Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Recommend me a great 9/11 online documentary. What is the very best 9/11 documentary?

15678911»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Kingmob this gif I made may help you understand?

    [IMG][/img]2ikapk.gifvia Imgflip GIF Maker


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    [IMG][/img]2ikbrm.gifvia Imgflip GIF Maker

    Another one. The right wall on west corner is coming down straight. There no bowing in of walls on the east side or the west side. NIST has also these deformations occurring in their model.

    You can see here.
    [IMG][/img]2ikc6e.gifvia Imgflip GIF Maker


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The building fell in 5.4 seconds. So 3 seconds was less than gravity. So the object
    your so interested in would have likely fallen in 6 to 7 seconds under freefall conditions
    But how could the building fall faster than a ball experiencing no resistance?
    That makes no sense.
    You have to measure the distance travelled, the speed, and the time it took. There is a math equation for that to be done accurately. Are you really asking me to do the math?
    Yes, I want you to do the math, as I don't think you can actually do it.
    I've been very and directly clear on this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    King Mob wrote: »
    The building fell in 5.4 seconds. So 3 seconds was less than gravity. So the object
    your so interested in would have likely fallen in 6 to 7 seconds under freefall conditions

    But how could the building fall faster than a ball experiencing no resistance?
    That makes no sense.
    Actually it could make sense, if there was some kind of force pushing on the building from above, say from some kind of laser... from space!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But how could the building fall faster than a ball experiencing no resistance?
    That makes no sense.


    Yes, I want you to do the math, as I don't think you can actually do it.
    I've been very and directly clear on this.

    Another irrelevant question. Kingmob not going to reply to you anymore. You have not shown me the same respect and you have ignored what I asked. There plenty of skeptics forum online you can join metabunk and JREF forum where your nonsense and ad-hominems will be appreciated.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Another irrelevant question. Kingmob not going to reply to you anymore. You have not shown me the same respect and you have ignored what I asked. There plenty of skeptics forum online you can join metabunk and JREF forum where your nonsense and ad-hominems will be appreciated.
    But no. I did answer your question directly and clearly.#

    My answer to your question is:
    You simply don't understand physics, engineering, the NIST report or anything you are talking about.

    You have not answered my question at all. This is because you are unable to do a high school physics problem. You simply don't know how to do the math.
    This proves my answer to your question, along with the other statements you've made of your own volition that betrays an utter lack of understanding of physics, engineering and the report (ie, saying that the building fell faster than a ball dropped from the same height).


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    [IMG][/img]2ikbrm.gifvia Imgflip GIF Maker

    Another one. The right wall on west corner is coming down straight. There no bowing in of walls on the east side or the west side. NIST has also these deformations occurring in their model.

    You can see here.
    [IMG][/img]2ikc6e.gifvia Imgflip GIF Maker


    Just to play devils advocate how could this NIST model be correct when you have indicated that they didn't allow for certain structural elements that were in the building in a prior post

    So either the model is correct and they did include the extra supports you mentioned that they omitted earlier or the model is not correct and therefore renders your comparison of how it fell invalid as its not a true reflection of the buildings makeup.
    Which one is it because both accusations cant be true.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    seannash wrote: »
    Just to play devils advocate how could this NIST model be correct when you have indicated that they didn't allow for certain structural elements that were in the building in a prior post

    So either the model is correct and they did include the extra supports you mentioned that they omitted earlier or the model is not correct and therefore renders your comparison of how it fell invalid as it's not a true reflection of the buildings makeup.
    Which one is it because both accusations cant be true.

    It would not matter because their computer model of WTC7 collapse is based on one girder falling down on one floor and this lead to a progressive collapse. A failure still has to happen. Even if the structural fittings are on the girder, and it still slid off the seat, the result is the same. You have to remember in all this NIST claim is one girder on floor 13 ( in the east side) got so hot it expanded. NIST called this thermal expansion.

    The girder then moved a number of inches to the east and slid off and it fell onto floor 12-then 5 or 6 floors below it collapsed. Floor 13 connections were weakened by this stage, so the floors above 13, start collapsing in and eventually, the Penthouse came down. Then floors started collapsing in the middle and then the building fell completely.


    NIST likely could not get the girder to expand enough to slid laterally to the east in their model. So they cheated and started just removing fittings to help the process along. The web plate stiffener on column 79 would stop the movement anyhow. We have pictures of column 79 during WTC7 construction that show these fittings are on the girder above the column. NIST decided to just remove the fittings for their collapse model to act in a way they had envisioned.


