[Closed] 9/11 documentary

Can we move on to chemtrails now?

I even put a disclaimer up regarding the whistleblowers posted:

You didn’t post any whistleblowers though so everyone is confused.

Was the disclaimer.

“Here is a list of people who aren’t whistleblowers”

I'm trying to deal with facts

You wouldnt know a fact if it walked up to you with “FACT” tattooed on its face and bit you on the arse 🙄

Chemtrails - they are full of chemicals that make you gullible.

Isn’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”

How many people would need to be in on flying some planes into a building?

If it wasn't a controlled demolition then not many.

There are some good 9/11 conspiracy vids about. My personal faves are the 'missile' on the bottom of the plane visible as it crashes and the whole phone call thing. ie people phoning home when it shouldn't have been possible.

But Amwrica does what it wants re foreign policy anyway why would they need to go to these lengths?

There are some good 9/11 conspiracy vids about

Good in what way ?

Missile one debunked 🙁 lol

That’s why I asked.

The conspiracy vids are all “good” until you actually fact check what they are lying about.

Aren't all conspiracy theories just conformation bias anyway?

They are for the people taken in by them.

They are massive money makers for the people trading off them such as multi millionaire Alex Jones/Prison Planet.

Have you noticed how it is that you never see a sasquatch and the twin towers in the same room together?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Bigfoot was piloting the drone aircraft that struck the buildings because they were exposing the round earth lie.

Some of you may find this (lengthy) piece interesting:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/

I only hope that the UK decides to make some substantial U-turns as we seem always to be heading 'that way'. Pre-referendum sadly seemed to mark us out as accelerating further 'that way'.

[img] [/img]

I'm still struggling to figure out who does crop circles.

Malvern Rider - Member

Some of you may find this piece interesting:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/

Kurt Anderson, the author of that piece was on Sam Harris' podcast recently where he discussed this subject in depth. Very interesting.

[quote="slowoldman"]

I'm still struggling to figure out who does crop circles.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing-Devil ]It is the mowing devil[/url] He has been around for a long time

@Neal yes good is the wrong word and to be clear I get no pleasure from thinking about or seeing people die.

Enjoyable as an art form? Interesting as a cultural phenomenom? I cant think of a better way of putting what I get out of vids like this.

The best conspiracy theory is of course the one which suggests that conspiracy theories are put out there to distract people from the real truth.

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”

30% eh? So a minority?

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.

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.

Granted, The “whistleblower test” isn’t enough to entirely rule it out in all scenarios.

But when you mix in [b]actual[/b] science, rather than the made up version, and real facts rather than the shite normally peddled by truthers.

You really do need to almost brain dead to believe any of it 😉

Why do I not use tea bags to hammer in nails?

Why do I not use tea bags to hammer in nails?

Do you have a figure in mind for the number of times you're going to raise this point and ignore the responses explaining your logic fail?

Presumably he thinks this was the work of the big-hobbyist illuminati because the first domino should have stopped when it fell and landed on another.
[img] [/img]

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..

You’re overlooking the unavoidable resistance that the lower, undamaged portion of the structure provides. There [u]must[/u] be a deceleration as each new layer is reached, no matter what the condition of that layer is. The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the total momentum of a closed system - which is what each tower (and WTC7) were - does not change. So, whatever the momentum of the upper 15% ( for arguments sake) the momentum of the lower 85% is 0 (zero); therefore unless additional energy is introduced to accelerate the upper portion, which is essentially what it is being claimed the upper portion did, Newton’s Third Law dictates that any damage (distortion) that occurs to the lower portion as a result of the impact of the upper portion will [u]also[/u] occur in the upper portion. Kinetic energy is absorbed by both portions until they gradually (a relative term) come to a halt after roughly the equivalent mass of the upper portion has been distorted in the the lower portion. For all intents and purposes, the structure of the upper portion and the lower portion are identical, so the example is even easier to consider than if the upper portion had a greater mass, in which case it might have travelled further into the lower portion before coming to a halt. It’s remarkably easy to test and observe for ones self - go and drop a breeze block onto a breeze block, snowball onto snowball, or pumpkin ont pumpkin - whatever you like and however many times you do it, I guarantee that at no point will the dropped object accelerate through the static object beyond its equivalent mass.

