Home › Forums › Chat Forum › 9/11 documentary
- This topic has 1,455 replies, 118 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by jivehoneyjive.
-
9/11 documentary
-
aracerFree Member
Just like most conspiracy theories, including this one.
Which is quite an important point – because to suggest that it couldn’t have been caused by the planes because of the way it fell is to ignore that the fundamental physics involved in a controlled demolition is much the same. I like how 3fish’s video ruins his theory by demonstrating that controlled demolitions only involve removing a small part of the structure, in the same way the planes did.
But conspiracy theorists will conspiracy theory.
stumpy01Full MemberEnormous mass falls, converting PE to KE.
Enormous mass encounters barrier (floor below) and VERY slightly (probably imperceptibly) slows as it ploughs through it.
Enormous mass continues to convert PE to KE by falling under gravity, but is now a bit more enormous.Enormous (+ 1xfloor) mass encounters barrier (next floor below) and VERY slightly (probably even more imperceptibly) slows as it ploughs through it.
Enormous (+ 2xfloor) mass continues to convert PE to KE by falling under gravity.Enormous (+ 2xfloor) mass encounters barrier (next floor below) and VERY slightly (probably even more imperceptibly) slows as it ploughs through it.
Enormous (+ 3x floor) mass continues to convert PE to KE by falling under gravity.Enormous (+ 3xfloor) mass encounters barrier (next floor below) and VERY slightly (probably even more imperceptibly) slows as it ploughs through it.
Etc.
Resistance (of the floor) is futile.
Basically, in the case of the towers collapsing, loss of momentum caused by encountering a floor<<<gain in momentum, as a result of free falling between floors; hence the entire building collapsed.Had the structure been stronger/the damage not so great/impact occurred higher up, the buildings would probably not have collapsed.
jivehoneyjiveFree MemberControlled demolition of the towers is conjecture… there’s been compelling arguments for both sides.
I’d like to hear people’s theories on why the collapse was so uniform in comparison to how severely the top of the tower was tilting:
futonrivercrossingFree MemberImagine suspending a 20 storey building and dropping it 4m onto a single storey building, what do you think would happen?
Another thing, as has been noted, rigging two of the largest office buildings in the world for demolition would be a large undertaking, a major project indeed. The paper trail would be massive, construction permits, inspections, works singled , delivery to site forms, it goes on and on. So presumably this paper trail exists, something like a major retiring project for both the towers? There would be whitnesses who observed all this construction going on in the building for months.
bailsFull MemberI’d like to hear people’s theories on why the collapse was so uniform in comparison to how severely the top of the tower was tilting
Because gravity tends to work in this direction:
?So stuff tends to fall down, not across.
taxi25Free Member.. there’s been compelling arguments for both sides.
Honestly there hasn’t 😆
5plusn8Free MemberI’d like to hear people’s theories on why the collapse was so uniform in comparison to how severely the top of the tower was tilting:
That tower is tipping towards the impact point, which is obvs where the structure was most weakened. But it doesn’t tip any further than that before everything else fails and gravity takes over. If you watch the vid, it tips at that angle, and then stays tipped as it falls until it disappears in a cloud of its own debris.
aracerFree MemberI’m curious – if the official explanation was controlled demolition, would that be sufficient for the conspiracy theorists to believe that it was caused by planes smashing into them?
oikeithFull Membersomeone earlier rated this thread as a 3/10, the big red arrow demonstrating the direction of gravity just jacked this up to a 8/10 for me!
amediasFree MemberThis thread is an eye opener…. 😯
Question for the “It can’t fall like that naturally” people.
Start with the statement:
“I don’t understand how it could fall like that naturally”
There are two possible outcomes from this
1> I don’t understand => I need to improve my understanding
2> It didn’t fall Naturally => And I can prove it thuslyHowever, if 2 were true you’d need a full and complete understanding of the physics to prove it. Which means your original statement should have been:
“I completely understand the physics of building collapse and it cannot have fallen like that naturally, and here is why…”
So…
1> Are you sure of your opinion because you think you have a full understanding of the physics and are using it to explain how this building couldn’t have collapsed naturally in the way observed.
