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

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

No deflection at all

Straight forward .... In order for a report to be flawed you dont need to provide an alternative ...

If you want to be taken serious then first try to distinguish between the various people who are having issues with the official story ...or parts of it

All you do is deflect by asking for alternative theories that somehow need to be present in order to disagree with the official version ...and childish generalizing

Weak points

A bit of perspective:

The first FEMA investigation concluded that WTC 7 likely fell due to fire. The 3 year NIST investigation (including peer reviews) involving 200 experts, specialists and investigators concluded it fell due to fire. It also reached a conclusion how WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell

These findings were endorsed or supported by recognised bodies, e.g. the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats, the American Institute of Architects, International Code Council, etc

Official national institutes of engineers and architects in the US representing 100's of thousands of members have not had issues with the NIST's findings on WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7

This isn't like MH370 where it's some mystery and there are several competing theories. There are no credible competing theories. This didn't happen recently, this was 17 years ago. There is no credible disagreement with the NIST's findings from official bodies - as far as I am aware not one recognised engineering, demolition or architectural group in the world has an issue with the NIST conclusions OR are maintaining a credible alternative theory.


Then there's your position. Not an expert. Passionately disbelieves the overwhelming expert consensus and the findings of investigations into the event, but demonstrates absolutely no interest in how the building alternatively fell (instant red flag) You represent a side of the "debate" occupied by people like Alex Jones and groups like AE911 who, when confronted with a steel framed building collapsing in Tehran, decided it was an "inside job" (more red flags)

That's not what I'd call a strong position. You are arguing against stuff that is going into peer reviews, engineering textbooks, building fire studies.. encyclopedias. Your points are going to have to be pretty damn strong. I've read a few of them, they aren't.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe The building in Iran had steel corner frames it not a steel framed core column building. Whoever told you otherwise needs to do some new research. The building in all corners tipped over it did come down symmetrically like WTC7. The building in Iran was mostly made of concrete it was a composite building. Steel and concrete composite buildings have collapsed in history that not unusual.

Cheerful Spring

I have just discovered another flaw in the NIST model. I don't know how I did not notice this error before and if NIST has explained this? I have contacted a 9/11 Skeptic to see what they think.

The Penthouse is beginning to collapse through the roof here in their model. What I don't understand right now is how can the Penthouse come through the roof when floors and columns are still supported and intact?. The floors and columns are marked in blue?

The floors would have to fall before the Penthouse fell in which NIST shows here have not fallen yet. It doesn't make sense.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have just discovered another flaw in the NIST model. I don't know how I did not notice this error before and if NIST has explained this? I have contacted a 9/11 Skeptic to see what they think.

No you didn't. I think you are telling lies again. You haven't contacted anyone.

Why contact a skeptic and not the journal?
Surely if you, again someone who has trouble understanding physics and is unable to do a simple equation, then surely they could see the problem too.

Please email the journal with your evidence and ask them to retract the paper.

Then also post that email and any reply you get.
Would be good for a laugh.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No you didn't. I think you are telling lies again. You haven't contacted anyone.

Why contact a skeptic and not the journal?
Surely if you, again someone who has trouble understanding physics and is unable to do a simple equation, then surely they could see the problem too.

Please email the journal with your evidence and ask them to retract the paper.

Then also post that email and any reply you get.
Would be good for a laugh.

It shocking you still get away with calling people liars on here. The journal missed this not my fault. Instead of them reading pages and pages of a report by NIST, they should have studied hard what the NIST model of the collapse is showing. You can see clearly was not possible for the Penthouse to fall through the roof when the floors beneath are still supported and intact? Any movement of the Penthouse downwards means there had to be support disconnection at floors below 47 before that could even occur. The NIST model does not show that.


I have not got a reply back I contacted them 12 hours ago maybe they can't answer I have to wait and see?

Cheerful Spring

Kingmob you try explaining this. The Penthouse is moving here and crumbling but the floors have not fallen away?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It shocking you still get away with calling people liars on here.

That's cause you lie a lot.
I simply don't believe you contacted anyone.
I think you just fired off a random email to a random person for no real reason.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have not got a reply back I contacted them 12 hours ago maybe they can't answer I have to wait and see?

You contacted the journal?
Please post a copy of the email.
Otherwise, you are lying again.

Also it's cute that you keep drawing on diagrams in mspaint and think it means anything or makes your rantings in anyway more decipherable.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

That's cause you lie a lot.
I simply don't believe you contacted anyone.
I think you just fired off a random email to a random person for no real reason.


