[Closed] 9/11 documentary

So a video where fire fighters describe "explosions" means there were bombs?

Really? How would you describe the sounds, pressures,vibration, dust and smells of a large building collapsing all around you?

At no point do they say "a bomb went off and the building collapsed".

It's also a well known phenomena that eye witness accounts to dramatic incidents are highly un-reliable. Confusion on the ground is rife. After the event, it's easy, with the benefit of collation and hindsight to say "oh yeah, a plane flew into the building and it fell down" but i bet if you were in it at the time, an weren't looking out the window to see the approaching plane you'd not have a clue what had occured.

Anyone who thinks a video of some firefighters describing a build collapsing as "an explosion" and somehow gets to "a bomb was deliberately set off" is a moron.

BTW, What did conspiracists do before You tube?

Guess they just sat in their bedsits alone knocking one out whilst normal people, who have long ago given up trying to talk to them, went out and actually had real social interactions........ 😆

I suppose if they're all on this thread, then at least the rest of the forum is safe, right?

Is this thread a STW conspiracy?

It's also a well known phenomena that eye witness accounts to dramatic incidents are highly un-reliable. Confusion on the ground is rife. After the event, it's easy, with the benefit of collation and hindsight to say "oh yeah, a plane flew into the building and it fell down" but i bet if you were in it at the time, an weren't looking out the window to see the approaching plane you'd not have a clue what had occured.

Anyone who thinks a video of some firefighters describing a build collapsing as "an explosion" and somehow gets to "a bomb was deliberately set off" is a moron.

The silly thing is, I actually agree with you on those points... I was even going to edit the original post to point out the mention of bomb in the caption could be misleading, but was worried someone would jump down my throat in the usual forum fashion.

To get to the bottom of this though, we need to establish if they came out after the complete collapse of the building (I'd be very surprised if that was the case, but stranger things have happened)

5plusn8 - Member
except at the edges
lots of stuff got ejected sideways, have you seen the videos.

The thing about conspiracy theorists... If you believe that They are running a massive conspiracy to control the world, and that They will happily kill anyone that crosses their path... How are all the people speading the Truth still alive?

bails - Member

It's like putting together a false-flag terrorist 'atrocity', only the bad guys are armed with supersoakers instead of AKs, and just hoping that nobody notices that supersoakers aren't usually fatal.

Bails for king

Drac - Moderator
He’s not a troll he seriously believes it

Nah, he avoids any questions that might trap him into agreeing with something that is true and could undermine his conspiracy.

Questioning simple answers to complex questions does not necessarily mean one believes in conspiracy. It might be driven by a desire to understand what happened.

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

5:40 ...more people who knew WT7 was about to collapse...

Did you hear that? Keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon...

😆
Do you think that maybe they could hear the structure failing? Over some time, not instantly as in a controlled explosion?

Large structures make noise as they fatigue.
Fatigue perhaps caused by fire.
*Fire that didn't set off any explosives prematurely, and didn't burn through any wires used in the detonation of said imaginary explosives.

This is your proof? 😆

Pulling the building?
You mean pulling your men from the building. This context makes sense in every batshit video you link to, demolishing the building does not.

Get a new hobby.

*I have professional experience in the use of explosives. You don't.

CharlieMungus - Member
Questioning simple answers to complex questions does not necessarily mean one believes in conspiracy. It might be driven by a desire to understand what happened.

Yeah but no but yeah but no but

What is deeply unpleasant about this thread, and all discussions like it, is the sneering derision.

Some are asking intelligent questions in order to fill gaps in their understanding.

I don't have the knowledge to seriously pick holes the official account, but there are a lot of people who are, and do - a decent chunk of those 2945 professional architects and engineers who have put their name down in their professional capacity to ask for a fuller understanding.

NIST had to come up with a complex computer model to try and explain how the towers came down (apparently, "gravity = down, duh" was deemed not to be a sufficiently full and complete explanation)

Apparently there are aspects of this which don't make sense and differ to the observable facts of the event, but NIST won't release the numbers and assumptions behind their model, so those experts are campaigning for fuller disclosure.

Those people (again, most more qualified to comment than some or all on here; most will have spent more time looking into it than some or all on here) are saying there are aspects which aren't explained.