Or
2> Are you trying to explain your opinion of how this building collapsed using your current understanding of the physics of it?
the two things are different…
1 Assumes nothing about the cause, but uses physics to describe the mechanism of collapse
2 Assumes a cause of the collapse and then attempts to explain the mechanism of it.
Have a think about it…are you sure your understanding is sufficient? If someone asked you to come and consult on some pending demolition work or Skyscraper building would you feel capable enough to do the job?
Reckon you could walk into a degree level (or even A level) classical Newtonian Physics exam tomorrow and pass?
If any of the above answers are ‘no’ then perhaps you need to think about whether it’s your understanding that’s lacking rather than the explanations.
Admitting that your understanding is incomplete is not a bad thing, and it doesn’t mean you’re incapable of improving your understanding. But arguing that other people are wrong and then trying to make it fit based on your current misunderstanding is never going to end well, especially when people can poke holes in your explanation.
If on the other hand you can answer yes to those questions and are sure you’re a physics whizz then I invite you to write a paper detailing the impossibility of the observed collapse and its contradiction of Newtonian physics, submit it for peer review and see what happens. If you’re correct then you should get a lot of Physicists on your side…not to mention a few job offers in construction or demolition depending on if you’re a glass half full or half empty kinda guy 😉
*FWIW I have a Masters degree in Physics, I’d still answer ‘no’ to all of those questions, maybe the A Level paper but I’d still probably need to do some revision 😉
nedrapierFull Memberamedias, yup, 8 pages of shonky misremembered school physics arguments, assumptions and insults is going nowhere fast.
TurnerGuyFree MemberOne more page and this will equal my “End Halal Petition” thread 🙂
5plusn8Free Membermisremembered school physics
oi mine is a google backed I’ll have you know.
nealgloverFree MemberI’d like to hear people’s theories on why the collapse was so uniform in comparison to how severely the top of the tower was tilting
My theory is this…. That’s exactly what happens when that particular building gets hit by that particular plane in that particular way on that particular day.
But we would all love to hear what your theory is I’m sure…. the floor is yours.
jimjamFree MemberCharlieMungus – Member
– ie that thousands of government employees conducted massively destructive 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
Why would it have taken such a massive team? And so long? [/quote]
Because controlled demolitions take a long time. You should probably read about them. For example one of the largest controlled demolitions ever the Afe Tower took 6 months to prep for demolition. It was 381ft tall. 381ft. The Twin towers were 1362ft and 1368ft, so a massively more complicated job.
Keep in mind that that 6 month prep is with complete uninhibited and unrestricted access to the building where they rip the insides to pieces and drill thousands of holes.
Controlled Demolition inc go into some detail about their jobs. For instances when demoliting the Seatle “Kingdome” they
drilled 5,905 holes for CDI’s explosive placements in the tension and compression rings, roof ribs, columns and support structure under the Kingdome. During loading operations, CDI laid 21.6 miles of detonating cord and placed more than 4,700 lb. of explosives in critical locations to control the fall of the structure and reduce vibration. The explosives detonation sequence utilized over 900 delays both to control the fall of the structure, mitigate air overpressure and to enhance fragmentation of resultant debris.
They also destroyed one of the worlds largest department stores (still tiny compared to the WTC and it took them almost a year from start to finish – again, in daylight, all day every day. And conspiracy theorists are suggesting that this was done either at night, in the dark or somehow without knowledge or witness of any of the thousands of people who worked in the WTC.
It would have taken years of work, hundreds if not thousands of workers (which means tens of thousands of conspirators), tens of thousands of tons of explosives and hundreds of miles of detcord.
amediasFree Member^ Thing is though, they’ll read that and instead of going “oh yeah, well I guess that’s that theory out the window then!”