You contacted the journal?
Please post a copy of the email.
Otherwise, you are lying again.

Also it's cute that you keep drawing on diagrams in mspaint and think it means anything or makes your rantings in anyway more decipherable.

Who do you want me to contact? You don't understand the basic laws of physics that why you ignore what I have just said. If there was support beneath how can an object fall through did you ever learn that in science class?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob email and who you think will reply will do. I contact them.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

.

Who do you want me to contact?

The journal. I've been very clear on this

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

.
You don't understand the basic laws of physics that why you ignore what I have just said. If there was support beneath how can an object fall through did you ever learn that in science class?

Mm hmm?

How long does it take an object to fall from the top of WTC7 to the ground? Show your work please.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob Since you don't know basic physics. What this I think shows is NIST did not study the actual collapse mechanisms correctly.

The loud bang heard in the actual collapse video was the support beneath the Penthouse taken out first. Then the Penthouse started falling in.

It could not have happened in the way NIST says any structural distortion or movement of the Penthouse from its original position on the roof, will only occur when the support columns and floors beneath, on floors 42 to 47, have started also to collapse prior to this.

NIST for some reason has done this backwards?

You can see that here they claiming that structural integrity was lost when more of the Penthouse had left the roof and fallen in. Which is nonsensical It's when the Penthouse first started to lose its wholeness is what you actually look at first

Cheerful Spring

King Mob The Penthouse will not move from its original position and start falling away if the support floors and columns are still intact. That just basic physics that you surely can understand?

NIST as far as I am aware doesn't claim the floors from 42 to 47 lost stability. Their model is floor 13 fell, 6 floors beneath floor 13 fell in. Then floors above 13 started to come down and only then did the Penthouse started to come down.

That doesn't make sense. How did architects and engineers not notice that any movement of any kind near the Penthouse means the support floors underneath have lost integrity and are falling away? Did they not notice the floors in the NIST model are still intact when the Penthouse first showed signs of movement downwards?

King Mob

I can calculate how long it takes an object to fall.
You cannot do this

Also why not email the journal?
I mean I am not taking any of your rants and childish diagrams at all seriously. No one here is.
Why not try with the journal?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I can calculate how long it takes an object to fall.
You cannot do this

Also why not email the journal?
I mean I am not taking any of your rants and childish diagrams at all seriously. No one here is.
Why not try with the journal?

You can calculate how long an object falls and what about it? What are you asking?

I using the NIST model that you support.

If your so interested in objects falling.

You tell me why need NIST model shows it took 20+ seconds when the Penthouse fell for the floors to come down completely inside the building?

You, people, call us childish and loonies, but ignore on the actual video of the collapse, this very same event took less than 5 to 6 seconds.

Will you address this or just going to not debate like you usually do? Or do prefer to engage in ad-hominems instead?

Dohnjoe

On the PC building and upgrading forum they have a questionnaire, would be nice to have one here

1. Do you have an actual credible conspiracy theory with detailed evidence?

That's it.

Of the countless JFK theorists threads I've read, I've never come across any where someone pointed out exactly who did it and how it was done. I've never read a moon hoaxer give the exact studio and dates/times when the "moon landing" was shot. As for the 911 conspiracies, a short vague paragraph or two is the best I've seen here.

The theories themselves are very thin on the ground here or any conspiracy forum, seems to be more about bare-faced denialism and attempts to discredit the facts under the guise of "I'm just asking questions", "what's wrong with questioning the official story", "oh you believe the mainstream media" and other broken-record tropes

King Mob

I'm interested in it because it shows that you don't understand basic physics.

It's not an ad hominem, as your agrument relies entirely on your own claimed authority and understanding.
However if you lack a basic understanding of what free fall even is, then your authority is utterly meaningless.

You keep avoiding the very simple problem that you could do trivially if you passed a high school level physics class.
But you can't. Because you haven't and you don't understand what you are ranting about.

And I never once called anyone a loonie.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I'm interested in it because it shows that you don't understand basic physics.

It's not an ad hominem, as your agrument relies entirely on your own claimed authority and understanding.
However if you lack a basic understanding of what free fall even is, then your authority is utterly meaningless.

You keep avoiding the very simple problem that you could do trivially if you passed a high school level physics class.
But you can't. Because you haven't and you don't understand what you are ranting about.