It's sort of fun having a play with concepts on here, but I think anyone who thinks they can fully explain the collapses in a paragraph is kidding themselves.

it's important to be able to question things. BUT if you accept the answers as gospel, without considering commentary from a whole lot of other people with have expertise in those areas etc. Then you are heading fast to a position that's just as much a belief system as a "nut job conspiracy theorist's".

There is accepting as gospel and accepting that planes were seen flying into the towers and suggesting a mega conspiracy that involved professional demolition.

Perhaps more information could be released it would it disprove the facts above?

Very true, it's important to be able to question things. BUT if you don't listen to the answers, don't accept that other people have expertise in those areas etc. Then you are heading fast to nut job conspiracy theorist

Of course, but we should question the experts too.

Of course, but we should question the experts too.

But only if they are explanatory. A few too many in here are along the lines of,look - I know this stuff, yeah!?

The problem Ned as I see it is that people put genuine effort into trying to answer the questions only to be met with:
1) The threefish approach - Oh I can't be bothered to engage any more I don't have time (eg it looks like you are about to prove me wrong so I am going to piss off for a while and come back with my nut job bollocks later)
2) Or wilfull trolling a-la JHJ.

So sometimes other people get caught up in the frustrations of this, if you have and you are genuine then I am sorry. I would be happy to try and work through your objections and attend to the areas where you think it falls down (sic). It is hard to discern who wants to explore and who is just being mendacious.

eg CharlieMungus seems to be genuine, although it is important even to question that as some of his responses border on trolling/wilfulignoring.

Yes properly, and listen to the answers and respect when people are more qualified to answer those questions.

Quite.

Something happened, some experts came up with a way of explaining how it happened given the position that there were no separate, intervening forces. A lot of other experts have said there are significant shortcomings in that explanation, but requests for information have not been entered into. There is scientific doubt in the official explanation.

Plenty of much less qualified people on this thread have no doubt whatsoever, but they have sneering derision for those that do recognise that doubt.

What happens in these discussions is the tag team effect, one starts, their argument is dismissed, then another one takes over, usually with a similar but equally flawed point or points. There are only so many times the same argument can be discussed before people start getting frustrated and chucking shit at each other.

A lot of other experts have said there are significant shortcomings in that explanation, but requests for information have not been entered into. There is scientific doubt in the official explanation.

This is not entirely correct. the architects and engineers for truth are mostly not engineers. And architecture is not a science.

OK, fair enough, I've been careful to say most and some. There'll be plenty on there who are straight of school and spent more time on pretty pictures and structural engineering.

They're will be some who know exactly what they're talking about. Or are you saying none of them? Are you in a position to address the key questions and requests for clarity they have put forward? Are they right to put them forward? Should they be answered by those they're put to (NIST?)

There is scientific doubt in the official explanation.

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

Take a premise that is wrong and extrapolate from that you get a nonsense answer.

GIGO ( garbage in garbage out)

tj. ours crossed.

Yup - my point still stands. there is not a single shred of evidence that stacks up to scientific scrutiny that shows anything at all wrong with the official line. NOT ONE SHRED

All the conspiracy theories have been completely debunked by people who know what they are talking about. Every one

They're will be some who know exactly what they're talking about. Or are you saying none of them?

Are you in a position to address the key questions and requests for clarity they have put forward?

Are they right to put them forward?

Should they be answered by those they're put to (NIST?)

ned rapier. YOu give me one thing that you believe shows that the official explanation is wrong. One piece you believe shows best that their was ore than the official explanation. I will then take it to pieces for you

Ned go for it - put your questions. Ignore the insults, I will happily try and address as long as you are [b]prepared to answer my questions?[/b] Fair enough?

but we should question the experts too.

That's fine, but if you [b]start[/b] with the idea already that the towers came down because of nefarious actions by a cabal of the Govt, (as C.Theorists are mostly trying to do, as opposed to trying to understand difficult physics) then the questions you ask will be directed by your own conformation bias.

so therefore, aren't going to add clarity in any way.

CharlieMungus seems to be genuine, although it is important even to question that as some of his responses border on trolling/wilfulignoring.

