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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
But a plane hit the pentagon though.

What you failing to understand is if a plane hit from another direction then the ASCE
Pentagon building assessments of what occurred are wrong.

From the North, the plane would impact different structures inside the building

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Then you should write to the journal and point out the lapse in their publishing ethics.
I'm sure they will take you seriously.

Meanwhile, in reality.
It was peer reviewed and published in a well respected journal.

Published but they never followed their own guidelines for the peer review process. You should be demanding NIST release the data and results so others can verify their work.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What you failing to understand is if a plane hit from another direction then the ASCE
Pentagon building assessments of what occurred are wrong.

From the North, the plane would impact different structures inside the building

But you said it was impossible for a 757 to hit the pentagon.
IMPOSSIBLE.

You were wrong.
Man up and admit that.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

never followed their own guidelines for the peer review process.

This is a lie.
You don't know what the peer review process is. You've shown that much for a fact.

And again, why not write to them if you think you've actually discovered some error or fraud?
Do you not think they would take you seriously?

This is something most conspiracy theorists don't even know exist. And here you are with this new discovery to the conspiracy.
So why not follow it up?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But you said it was impossible for a 757 to hit the pentagon.
IMPOSSIBLE.

You were wrong.
Man up and admit that.

Impossible based on the 9/11 commission findings yes.

Why you ignoring what I just posted there are multiple cameras on the roof of the Pentagon recording the ground where the plane is alleged came in from in the 9/11 commission report.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

This is a lie.
You don't know what the peer review process is. You've shown that much for a fact.

And again, why not write to them if you think you've actually discovered some error or fraud?
Do you not think they would take you seriously?

What else can it be NIST has publically stated they withheld their results? So what they claim cannot be verified by any independent peers, that just the reality here.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Impossible based on the 9/11 commission findings yes.

But that's not what you argued. You are again reinventing reality to avoid being wrong or admitting you are wrong.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why you ignoring. blah blah blah

See above, among many, many other reasons.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What else can it be NIST has publically stated they withheld their results? So what they claim cannot be verified by any independent peers, that just the reality here.

Then write to them. You've just discovered the key to the conspiracy.

Good luck with that.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not what you argued. You are again reinventing reality to avoid being wrong or admitting you are wrong.

See above, among many, many other reasons.

Yes, that what I did argue stop lying. My position no plane hit because the plane could not have hit from the position stated by the 9/11 commission. Did you forget our discussion about the FAA and FDR data?

You just ignore truths but cameras were located on the roof facts, not some conspiracy. There was also two cameras on the walls of the fire station.

Hector Bellend

Ipso wrote: »

Why not? As far as the pilots were concerned, it was just a regular hijacking. Gives us money and release members of the campaign to fre galilee.
Now we have convergent conspiracies to bring down wtc 7 for whatever reason and the teon towers

How do you know what the pilots thoughts were?

The official story tells us that the black boxes were never found.

Building 7 was not mentioned in the 911 commission report.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, that what I did argue stop lying. My position no plane blah blah blah

You argued that it wasn't a 757 and couldn't possibly be.
:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Then write to them. You've just discovered the key to the conspiracy.

Good luck with that.

They're not a conspiracy here they just posted a technical paper belonging to NIST. They should have done so because they state even in their own guidelines for peer review this.

Submitted manuscripts should contain detail and reference to public sources of information to
allow the author’s peers to repeat the work or otherwise verify the accuracy

The results are not available to the public and cannot be accessed, it just not possible for the authors peers to review the accuracy of their work.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They're not a conspiracy here they just posted a technical paper belonging to NIST. They should have done so because they state even in their own guidelines for peer review this.

Submitted manuscripts should contain detail and reference to public sources of information to
allow the author’s peers to repeat the work or otherwise verify the accuracy

The results are not available to the public and cannot be accessed, it just not possible for the authors peers to review the accuracy of their work.

So why not contact them and report the error that you've discovered?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You argued that it wasn't a 757 and couldn't possibly be.
:rolleyes:

Based on the 9/11 commission findings, why is this hard for you?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Based on the 9/11 commission findings, why is this hard for you?

Because a 757 did hit the pentagon. You claimed it was 100% another plane and it could never be a 757.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Because a 757 did hit the pentagon. You claimed it was 100% another plane and it could never be a 757.

The damage did not match up with 757 hitting from the southwest. So something had to have hit the Pentagon. So maybe I speculated it was a different plane.

757 is a big plane with a big two sided wingspan and two titanium engines and large tail.

Dohnjoe

Hector Bellend wrote: »

How do you know what the pilots thoughts were?

As I remember, you are claiming that the notion that the planes were hijacked is ridiculous

It's "beyond belief" to you

For a start your personal incredulity has no bearing on the facts or evidence.

