[Closed] 9/11 documentary

The thing I like about these threads is that you can chuck in a weapon from Star Wars as part of a theory and people aren’t really sure if you’re serious.

but they probably also argue that there is no way that only a pair of proton torpedoes could have destroyed the deathstar, the subsequent explosion defied their understanding of physics, where is the debris anyway and did you know there was a power outage on level 42. definitely an inside job.

But, it at least made some people consider their position

What is it with the empire and their inability to build planet sized weapons that can’t be taken out by a small handful of assailants with light weaponry. Bizarre choices by the design team.

What is it with the empire and their inability to build planet sized weapons that can’t be taken out by a small handful of assailants with light weaponry. Bizarre choices by the design team.

inside job, but the question is, how many were in on it?

Bizarre choices by the design team.

covered in this compelling documentary

Just over magnitude 2 according to This piece

still, a power down took place, which in itself is of interest.

Anyone qualified enough on here, who could assess a 46 storey building's likelihood of collapse, whilst fighting raging fires, and can predict the time of imminent collapse so as to tell, workmen, policeman anyone around to get clear,....please step forward

Anyone qualified enough on here, who could assess a 46 storey building's likelihood of collapse, whilst fighting raging fires, and can predict the time of imminent collapse so as to tell, workmen, policeman anyone around to get clear,....please step forward

The point is they were trying to clear the building out full stop, they were not working to a time or a plan. And unfortunately, many people were still in the building when they collapsed, including those trapped on the floors above where the aircraft went in. Office workers and firefighters were killed. They were picking bodies out of the rubble for months after. And you don't need to be an expert to take the hint after the first tower collapsed that the second might not be too far behind it.

So what are you saying? They didn't actually collapse at all?

No, that would be stupid to a truther level!

The article features a seismologist who looked at all the data from the seismometers in the region and analysed the events. The impact of the aircraft was roughly a magnitude 0.7 event for example. Magnitude 2 is still a lot of energy being released though the article makes the point that the progressive nature of the collapse reduced the absolute magnitude.

wobbliscott i think you are responding to a point about wtc7 not the towers. So your answer is miss focused, " And you don't need to be an expert to take the hint after the first two towers collapsed that the third burning creaking bulging one might not be too far behind them."

I raise a flag to surrender in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[img] [/img]

Bbbbbut how can a flag flap when there is no wind? It's a conspiracy I tell you!!

shadows in the wrong places shirley?

[quote=whitestone ]So what are you saying? They didn't actually collapse at all?
No, that would be stupid to a truther level!
The article features a seismologist who looked at all the data from the seismometers in the region and analysed the events. The impact of the aircraft was roughly a magnitude 0.7 event for example. Magnitude 2 is still a lot of energy being released though the article makes the point that the progressive nature of the collapse reduced the absolute magnitude.

you know seismic events aren't measured a linear scale right...

You don't say 🙄

[url= https://www.globalresearch.ca/seismic-evidence-implies-controlled-demolition-on-911/5313720 ]Seismic evidence implies controlled demolition on 9/11[/url]

I like that website, they propose a subterranean explosion as the cause. Because obviously the buildings collapsed from the bottom, we've all seen the videos...

So where did the passengers end up?

Sorry to repeat but still no actual answer

where did the passengers end up?

offered cake or death by the CIA/FBI/lizardy overlords, they sensibly chose cake...and going into hiding forever, never to speak to anyone ever again, not even on birthdays, and Xmas, scout's honour...

ah that explains it then.... bugger the real questions keep going on the silly ones. If a feather falls slower than a brick then JFK was killed by Galileo

mikewsmith - Member

So where did the passengers end up?

Nazi moon base? 😕

TurnerGuy - Member

Seismic evidence implies controlled demolition on 9/11

Posted 6 minutes ago # Report-Post

brilliant, something approaching a scientific paper. Did he submit it for peer review by any chance? thought not.

Interesting is that there is now an argument that the seismic shocks were to large to be caused by a plane impact and collapse, whereas previously it was being claimed that the seismic shocks were too low.