It’s fundamental, foundation physics. Uncomfortable, I know, but physics says that all three buildings were demolished. I’ve absolutely no idea by whom, though looking at who profited (considerably) might shed some light.

physics says that all three buildings were demolished

Is the pyramid above a controlled explosion as well?

It’s fundamental, foundation physics.

Seriously? You need to go back to school.

I did promise myself not to get involved but...

total momentum of a closed system - which is what each tower (and WTC7) were

unless additional energy is introduced to accelerate the upper portion

go and drop a breeze block onto a breeze block, snowball onto snowball, or pumpkin ont pumpkin - whatever you like and however many times you do it, I guarantee that at no point will the dropped object accelerate through the static object beyond its equivalent mass.

Three_Fish, i guess being a conspiracy theorist also limits you ability to read?

I explained, in some detail, about 4 pages ago how the structure of the WTC, which differs markedly from most lowrise steel framed buildings results in the floors pancaking very easily compared to a high mass, cross braced steel or concrete building.

Go back and read it.

What is also notable is how many of these nutters happily say things like "Newtons 3rd Law" and then go on to demostrate they haven't got a fricking clue what Newtons 3rd Law actually means in terms of physics!

for example:

"Newton’s Third Law dictates that any damage (distortion) that occurs to the lower portion as a result of the impact of the upper portion will also occur in the upper portion"

er, no. no it doesn't! Here is Newtons actual 3rd law:

[quote=What_Newton_Actually_said_in_his_3rd_law]
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

It says nothing about damage, and nothing about accelerations (that's his 2nd law f=ma)

It should also be noted that i (correctly) used Newtons 2nd law about 4 pages ago so simply demonstrate that for the collapsing build to exceed 1g, it would have to experience a net downward force, and due to the buildings huge mass, to make even a noticeable difference to the accelerations, that force would require something like 15 Saturn 5 moon rockets all firing downwards simultaneously in order to be applied.

Now, as we didn't see 15 Saturn 5 moon rockets firing the building downwards into the ground, i think we can safely say your theories are complete twaddle eh.....

dissonance
The Manhattan project was fairly secret

er, nope, not even slightly secret it turns out!

More moles than the average school footy pitch 😉

I recommend reading Richard Rhodes seminal work on the development of the atomic bomb:

[img] [/img]

(838 pages of rigorously researched, cross referenced and often first hand information on the project)

Is the pyramid above a controlled explosion as well?

Does it look like a controlled explosion? Would it require a controlled explosion to make 000s of unconnected blocks collapse into a pile? Would the same thing happen if all the blocks were glued to their adjacent blocks?

The structure below was not strong enough to withstand the force necessary to decelerate falling part above

You mean the lower structure was unable to provide [u]any[/u] resistance? None at all? And yet the upper part was strong enough to withstand (resist) the force that destroyed the (structurally identical) lower part?

I explained, in some detail, about 4 pages ago how the structure of the WTC, which differs markedly from most lowrise steel framed buildings results in the floors pancaking very easily compared to a high mass, cross braced steel or concrete building.

No you havent actually explained anything .....Go back and read it.

Are you aware of how the 2 towers were actually constructed,

If you buy into the pancake theory of collapse why did the cores not remain in situ ????

it really is pointless I have more chance of persuading the pope there is no god as his belief is more rational than this guff

it really is pointless I have more chance of persuading the pope there is no god as his belief is more rational than this guff

Why does it always have to be about you ?

It was about me , some folk on here and the pope - Not sure how you missed that as normally you have such a great understanding of things 😉