They’ll think “Flippin heck, they must have been really good at covering it up” 🙄
TurnerGuyFree MemberYou should probably read about them. For example one of the largest controlled demolitions ever the Afe Tower took 6 months to prep for demolition.
Trucks were arriving every night at the WTC from about August 23rd according to this CIA insider :
jonnyboiFull MemberCharlieMungus – Member
– ie that thousands of government employees conducted massively destructive 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
Why would it have taken such a massive team? And so long?
Think of your own place of work. Do you believe that someone could for example re wire that or run new network cables in completely secrecy and without being discovered by anyone?
And that’s an entire order of magnitude less than running demolition charges on a massive scale never before seen.
And this is the problem with all this truther stuff. You have to suspend your critical thinking to subscribe to it, whilst pretending you are doing the opposite.
whitestoneFree MemberSo it only took them 19 days to rig both towers for demolition? These so-called demolition experts would appear to be taking the urine with how long they take to do it.
jonnyboiFull MemberTurnerGuy – Member
Trucks were arriving every night at the WTC from about August 23rd according to this CIA insider :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6eMq5Rit1w
an unnamed, unverified female says that. Doesn’t make it fact. Doesn’t make it even close to fact.
Again, critical thinking suspended.
go find multiple verified eye witness accounts, provide links to their unedited testimony. correlate that with traffic camera footage etc. identify the drivers of the vehicles, where the vehicles were rented, purchased etc.
Actually find me a truck driver testimony, that would be the first whistleblower. You’d be fanous
outofbreathFree Member– ie that thousands of government employees conducted massively destructive 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
Plus *if* the fact the towers collapsed downwards in a relatively self contained fashion is the giveaway that it was controlled demolition, the demolition guys would have rigged it so it collapsed to one side or t’other.
nealgloverFree MemberYour theory is “because it did”, neal?
Yup.
My theory is that some planes flew into some buildings.
Those buildings, and one other, collapsed due to the damage caused.I await with baited breath an alternate theory that holds up to even the mildest scrutiny.
jonnyboiFull MemberCan posting links to you tube videos be disabled on this thread?
If some of the contributors have to articulate their responses they might take more time considering the validity of their argument….
whitestoneFree MemberI think a building with several thousand workers in it would require several trucks a day to visit it just for normal operation. Americans aren’t exactly shy when it comes to producing trash, there’d be several garbage trucks plus lots of delivery vehicles plus parcel delivery and pickup. Not even got to maintenance yet.
amediasFree Memberthey might take more time considering the validity of their argument….
I remain doubtful
nealgloverFree MemberI think a building with several thousand workers in it would require several trucks a day to visit it just for normal operation. Americans aren’t exactly shy when it comes to producing trash, there’d be several garbage trucks plus lots of delivery vehicles plus parcel delivery and pickup. Not even got to maintenance yet
And …. ?
WhathaveisaidnowFree Memberkeep WT7 in mind.
The only ever hi-rise building to ever collapse at near free fall speed, straight down, from minor damage and office fires.
If you’d showed the video of it collapsing to everyone on earth a day before the event, every single one of them would have said that is a controlled demolition.
chamleyFree MemberI’m not convinced many people have seen a tower block collapse without it being a controlled demolition. You’d be showing them a video of a building falling down. “yes, that looks just like a building falling down”
gobuchulFree Memberkeep WT7 in mind.
How and why?
Can we agree that a controlled demolition takes a LOT of preparation and it would e very difficult to do this without being noticed?
Why would they want to do it? The horror achieved by the planes crashing into the Towers was easily enough. In fact I can’t even remember hearing about WT7 on the day. I can remember exactly where I was when I saw the footage of the aircraft.
amediasFree MemberIf you’d showed the video of it collapsing to everyone on earth a day before the event, every single one of them would have said that is a controlled demolition.