Anyway, Dr Rousseau believes in a round earth, so he's obviously full of it.

Did he submit it for peer review by any chance?

Are there many academic papers on this topic?

EXPLOSIONS THE SOURCE OF 9/11 SEISMIC WAVEFORMS
A subterranean explosion might not be heard, but the ground would shake and initiate a
series of waves (body and surface waves). If we distinctly hear an explosion, it is either
aerial, which does not give a seismic signal, or it is subaerial, in which case surface
waves could be generated. The seismic wave data provided by Palisades prove the
occurrence of surface waves radiating outward from the World Trade Center. In addition,
witnesses reported hearing explosions very close to the times at which planes struck the
Towers and when they collapsed (see particularly MacQueen, 2006).
Given these two types of evidence we can affirm that subaerial explosions occurred close
to the base of the Towers almost or quite simultaneously with the crashes into the Towers
by the planes. The sound coming from these explosions would have been mixed with the
sounds generated by the impacts of the planes.

this is worth a read, just so you can put your head in your hands and sigh

@turnerguy. Let's take a trip back to page 1.

So a fire from office furnishings was hot enough to cause wtc 7 to perfectly drop at free fall speeds?

There's an awful lot of buildings at risk around the world then.

There's also a lot of very qualified people on the film seriously questioning how they came down.

Creeping steel does not come down perfectly like that, with all the floors collapsing away to allow free fall speeds.

How do you view your comments now, considering the huge amount of scientific evidemce that has been provided for you to review and consider?

what's your 'informed' opinion?

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 :

I can just imagine how it went down...

It was a friday afternoon, last meeting of the day at Secret Conspiracy HQ, everyone was there gathered around the table, pretty pleased with the massively complex job they'd managed to plan, including the hundreds, if not thousands of people they'd managed to keep quiet, the incredible complexity of being able to rig such massive buildings covertly with explosives, arrange for false radar signals and swapping out planes mid flight, and an ingeneous plan to deal with the passengers, not to mention the rubble cleanup issue having been solved by efforts of the cold fusion demolition team, BUT then Dave puts his had up, oh here we go, it's always Dave, why does he have to be so awkward...

[i]"Yes Dave, what's up?"[/i]

"Well, I was just thinking, isn't anyone going to notice the planes look different, I mean there's so many people about some of them are bound to spot it, or film it, shouldn't we paint some markings on them or soemthing so it's not too suspicious?"

[i]"Dave, Dave, Dave....come on, it's Friday afternoon!"[/i]

"But, people will notice won't they? and it's such a small thing to deal with compared to all the other work we've done, shouldn't we do it just to be sure?"

[i]"Nah, it'll be fine, who wants to knock off early and go for a quick beer before home?"[/i]

"Also, those bits we hung off the bottom, they're kinda obvious don't you think?"

[i]"Dave! Do you want to be on that plane?"[/i]

"No sir, sorry sir, i'll be good!"

From that article one of the first things I have found that is a big ASSumption

Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes.

I have some comments:

The seismic recordings of the plane impacts
1) The aircraft whilst being the same model-ish may not have been the same wet weight, were not doing the same speed and hit the buildings in different locations both height and centre of impact.
2) The buildings were subtly different and varied by location (I am not sure how much difference this would make, but given each plane is 1/2250th of the mass of the building a small hit like this will be attenuated by the building and its foundations)

The seismic recordings of the collapses:
1) The planes hit at different heights, so one tower started with 40 odd floors and the other with 16 floors, this would make a difference to the energy distribution over collapse time.
2) the failure initiation mode was slightly different also 1st tower tipped slightly and then collapsed. The other one kinda came straight down. So that would make some difference to the energy release rate over time too.
3) The buildings were subtly different and varied by location see above.

The article seems predicated on this assumption with absolutely zero qualification for that assumption, apart from the rest of the horseshit in there, that initial assumption pretty much knocks it out of the park for me.

I don't think its obvious that they would be different, much that I don't think its obvious they would be the same either.

