the builder told us he was putting in an entire steel beam across the top of the block work on both side to support the roof as our architect was a ‘****ing idiot’

    he didn’t charge for it either, as he said that knowing our house wouldn’t fall down was payment enough.

    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.

    bencooper
    Member

    9/11 conspiracy theories are all part of a massive government conspiracy to make us think they’re competent enough to pull this kind of thing off.

    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.

    2) Where did they bury the bodies from the planes

    MH370… [/quote]

    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.

Viewing 45 posts - 541 through 585 (of 1,456 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.