Really? I haven't wilfully ignored anyone. There have been a variety of genuine answers and ideas put forward by folk and others which are less rich and tinged with derision. I happily engage with the constructive discussions.

I'm not entirely sure where the trolling idea comes from, perhaps from Junkyard's comment early in the thread. But let me assure you, neither here nor elsewhere am I trolling.

Away from all the conjecture, back to [url= http://whokilledjohnoneill.com/essay/ ]facts[/url]:

On July 3rd, 1979, the CIA gave birth to Islamic fundamentalism when President Carter signed a directive for United States intelligence to provide radical Islamic thinking and arms to Afghan fighters, before the Soviet Union invaded

John O'Neill: Maverick counter-terrorism expert in the FBI. O'Neill tracked Osama bin Laden since 1995. He knew more about Osama than anyone in the world. He tracked him past the Embassy bombings in 1998 and the Cole bombing in 2000. He knew more about Osama and al Qaeda than anyone in the world.

Then O'Neill got in some trouble. His investigation into terrorism were blocked from up on high.

Blocked by whom?

In the summer of 2001, he resigned as Deputy Director of the FBI. At the same time, he was publicly opposed to the anti-terrorism policies of President George W. Bush. On September 10th, 2001, he started his new job, with a company called Kroll Associates, as head of security at the World Trade Center. A day later, he was dead, a victim of the September 11th terrorist attacks. He died at the World Trade Center.

The FBI's top counter-terrorism expert, who after chasing bin Laden for six years happened to take a job in the private sector,is murdered in an internationally-televised terrorist attack blamed on his arch nemesis? Killed by his arch nemesis. How ironic.

Why did O'Neill start working at the Trade Center? Why were his investigations into al Qaeda stopped? Who arranged for him to get his new, ill-fated job?

We know the answers to these questions now, and none of them have to do with Osama bin Laden. The more you look at the whole, and not just the pieces, the more you understand what really happened.

John O'Neill is the key. Look into John O'Neill.

Kroll Associates, Brian Jenkins, Jerome Hauer. Look for John O'Neill. He is the key. Michael Cherkasky, ever looked into the LAPD? Why don't you go back to the FBI, Robert Mueller?

John O'Neill's investigations through the New York City offices of the FBI were run in concert with the CIA. The offices were in World Trade Center building number 7. World Trade Center building number 7. Floors 23 through 26 were the federal bunker offices of all the federal agencies in New York City, Set up by Jerome Hauer. Jerome Hauer was the guy who got John O'Neill his job at the World Trade Center.

Who killed John O'Neill, and why?

To understand what happened to John O'Neill you have to know what happened on 9/11.

I'm just questioning to be sure that's all Charlie. ..

So, where are we now with the theory:

1) In spite of total disregard for lives of firemen elsewhere, the conspirators passed the message to firemen that WTC7 was going to collapse so they could all escape.
2) A plane can't destory a WTC tower, However the conspirators chose to use planes as the cover for the demolition.
3) Even though planes can't destroy WTC towers, if they do the tower falls sideways, like a tree. However the conspirators chose not to rig the towers to collapse in a credible way, even though (we're told) that would be far easier rather than intricately getting the towers to drop Dibnah style into their own footprint.
4) The conspirators rigged three towers to collapse. They decided not to bother with a cover story for one of the towers and just blew it up without crashing a plane into it.
5) Thousands of people have kept quiet about all this for nearly 20 years in spite of changes of government.
6) In spite of performing an incredible feat of planning and secrecy the conspirators left glaring clues which the authorities can't spot but a handful of conspiracy theorists *can* spot.
7) The conspirators never silence the conspiracy theorists who spill the beans on this stuff.

What is deeply unpleasant about this thread, and all discussions like it, is the sneering derision.

Agree. Let's play the ball not the man.

The problem Ned as I see it is that people put genuine effort into trying to answer the questions only to be met with:

Don’t foget the 5plusn8 ‘genuine’ approach. How would you describe that? Everyone else is a troll and wilfully ignorant, so when are you the same? Or do other people need to figure that out for you too?