The rest of it points to timing, ie there are waves just before the collapse, indication some kind of pre explosion.
However there are issues here too.
1) The timing is under debate
2) You would expect there to be a massive release of energy at the initiation of the collapse, ie as the fracture occurs between the upper and lower parts. In fact these waves are used as a method to detect fracture. And would transmit rapidly down through the structure.

The final thing is that this geologist was long involved in the 911 truther industry before this paper was published, one might call into question his bias.

Plus as Northwind ably states, the subterranean explosion must have caused them to collapse from the ground up. We all saw that..

Not mention that they imply pre explosions just before the planes hit. That is great timing.

there are conflicting first-hand reports of when building 7 was evacuated, one as early as 1pm - even firefighters statements on this matter and the NIST report conflict one another.

Still, no one has come up with a plausible reason as to how it was deemed to be very imminent of collapse.

well apart from it was creaking... very weak...

What part of the explanations you were given do you disagree with and why? you could quote them along with your rebuttal for clarity. thanks

How do you view your comments now

very successful, we are now on page 22 🙂

here, straight off the top of my head, is a list of things i think could effect seismic magnitude for the two different towers:

1) aircraft speed
2) Aircraft weight
3) impact angle (relative to the square base)
4) impact height (above ground)
5) impact location (how many "floors" did it hit, which are laterally stiff)
6) foundation depth and pilling stiffness and evenness
7) ground conditions (water content, clay content etc)
8) location and orientation of seismometer
9) Frequency spectrum of those waves due to propagation velocity and damping factor

right off the top of my head, that's 9 very complex factors, any of which could make the recorded information differ. To rigorously go through those factors, calculate the possible (and probable) divergence would be several years work for a qualified geophysicist.

So to simply say "they were different that means x,y or z" is hugely erroneous.

well apart from it was creaking... very weak...

Really? Humans are expert pattern recognition machines. I'd say after seeing two buildings fall down already, the third one got ****ted by some huge lumps, was on fire and creaking. I know I'd be thinking, "maybe this ones coming down too?" Maybe some dodgy contractor skimped on the bolts/concrete whatever on all three buildings in NY, I dunno, "but I think I'll stand well back until this all sorts itself out."

Are you really that credulous that you think someone saying in advance, "oooh that ones coming down too," means they had pre-knowledge of some plot to demolish the building??
They were firemen, they have job to do, to protect. Imagine if they had said it was fine. Imagine the derision, after two buildings fell down, that they didnt just cover their arses and say the third one may well fall.

"well apart from it was creaking... very weak.." and bulging and on fire.

So to simply say "they were different that means x,y or z" is hugely erroneous

indeed, the scientific method on display here seems to be 'disagreement on the data' = 'must have been explosion in the basement'

Whathaveisaidnow
there are conflicting first-hand reports of when building 7 was evacuated, one as early as 1pm - even firefighters statements on this matter and the NIST report conflict one another.

Still, no one has come up with a plausible reason as to how it was deemed to be very imminent of collapse.

well apart from it was creaking... very weak..

Do you know what "The Fog of War" means?

In a complex, changing, and large situation such as that which occurred that morning at the WTC, it would have been impossible for anyone to know with any accuracy what was happening. Far too many unknowns and un-controlled situations. Then you add in the fact that a persons memory is very un-reliable. Plenty of studies have been done to show that multiple eye-witness accounts of a single event differ enormously.

This is what was known before the WTC7 collapse:

1) Both towers had fallen down
2) The WTC7 building was damaged and on fire
3) At that point no one was sitting at their desk in WTC7 saying "oh what a lovely morning, i must do some of that paperwork on my desk". By that point, even a moron would have realised something big was happening, and attempted to leave the building if they could.

Firefighters are not idiots. If there si the potential to save people then sure, they'll run into a burning and unstable building to try to do that (RE: grenfell tower!) but when it's clear to all that there is nothing to be gained from ricking their lives, then they will evacuate. The fact that multiple fire teams chose, in the chaos, different times to do that is irrelevant (and normal). The fact that some time later the building fell down is also completely normal and nto unexpected (given that two other massive buildings had fallen down earlier that day!)