And I never once called anyone a loonie.

Kingmob you just seem unable to comprehend what NIST is claiming. You think 3,000 engineers and Architects just signed up to AE11truth to have a party and drinks. These professionals have also noticed the flaws in the NIST study its reason they joined.

You can not ignore the actual video of the collapse as if it's not even relevant or important.

NIST is claiming 47 floors are collapsing before the west corner right started moving down. The allocated 20+ second time for this event. Don't take my word for this, you have their model count the time yourself! If they are claiming it took 20+ seconds for this to occur, then why does this then not match to what can see in the actual collapse? You have eyes this can be done yourself. Stop thinking there some unknown mystery or hidden knowledge that NIST knows that I don't. The released a computer simulation of WTC7 collapse it not up to me to correct their errors.

King Mob

Lol
Do you think continuing to avoid answering the problem will make it look like you can answer it?
It kind of has the opposite effect.

But my answer to your rants is that you are just wrong because you don't understand things like basic physics.

Also you have not explained why you won't contact the journal with your "discovery".
If the paper is in error and you can show that, then they will publish a retraction.

Cheerful Spring

Truly amazing that you think these graphics by NIST match up with the actual collapse.#



Like I trying to understand how your brain works?

Go on point out where you see this distortion and deshaping on the actual collapse video?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob

That you think this looks like I truly curious why you think that?

Building 7 has collapsed about 8 stories in this image. Do you notice the right wall is straight and the roof is level?




This is NIST version of the same side you looking at in the image above.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob if you want to watch the video if you think I am lying.

Play at 2 minutes 50 seconds

Dan Rather you hear and listen to what he says about the footage.

King Mob

Again the problem isn't with the NIST, its with you and your demonstrable lack of understanding of physics amoung other things.

Since you can't do something simple like calculate how long it takes for something to fall, do you not think there might be some stuff in a highly technical peer reviewed report that is a bit over your head?

King Mob

And let's be frank here, Cheerful. Is English your second language? Cause from how indiscpherable some of your sentences are, I think a lot of your problems come from you not understanding some of the things you read...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again the problem isn't with the NIST, its with you and your demonstrable lack of understanding of physics amoung other things.

Since you can't do something simple like calculate how long it takes for something to fall, do you not think there might be some stuff in a highly technical peer reviewed report that is a bit over your head?

I don't honestly I have read the NIST report about WTC7 and I understand it has you?

You don't understand freefall, either did NIST till David Chandler wrote to them and pointed that out to them. So Dohnjoe can blabber on about no official studies dispute NIST findings, but he neglects to mention none of them noticed WTC7 experienced Freefall. It was a truther who noticed it a physics teacher and member of AE11truth.

King Mob

But how can you understand the NIST report when you aren't an engineer and you can't do a basic physics equation...?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And let's be frank here, Cheerful. Is English your second language? Cause from how indiscpherable some of your sentences are, I think a lot of your problems come from you not understanding some of the things you read...

I understand perfectly nice try with the deflection. Having not good English does not mean you don't understand complex problems and issues. You have good English and you still, have trouble understanding what the issues are or just don't want to know?

King Mob

It kind of does Cheerful as a lot of the things you are arguing rely on technical language and you seem to jump on turns of phrase and misunderstandings as proof for your rants.

You also avoided the question again.
English is not your first language.
I think this, and you poor grasp of physics have lead you to believe things that are at odds with reality.

Maybe stop ranting at people you long past trying to engage with and apply some critical thought to yourself and your beliefs.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But how can you understand the NIST report when you aren't an engineer and you can't do a basic physics equation...?[/QUOTE

3,000 engineers and architects disagree with the NIST report about WTC7, are you going to claim they don't understand the NIST report?

King Mob

Yup.
You're not an engineer or able to do basic physics though.
Yet you expect people yo believe you understand it?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

It kind of does Cheerful as a lot of the things you are arguing rely on technical language and you seem to jump on turns of phrase and misunderstandings as proof for your rants.

You also avoided the question again.
English is not your first language.
I think this, and you poor grasp of physics have lead you to believe things that are at odds with reality.

Maybe stop ranting at people you long past trying to engage with and apply some critical thought to yourself and your beliefs.

You don't apply critical thinking at all and you still avoided talking about the images I showed you again. Why do the NIST images not match the actual collapse? Until you answer that I can't take you seriously at all. Your opinion about me is irrelevant, talk about the issues, not the person.