You weren’t about to disprove anything I said yesterday, you were just selectively ignoring (what’s another term for that?) anything that supported a contradiction to your own view in order that you could wander off with me down some convoluted explanation of a totally different scenario which I might possibly have agreed with, so you could then have said “see!! That shows how how the NIST version is correct.”. It’s a fascinating control drama and I’m sure it serves you well in life, but it’s also borderline offensive.

My position is this: I don’t believe the three buildings came down because of natural collapse. It contradicts my understanding of physics and probability, especially WTC7. Nobody I’m aware of has ever been able to physically demonstrate an alternative to controlled demolition - plenty of maths and computer models (animations), not a single experiment. I want to be wrong. I don’t want to have to consider that there are people who would be involved in anything like this. But I’m not naive; the US has an authoritarian/corporate system(s) set up to profit - either fanancially, politically or ideologically - from any disaster.

Bickering about hypothesis is largely pointless; it’s virtually impossible now for anyone to prove anything, certainly not in the arena of an undisciplined forum ‘debate’. It’s a distraction from the observation of socio-political process, which is difficult enough at the best of times, and needs to be viewed as such. Who profited from 911 and how? Do we accept these people and these agendas as representative of our wishes for a society we are part of?

Now, if I may be excused, breakfast is finished so I’ll sack this/you off again and go and put a day’s work in doing something I love. You have a good one yourself...

Translation: I refuse to answer the questions put to me.

I was and am happy to engage with you. I want to take you down a path to show you something, it was getting close to you being shown something. If you really think I was wrong why not continue that conversation and prove me wrong?

edit - its not bickering, it's discussion.

so can any ogf the people who think there is more than the oficial story give me the one piece of evidence that shows this? I will then take that to piece if I can. so the one killer fact please

Beevor on conspiracy theories:

seizing upon one or two minor discrepancies in a government report, then joining up all the wrong dots to create a monstrous fable that runs completely counter to the facts.

He's right. Some people find it mildly implausable that a collapsing building would largely fall downwards and extrapolate that to a completely ludicrous conclusion which is counter to logic and fact.

The frustration comes from people arguing with things phrases like "it looks strange" or "I don't get how it could do X" and then instead of realising there might be a gap in knowledge and going to do some reading, picking up a text book, or doing some online classes (or even listening to other people) they leap to straight to "since I don't understand it means the explanation is wrong and something nefarious happened"

And that's not directed at any one person in particular, it's a general trend and it's difficult not to be generally frustrated even if specific people try to cut through it. If I have come across as derisory to anyone then I genuinely apologise for that unreservedly.

But even when it's explained its "yeah but what about blah...", forget blah you're STILL starting from an assumption and working outwards from there.

Start with the observable bits, and then use knowledge to see if you can explain what happened. If you get to a bit you can't explain then you're either missing some knowledge, or some info (observation).

You'll then have a list of bits [i]you [/i]can't explain.

If other people can credibly/provably explain then then listen to the explanations, question them, and if there's a bit you're not sure of research until you are, further your own knowledge, learn, you'll then either agree with the explanations or have further points for discussion.

But don't jump from "I don't understand" to "The explanations are lies".

There is a very big difference between not being able to fully explain the observations, to claiming to know it was a conspiracy and then trying to make the observations fit your belief.

A good check you can ask yourself at any point is this.

"Do I have enough knowledge about X that I'd be happy to publish a paper explaining X for peer review by experts, and that it wouldn't get pulled apart within 5 mins"

- If the answer is no, then time to get more knowledge until you can do that.

- If the answer is yes, you're onto a winner, publish it and be famous, whatever the explanation of X is, if you can prove it, you're right.

Right now I couldn't [i]fully [/i]explain what happened, I don't have the required level of expertise in all the necessary fields, but that just means I'm equally unable to say it was a cover up, because, as above I don't have the required level of expertise in all the necessary fields to refute it.

But I've not yet seen anything credible or not easily disproved that supports demolition or conspiracy, or plane swapping, or government organised mass murder.

@tjagain - I've had this conversation before (on UKC) and when shown "reports" that "proved" the attacks were a conspiracy it was pathetically easy to pull them apart. The longest one I looked at was properly laid out and had references, lots of references. I followed every single one and they all contradicted the conclusions of the document. Basically the author(s) had looked at the referenced documents and cherry picked parts of sentences that supported their case. So there'd be a sentence such as:

"The committee searched for [b]evidence of conspiracy[/b] but were unable to find any."