You aslo state "Creaking, very weak". Well i f'ing bet if you were asked to go into a burning building that was creaking you'd :

1) be s**ing yourself (anyone can be a hero from behind their desk......)
and
2) Every slight creak, groan or noise would make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and make you VERY VERY nervous indeed.

After the building subsequently fell down, if asked about it i bet you'd say "yeah, it was creaking so we knew something was going to happen"

TurnerGuy - Member

How do you view your comments now

very successful, we are now on page 22

and there was me hoping you would have learned something.

Still, no one has come up with a plausible reason as to why in the conspiracy theory the firemen in wtc7 would be warned to building was going to be blown up/down.

You aslo state "Creaking, very weak". Well i f'ing bet if you were asked to go into a burning building that was creaking you'd :

1) be s**ing yourself (anyone can be a hero from behind their desk......)
and
2) Every slight creak, groan or noise would make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and make you VERY VERY nervous indeed.

After the building subsequently fell down, if asked about it i bet you'd say "yeah, it was creaking so we knew something was going to happen"

I'm not a fireman, I have never seen a creaking building, but if I did, I would run a mile. I am pretty sure a creaking steel and concrete structure would tell the most experienced people that it might fall over. Creaking seems like the opposite of weak evidence, it is the kind of evidence you would take pretty seriously.

and there was me hoping you would have learned something.

learnt what - I never said the conspiracy theories were true and I questioned what the point of bringing down WTC 7 would be anyway - given a conspiracy.

So where did the passengers end up?

I'm an episode of Sherlock that had a plane full of dead passengers, maybe they just loaded up the planes with corpses?

learnt what - I never said the conspiracy theories were true and I questioned what the point of bringing down WTC 7 would be anyway - given a conspiracy

so you largely believe the official reports and the evidence that we've presented to you?

Still, no one has come up with a plausible reason as to why in the conspiracy theory the firemen in wtc7 would be warned to building was going to be blown up/down.

...and why having been warned they ran around in open shouting out the top secret fact they'd learned from the lizards that the buildings were going to collapse.

I'm an episode of Sherlock that had a plane full of dead passengers, maybe they just loaded up the planes with corpses

That well known, hard hitting documentary. Although as plausible as some of the YouTube links up there.

learnt what

The "lower manhatten" defence?

The thing is controlled explosions alway work, right?

The "lower manhatten" defence?

It’s nice being present at the birth. 😆

Bit late to this, don't remember it being mentioned, but I have a theory 🙂 - on the same day, at a similar time, two other planes that were not finally flown into the WTC were hi-jacked?

Did one have a faulty sat-nav and flew into the Pentagon instead, and the other have its dead passengers come back to life as zombies which caused the plane to crash before reaching WTC7? In which case they just had to shrug shoulders and blow the building anyway?

Flight 93 wasn't heading for the WTC. So the original plan wasn't to crash 93 into WTC7. ...but the Zombie bit sounds plausible.

Flight 93 wasn't heading for the WTC. So the original plan wasn't to crash 93 into WTC7

Apologies, I had not done my research properly and was not aware of the facts.

Apologies, I had not done my research properly and was not aware of the facts

Don't let that stop you. It certainly doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists...

indeed, the scientific method on display here seems to be 'disagreement on the data' = 'must have been explosion in the basement'

What scientific method would you apply here? Or how would you apply scientific method here?

so you largely believe the official reports and the evidence that we've presented to you?

never said I didn't, just said that the video was quite compelling.

It's not my fault that you guys wanted to argue for 23 pages...

Yes I do like the definition of the "Lower Manhattan Defence" chapeau, it is playing out nicely here. Is there some kind awards system for neologisms on here? Nickc surely is line for a prize or medal of some kind.
We need to keep this in mind next time a 911 thread starts, particularly if Turner guy is involved.

never said I didn't, just said that the video was quite compelling.

It’s neither compelling or convincing

TurnerGuy - Member
never said I didn't, just said that the video was quite compelling.

Well, you never said you did either, and spent the next 23 pages throwing up mostly nonsense and not addressing the sensible responses.