    They never included the fittings that well known. NIST claims their drawings when they did the study did have them. They finished their study in 2008.

    Truthers in 2012 and early 2013 by freedom of information request got the Frankel Steel drawings and the erection drawings for WTC7. The girder at column 79 had 30 shear studs and web plate stiffener.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    NIST likely could get the girder to expand enough to slid laterally to the east in their model. So they cheated and started just removing fittings to help the process along. The web plate stiffener on column 79 would stop that movement anyhow. We have pictures of column 79 during WTC7 construction that show these fittings are on the girder above the column. NIST decided to just remove the fittings for their collapse model to act in a way they had envisioned

    So they had the foresight to know they needed to remove it in the report but didn't make the model behave how you are saying the collapse happened.
    Okay.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    seannash wrote: »
    So they had the foresight to know they needed to remove it in the report but didn't make the model behave how you are saying the collapse happened.
    Okay.

    NIST was tasked by the department of commerce to find out how fire brought down WTC7.

    NIST decided the collapse must have happened on the east side where the fires were present. The Penthouse also came down on the east side.

    They picked column 79 ( it is a critical column) as the starting point for the collapse. Above-floor 13 there were no fires.

    You have to remember NIST is also using photographic evidence and videos in their analyse. Nobody knows truly what was happening inside WTC7 as there no eyewitnesses who can tell us what took place inside the building before it fell.

    You can't manipulate a model. They had to account for all the connection failures they claim was taken place. They claiming these failures were a result of a fire. We have actual videos real-time video from 9/11 of WTC7 collapse. We can see clearly how it collapsed. You have those gifs the footage is legitimate footage not doctored or edited or anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Skeptics also claim thermite and thermate can't cut steel. If you listen to them that is.


    This guy has done experiments that prove the 9/11 Skeptics wrong.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Senate passes resolution to declassify, release 9/11 Saudi docs


    The US Senate has unanimously passed S. Res. 610, calling for the declassification and release of tens of thousands of pages of documents relating to Saudi Arabia and the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

    The resolution reads as follows:

    Urging the release of information regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States.

    Whereas tens of thousands of pages of documents relating to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States remain classified by the Federal Government;

    Whereas the Federal Government may properly classify and control access to information in order to protect sources and methods of collecting critical information in defense of the country and the people of the United States;

    Whereas the contents of these documents are necessary for a full public understanding of the events and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks;

    Whereas the decision to maintain the classified status of many of these documents prevents the people of the United States from having access to information about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including the involvement of certain foreign governments in the attacks; and

    Whereas the people of the United States and the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks deserve full and public disclosure of the events surrounding the attacks: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

    (1) documents related to the events of September 11, 2001, should be declassified to the greatest extent possible; and
    (2) the survivors, the families of the victims, and the people of the United States deserve answers about the events and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States.

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/252774

    Not sure what happens next? The President will have to sign off on this to have them release?. I expect a lot of retractions though if they do get released?

    The CIA and FBI stepped in to keep 60-year-old JFK files secret until 2021. It was a shameful incident. Another cover-up was allowed to continue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Just found a WTC7 paper belonging to NIST.

    https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611


    Skeptics claim that fires burned uncontrollably for seven hours in WTC7? NIST states the first observation of a fire took place just after 12.30PM and only small pockets of fires were seen on the Southwest side.

    NIST even admits there is no photographic or video evidence of fires on the lower floors prior to 1.30pm and 2 pm.

    The North Tower tower collapsed at 10.38am and the wreckage hit WTC7. There are no fires between 10.38am and 1.30pm on the lower floors.

    How did the fires start on the low floors then? Maybe the conspirator's plan did not work out as expected? They thought the collapse would result in more damage to WTC7 and they could bring it down. Looks like the fires were started deliberately in the lower floors.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    This is a photograph of the eastside prior to 1.30pm. No fires on that side.

    463712.png

    Sometime after 1.30pm fires started on this side of the building.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,679 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Fire spreads

    Instead of playing the incredulous "I can't believe it" pantomime why don't you explain why the building alternatively fell with credible evidence, I'll start a new thread

    You provide all the explanations, we'll do the questioning for the names, dates, suspects, etc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Fire spreads

    Instead of playing the incredulous "I can't believe it" pantomime why don't you explain why the building alternatively fell with credible evidence, I'll start a new thread

    You provide all the explanations, we'll do the questioning for the names, dates, suspects, etc

    The fires were started deliberately. NIST even states fires were only observed on the Southwest side, not the eastside prior to 1.30pm.