I might find it "impossible" that the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg. But my personal notions of what's believable and not believable have no relation to what actually happened. It sank to an iceberg

If I believe it didn't sink to an iceberg, I would be providing my theory of how it really sank with what evidence, in an objective reasonable manner

Claiming it didn't sink to an iceberg because "I just can't believe it" is not an argument/debate

Phase two is to maintain the above incredulity and start to browse conspiracy sites to back up the "hunch"

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So why not contact them and report the error that you've discovered?

It is done now. We should be demanding a new investigation instead. Dr Hulsey has worked on WTC7 collapse for 4 years now a 300,000 dollar study. When his work is out I think we learn lot more about what really happened.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So maybe I speculated it was a different plane.

No. No maybe about it.
You stated as a fact that it was a different plane and that it was impossible that a 757 hit the pentagon at all.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No. No maybe about it.
You stated as a fact that it was a different plane and that it was impossible that a 757 hit the pentagon at all.

Stop lying I never knew about the plane seen on the north side by eyewitnesses. The thread is my witness and can be checked. If I knew that I would have talked about it at the very beginning of our discussion.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It is done now.

Nope, journals publish retractions all the time as a matter of record.
If you genuinely think you've discovered some fraud or a mistake, why not point it out?
Write to them. Send off an email detailing your irrefuatable evidence based off your complete and intimate knowledge of how science and peer review works.

Do you think they wouldn't take you seriously?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, journals publish retractions all the time as a matter of record.
If you genuinely think you've discovered some fraud or a mistake, why not point it out?
Write to them. Send off an email detailing your irrefuatable evidence based off your complete and intimate knowledge of how science and peer review works.

Do you think they wouldn't take you seriously?

So..

1. No interest in the actual "conspiracy" theory part
2. No interest in contacting the NIST team to highlight and discuss their perceived "mistakes"
3. Bringing all this up on a conspiracy forum (for conspiracies) instead of on engineering/demolition forums where there is expertise

As repeated many times - no interest in the truth, only in some vague unspecified "couldn't be bothered" theory

seannash

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Published but they never followed their own guidelines for the peer review process. You should be demanding NIST release the data and results so others can verify their work.

Just to say I didn't understand the peer review process so I googled it. My understanding is that if it is published in a journal the journal has sent it out for peer review and that review accepted the findings prior to publication

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Stop lying I never knew about the plane seen on the north side by eyewitnesses. The thread is my witness and can be checked. If I knew that I would have talked about it at the very beginning of our discussion.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106773890&postcount=164
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106778197&postcount=192
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106785129&postcount=224

So, honestly, is it because you don't remember, or to you think that no one would check that?

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So..

1. No interest in the actual "conspiracy" theory part
2. No interest in contacting the NIST team to highlight and discuss their perceived "mistakes"
3. Bringing all this up on a conspiracy forum (for conspiracies) instead of on engineering/demolition forums where there is expertise

As repeated many times - no interest in the truth, only in some vague unspecified "couldn't be bothered" theory

Oh it should be clear to everyone, Cheerful included that it's just a lame attempt to avoid admitting that he was wrong about something, and the "issues" he has about the paper are plucked out of his head in desperation and ignorance after a few poor tries at other excuses.

He knows that his email would be laughed at if it was read at all.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Dozens of threads, countless posts

Still not one single post outlining a credible alternative theory with substantiated evidence

Why is it necessary to have an alternative theory to refute flawed research ? and when an alternative theory cannot be proven the flawed first conclusion is somehow correct

I didnt know it worked that way.


If the first investigation was done properly maybe evidence for an alternative would still be there .. instead possible evidence was quickly disposed of which even lead NIST needing to fill in huge gaps with an to this date classified computer simulation, Because the data used is a possible threat to national security if released ..... keep being gullible guys

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106773890&postcount=164
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106778197&postcount=192
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106785129&postcount=224

So, honestly, is it because you don't remember, or to you think that no one would check that?

Posts made at the start of the thread just confirms what I just said You clearly ignoring I thought as you do the plane was only seen in the direction the 9/11 commission report states. But unlike you accepted that assessment I did not.

King Mob

seannash wrote: »

Just to say I didn't understand the peer review process so I googled it. My understanding is that if it is published in a journal the journal has sent it out for peer review and that review accepted the findings prior to publication

The problem Cheerful has is that he thinks that "peers" means anyone and everyone.
In reality the journal would send the paper and out to people in the field that it knows will be able to verify and check. They do no tell the authors of the paper who these peers are to keep in impartial and don't advertise who was part of the review process.
These reviewers would have been given all the information they needed to conduct their review. The problem cheerful has is that he doesn't grasp the difference between "releasing to the public" and "releasing at all."

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Posts made at the start of the thread just confirms what I just said You clearly ignoring I thought as you do the plane was only seen in the direction the 9/11 report states.

But you claimed that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon and that it was in fact an entirely different plane.

You are just in your own world at this stage...

You still think you weren't wrong...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

Can you show me where they were able to use (computer model) data provided by NIST in relation to the collapse ?