But it’s good to know you actually believe the rational explanation.

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

Still, no one has come up with a plausible reason as to how it was deemed to be very imminent of collapse.

Is there consensus that it was deemed imminent of collapse?

It's just that according to my sources, witness accounts can vary immensely and be quite unreliable.

For instance, I know of one nutter who thinks WTC7 was rigged with fireproof explosives connected with fireproof wires and was brought down professionally despite according to video posted by such nutcases you can see "explosives" going off after the building has started to collapse.
Maybe the split second timing afforded by the set-up of modern explosives was affected by the raging inferno, just not enough to stop them going off prematurely or stop them failing altogether.

All very plausible.

I think "convincing" was the word used

this is a bit like the truthers - ignoring the evidence in front of you - it's right there on page 1, the first post - "compelling".

It’s neither compelling or convincing

one meaning of compelling is "evoking interest or attention" so I think it qualifies.

The discussion could have been about production standards, selective and manipulative presentation of facts, or non-facts, outright lies, use of qualified people making it seem more convincing.

slowoldman - Member
I think "convincing" was the word used

TurnerGuy - Member
this is a bit like the truthers - ignoring the evidence in front of you - it's right there on page 1, the first post - "compelling".

er...to quote you "it's right there on page 1, the first post " (just apparently not in your memory)

TurnerGuy - Member
ok, so I've seen some of the conspiracy videos on youtube and some of them can be quite convincing.

^ from the first LINE of your first post

I know you also used the wordd compelling later in the post, but if you're gonna be picky, expect others to be equally so.

ok, so I've seen some of the conspiracy videos on youtube and s[b]ome of them can be quite convincing[/b].

just said that [b]the video was quite compelling[/b].

Looks like he was right, amedias

If you're gonna be picky, expect others to be equally so.

Looks like he was right, amedias

If you're gonna be picky, expect others to be equally so.

Indeed, he used both words, however his post responding to slowoldman implied he contested that he used the word convincing.

So if we're going to be super picky 'compelling' referred to a single video (posted), convincing referred to 'the videos'. I'd argue that 'the single video' is included as a subset of 'some of the videos' but now we really are getting into proper picky 😀

However, this thread is compelling, even if the subject matter of it isn't

No, specifically he said that the video was compelling, some videos are convincing, but this one, as he reminds us on this page, he said was compelling

Point conceded.

I win!!!!!!

edit - 😉

I win!!!!!!

close thread?

It'd be nice to have a thread with a clear winner for once 🙂

it certainly was!

amedias - Member
Point conceded.

CharlieMungus - Member
I win!!!!!!

edit -

I think the scientific method wins. In the face of evidence amedias is easily convinced. I wonder how this works for the CTists?

I think the scientific method wins

Umm you presented amedias with evidence to change his convincing/compelling hypothesis about turner guy, he saw evidence and agreed.

there was no hypothesis or experiment

there was no hypothesis or experiment

says who?

er, um, i'm pretty sure that are no winners on this thread, but just an awful lot of losers.....

(yes, i am aware of the dichotomy of that statement 😉

says who?

[quote=CharlieMungus]there was no hypothesis or experiment

says who?

CharlieMungus » there was no hypothesis or experiment

I wouldn't take some random bloke on the internets' word for it if I were you...

Well, ok, if you say so.

...unless he has a you tube video to back it up

Maybe if there was some kind of supplementary evidence, a Youtube video perhaps? Doesn't have to be Youtube, a brightly coloured website with big fonts might work, something like that anyway....

EDIT - bah! too slow

Anyway, try the Sand Wars documentatary - that is compelling, and true.

Can't find a free link to it anymore though, at least in this country.

🙂

What? after 23 pages, you want to start all over again with another 'compelling' video?
Just **** off!

Turner guy has blotted his copybook, once the lower manhattan defence was invoked it became impossible to take anything he says seriously. Imagine that, if all your threads in future will be taken utterly out of context, nobody would believe anything you say for fear of being sucked into a web of trolling. Sad.