And the text would just use the words I've put in bold.

Every time you pull an argument to pieces ...

Squirrel!

amedias - you've just described the scientific method. An ordered way of observing the universe and using those observations to explain phenomena.

The thing is it really doesnt matter if it was a controlled explosion or if it was just the planes.

The only question is: Was anybody in on it?

Does anyone remember how the FBI found a koran and a how to fly a plane manual the day after the attack? And then found a passport in NY that had survived the plane crash and the fire in the towers?

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq ]guardian article[/url]

+1 with amedias.

The other misunderstanding of the scientific approach that always undermines this type of discussion (I too am a frequenter of the NASA Facebook comments!) is that anecdotal accounts, other people's opinion (however frequent or common) and YouTube videos with no references to sources/ out of context quotes / conjecture are rarely useful "evidence".

Well, apart from being evidence for the gullibility and lack of comprehension of reasoned debate of certain people.

The koran and the flight manual are hardly lucky finds. They were in the abandoned hire car rented by Atta beforehand. Big deal.
The passport is much more interesting. If he was piloting the plane then at the front of the impact its possible his loose possessions may have been carried/thrown forward.
I guess you are saying it was planted? I can see that as possible.
Even if it was, does this prove the towers were demolished by controlled demolition? Or undermine the concept that they fell due to the damage and fire from the pane impacts?
I don't think so, do you?
IF you are suggesting that somebody was "in on it" then I'd like to see your evidence other than 1 coincidental lucky find of a passport.

Where we lack proof, and in this situation we do, the popperian approach fails. So we can turn to statistical and probabilistic approaches, which is why I was asking for some a priori probabilities many pages ago. Bayesian methods or Markov chains might give us some likelihoods to compare. This is why I was asking about the way the Towers fell and if that was likely given the planes and fire

So do you think the passport survived the plane crash?

EDIT: I dont I think it was planted.

Even if it was, does this prove the towers were demolished by controlled demolition? Or undermine the concept that they fell due to the damage and fire from the pane impacts?
I don't think so, do you?

Not at all. In my post above I say it doesnt matter if it was planes or not the question is was anybody in on it?

I don’t believe the three buildings came down because of natural collapse. It contradicts my understanding of physics and probability, especially WTC7.

But it doesn;t contradict other peoples (namely, physicists) understanding of Physics, and those people can readily explain, with maths if necessary but you either choose not to listen, or assume your understanding of physics trumps theirs, so not wanting to be a d1ck about it, but I have to ask - Are you a Physicist? Can you do the necessary maths/calcs to show how it [i]should[/i] (or shouldn't) have fallen?

Nobody I’m aware of has ever been able to physically demonstrate an alternative to controlled demolition - plenty of maths and computer models (animations), not a single experiment

Likewise, has anyone done the opposite and actually demonstrated that it was demolition? you know, using physics and maths and stuff to prove it...

amedias - you've just described the scientific method. An ordered way of observing the universe and using those observations to explain phenomena.

Well yes, I was trying to do it without actually using the words 'scientific method' as IME that tends to put a certain group of people immediately on the defensive and assume you're being condescending or another one of those 'experts' that need ignoring 🙁

This is why I was asking about the way the Towers fell and if that was likely given the planes and fire

Does it matter? Even if the Towers *did* fall in an unlikely way that isn't solid evidence of a vast conspiracy.

As it happens I think the towers did fall in a perfectly reasonable way. The only reason towers would fall left or right is if they had significant structural integrity and a pivot point low down. Given the mode of failure was a totally weak structure collapsing onto itself then straight down was the only way to go. Indeed, if it had enough structural integrity to fall sideways it would have had enough structural integrity for, at least the bottom half, to stay standing.

I am not sure they found attas passport anyway, I have been googling this and it seems inconclusive. However I am happy to accept it was found for the sake of argument.
You know they did also find lots of other passenger remains and belongings intact, if you present Attas passport as the only thing intact it sounds crazy but they found other peoples stuff too.
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

I am not sure they found attas passport anyway, I have been googling this and it seems inconclusive. However I am happy to accept it was found for the sake of argument.
You know they did also find lots of other passenger remains and belongings intact, if you present Attas passport as the only thing intact it sounds crazy but they found other peoples stuff too.