    That pretty much debunks the Skeptics claim fires were out of control on the eastside for six hours.

    And there no explanation as to how fires emerged on this side hours later? How did fires track backwards and how long would have taken to reach the other side?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    NIST even admits there is no photographic or video evidence of fires on the lower floors prior to 1.30pm and 2 pm.
    The fires were started deliberately. NIST even states fires were only observed on the Southwest side, not the eastside prior to 1.30pm.

    There is no photographic or video evidence of demolition charges, thermite charges or people setting fires.
    Therefore these things obviously didn't exist. QED :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    There is no photographic or video evidence of demolition charges, thermite charges or people setting fires.
    Therefore these things obviously didn't exist. QED :rolleyes:

    What it does prove the Skeptics were lying saying and claiming fires were blazing uncontrollably for six hours on the lower floors.

    Fires randomly just appeared on the Northside after 2 pm. Nobody seemed to spot fires making the way across during this time. There no photographic or video evidence of this. No fires at 1.30pm suddenly just after 2 pm fires started on this eastside.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    What it does prove the Skeptics were lying saying and claiming fires were blazing uncontrollably for six hours on the lower floors.

    Fires randomly just appeared on the Northside after 2 pm. Nobody seemed to spot fires making the way across during this time. There no photographic or video evidence of this. No fires at 1.30pm suddenly just after 2 pm fires started on this eastside.
    Ah so the explosives/thermite just randomly appeared?
    Cause there's no photographic or video evidence of those. Therefore, didn't exist. Right?

    Unless you have a photo or a video of them? If so, please show it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah so the explosives/thermite just randomly appeared?
    Cause there's no photographic or video evidence of those. Therefore, didn't exist. Right?

    Unless you have a photo or a video of them? If so, please show it.

    There is no video or photographic evidence of a girder coming off its seat at column 79. Doesn't stop you believing in that theory.

    There are many reasons to not trust NIST they lied about things that people saw and witnessed. They lied about the noise heard before the collapse. They lied that shear studs and web plate stiffener were on the girder at column 79. They lied about the intensity of fires on floor 12. The photographic and video evidence does not support their theory. They never explained fully the implications of freefall in the study. Their own images and video evidence looks nothing like the actual collapse.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    There is no video or photographic evidence of a girder coming off its seat at column 79. Doesn't stop you believing in that theory.
    Well you're the one who's proposing that if there's no video or photo evidence, then it didn't happen.

    You say that there's no video or photos of the fire, therefore it didn't exist.
    There's no video or photos of the charges the conspirators used to take out the building so therefore, they can't exist either.

    You've painted yourself into a bit of a corner there...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well you're the one who's proposing that if there's no video or photo evidence, then it didn't happen.

    You say that there's no video or photos of the fire, therefore it didn't exist.
    There's no video or photos of the charges the conspirators used to take out the building so therefore, they can't exist either.

    You've painted yourself into a bit of a corner there...

    Difference between me and you is I accept what the evidence shows. If NIST theory was right I accept it. Better people than me have clearly shown the flaws in their study.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Difference between me and you is I accept what the evidence shows. If NIST theory was right I accept it. Better people than me have clearly shown the flaws in their study.
    That's not a response to the point I'm making. You seem to have trouble understanding it. Let me simplify.

    You claimed that the NIST's explanation is impossible because fires were not observed in the right places in the right times. Therefore if the fires were not observed, then they did not exist.

    Similarly, the things the conspirators used to demolish the building were not observed at all. There's no photos or videos of them or of them being planted.
    So if you were to apply your argument fairly, you must then conclude that these things also did not exist.

    The problem is that you are not applying your argument fairly. I don't think you even understand your own argument or even the what the report says as you seem to be confusing the word "observed" with "existed",


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,679 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Better people than me have clearly shown the flaws in their study.

    No they haven't. They are isolated individuals with seemingly more expertise than you who tell you what you want to hear

    People who succumb to this type of conspiracy thinking gravitate towards that one "expert" who confirms their bias, rather than the consensus of 100 experts who contradict it


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Baller23


    I like the pilots for truth.org material. These guys are analytical, experienced, some are ex military and or test pilots and they have no axe to grind. More information on cell/mobile phone limitations back then is floating around too stating the impossibility of in intercepting calls at altitude at those velocities.


Advertisement