How many videos of buildings falling down from other causes have people seen?
The only ever hi-rise building to ever collapse at near free fall speed, straight down, from minor damage and office fires.
The ‘free-fall’ nonsense is just that, nonsense. So that leaves ‘straight down’ bit, but that’s the direction gravity tends to work in so no surprises there, so that leaves ‘minor damage’, well I think it was actually hit by rather a lot of debris wasn’t it? It wasn’t just a few pebbles landing on the roof…So, office fires, well they can get pretty bad if left unchecked, which they pretty much were, and other buildings have suffered structural failure due to fire.
But, let’s assume it did fall at a bizarre speed, in a funny direction, after minor damage and couple of waste paper baskets caught fire. What’s the next step?
How do you leap from “Hmm, that looks a bit unusual, I wonder what happened there” to assuming it was a conspired and secret controlled demolition (for $reasons). Could it not be that there’s more info than you have? Or a mechanism at work you don’t understand? Could it even have been incompetent construction?
But I realise this is all futile, you’ve already decided on your opinion and only information that supports it will be relevant.
crankboyFree Member“If you’d showed the video of it collapsing to everyone on earth a day before the event, every single one of them would have said that is a controlled demolition.”
…and if you told them that the two biggest buildings in the world had just fallen down and smashed into the ground right next door causing a massive shock and raining debris on the building that also caught fire?bikebouyFree MemberWhat a great thread for outing the fragility of belief systems… 😆
nedrapierFull MemberThere’s a big contradiction here: on one hand you have an argument that collapsing a building into its own footprint by controlled demolition is an incredibly tricky, lengthy, precise job, but on the other hand the results can be replicated exactly by smacking it on one side with a big heavy thing and setting it on fire. Doesn’t matter if it’s central strike or not. Or you can just throw rubble at it and set it on fire. Same result. Are these so called “demolition experts” having a laugh – years to set up? Why?
If the structures of these building allowed them all to collapse neatly under such a variety of imprecise impacts, loads and fires, then a deliberate demolition could have been done in a variety of imprecise and localised methods as well.
Either it’s easy to do this, or it’s hard. Which is it?
oikeithFull MemberThe only ever hi-rise building to ever collapse at near free fall speed, straight down, from minor damage and office fires.
Not sure it would be minor damage, the other towers were circa 1400ft tall!
and if you told them that the two biggest buildings in the world had just fallen down and smashed into the ground right next door causing a massive shock and raining debris on the building that also caught fire?
amediasFree MemberThere’s a big contradiction here: on one hand you have an argument that collapsing a building into its own footprint by controlled demolition is an incredibly tricky, lengthy, precise job, but on the other hand the results can be replicated exactly by smacking it on one side with a big heavy thing and setting it on fire.
There is no contradiction, and the only person who has made that ^ comparison is you.
controlled demolition
I’ve emboldenated the important word for you.
Either it’s easy to do this, or it’s hard. Which is it?
It’s hard, nobody has said otherwise. The fact that the Towers collapsed in the way they did doesn’t mean it would be easy to replicate, and it certainly wasn’t ‘controlled’ in terms of outcome compared to an actual controlled demolition.
Controlled demolition attempts to control the factors that it’s possible to control, and leave as little to chance as possible, but chance still plays a part. That doesn’t mean that chance can’t also produce a similar outcome in certain circumstances. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Crash testing cars for example…
They attempt to replicate real world collisions but with a degree of control, but those same collisions happen in real life by chance, mostly the outcome is the same, sometimes ‘weird stuff’ happens but that doesn’t change the fact that the controlled collisions and chance ones of the same type have broadly similar outcomes.
It’s not a perfect analogy by any means but the same principle applies, buildings collapse downwards, there are some bits of the process you can influence, and other bits you can’t.
The topic ‘9/11 documentary’ is closed to new replies.