....and again, why [b]plant [/b]utterly improbable evidence that totally gives the game away?

Since you've googled the passport, perhaps you should google John P O'Neill...

Or Ali Soufan

So we can turn to statistical and probabilistic approaches,

Except that you were trying to generate proababilities based on a limited set of predetermined and non-sequitur assumptions.

ie: making an assumption that neat/ordered collapse may imply demolition and then trying to work backwards to a probability.

Since a tower of that structure could only ever fall in that manner, you can't make that link. And any probabilites would be plucked out of the air, this is not a sensible approach as there's no control or verifiable basis for the probabilities.

There is no/little evidence of demolition, the only [i]evidence[/i] so far put forward is that the manner of collapse looked strange to the lay person, but since this can be explained it's not really evidence at all.

There is no evidence of explosives, or of a detonation method, or of the massive amounts of covert work that would have been needed, or in fact anything other than "it fell funny" (which it didn't as previously explained, it fell like you would expect it to fall), the only reason to continue to pursue the demolition theory is because a continued rejection of the explanation of how it fell.

John O'Neill's investigations through the New York City offices of the FBI were run in concert with the CIA. The offices were in World Trade Center building number 7. World Trade Center building number 7. Floors 23 through 26 were the federal bunker offices of all the federal agencies in New York City, Set up by Jerome Hauer. Jerome Hauer was the guy who got John O'Neill his job at the World Trade Center.

Since you've googled the passport, perhaps you should google John P O'Neill...

I dont get the point you're making here, the reason I dont get it is: why destroy a building to destroy any evidence, it was 2001, are we saying the CIA didnt have a network and back ups? People really believe that an organisation which operates across the world only has one copy of any report and that its also a paper copy?

so can any ogf the people who think there is more than the oficial story give me the one piece of evidence that shows this? I will then take that to piece if I can. so the one killer fact please

maybe I'll go through that video I linked to and collate some for you, as you can't be arsed to watch the many qualified people on there expressing concerns over NISTs handling of the report.

Can't promise anything though as I am quite busy.

why destroy a building to destroy any evidence, it was 2001, are we saying the CIA didnt have a network and back ups?

Plausible deniability?

We're getting back into conjecture here though...

Going back to this:

The thing is it really doesnt matter if it was a controlled explosion or if it was just the planes.

The only question is: Was anybody in on it?

And Ali Soufan, who questioned Abu Zubaydah...

A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him. He resigned from the FBI in 2005 after publicly chastising the CIA for not sharing intelligence with him, which could have prevented the attacks.

Turnerguy - the one piece of "evidence" that is most compelling.

[quote=TurnerGuy ]Can't promise anything though as I am quite busy.

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

A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him.

How was Soufan going to prevent a massive Government conspiracy involving thousands, and how did he hear about it?

maybe I'll go through that video I linked to and collate some for you, as you can't be arsed to watch the many qualified people on there expressing concerns over NISTs handling of the report.

No amount of nit-picking a report will provide evidence of a massive conspiracy. I've written rubbish documents myself without any instructions from Lizards.

Plausible deniability?

We're getting back into conjecture here though

I dont think we are, I just asked why you mentioned John O'Neills and the destruction of WTC 7 when the CIA would have had a global IT network of information, if the attack was to destroy this information it would/did fail... although I can see how you might think the last bit re a global IT network could be considered conjecture.

Except that you were trying to generate proababilities based on a limited set of predetermined and non-sequitur assumptions.

ie: making an assumption that neat/ordered collapse may imply demolition and then trying to work backwards to a probability.

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

Yes, it's not 'scientific method' but I'm not sure how those who intend to use that in here will be testing their hypotheses anyway.

Likewise, has anyone done the opposite and actually demonstrated that it was demolition? you know, using physics and maths and stuff to prove it...

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

8.9 seconds

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?"

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[i]But they aren't even close[/i].

"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?"
[b]Not really a Bayesian formulation[/b]

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.

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.