Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

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

Options
12467…11

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It's important we find out what happened on 9/11. That event has changed the Middle East and people lives have been ruined.

    What I never will understand is why 9/11 Skeptics support the NIST study? I still amazed to this day this study is supported when it been established beyond all doubt now the girder at column 79 had 30 shear studs, a web plate stiffener, and fasteners. It changes everything about what NIST stated occurred. I fully convinced people like Dohnjoe has no idea what that even significant?

    Then there another issue. Just take NIST on its word here as there very little else to support their version of events.

    This is stage 1 how the collapse began according to NIST

    The girder came off its seat at column 79 on floor 13, 5 or 6 floors beneath floor 13 collapsed then. Then Floor 14 and floors above it began collapsing and then the Penthouse fell in and finally the rest of the floors in the middle of the building started to fall down. Remember always this event occurred in NIST model because the girder was unsupported. The shear studs and web plate and fasteners provide stability and stiffness they stop steel girders from moving off the seat.

    Then we have the added problem, the NIST model shows a time of 20+ seconds for all the floors to break and collapse down, then the west corner wall started descending (this was after the East Penthouse left the roof ) It did not happen this way you can view the actual collapse video and when the East penthouse left the roof it took only 6 to 7 seconds for the west corner wall to start moving. That literally means NIST progressive collapse is junk science. The actual video of the collapse shows the floors and columns came down much faster then NIST states. With Freefall present the implications are obvious it was done by controlled demolition.

    Then we have NIST lying about Eyewitnesses seeing molten liquid of Iron and Steel. Did they just conveniently forget the photographic and video evidence of this and FEMA finding a liquid made of Iron? They also denied WTC7 noise. And sure finding WTC7 steel flange melted by high temp isn't worth investigating? FEMA even states temp need for this to occur where higher than was even achievable in an office fire.

    See, instead of typing all that out which won't be read you could have went for a nice walk. I stopped reading after the very first sentence as any sensible person knows what happened.


  • Options
    #93
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    RocketRaccoon wrote: »
    See, instead of typing all that out which won't be read you could have went for a nice walk. I stopped reading after the very first sentence as any sensible person knows what happened.

    I think a world-changing event is important to talk about. Sensible people like who?

    This is what actually took place not sure what your disagreement is? if you want to believe NIST was genuine ok your free to believe that. The evidence shows that not the case.

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the people involved in it are not some loonies they pick off the street. Some of the people involved in are Nobel prize winners.


  • Options
    #94
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I think a world-changing event is important to talk about. Sensible people like who?

    This is what actually took place not sure what your disagreement is? if you want to believe NIST was genuine ok your free to believe that. The evidence shows that not the case.

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the people involved in it are not some loonies they pick off the street. Some of the people involved in are Nobel prize winners.

    It is important to talk about, I completely agree. But the conspiracy theories are painful, just utter nonsense.

    What ACTUALLY took place was some lunatic religious animals took control of aircraft and slammed them into buildings which then collapsed because of this. No explosives, no secrets.


  • Options
    #95
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Mad thought, but maybe if you don't know all the facts, maybe your assumptions might be incorrect?
    And maybe your "doubts" and "concerns" are the result of incorrect information

    Up until that part you perfectly describe how NIST put together their report

    And to get rid of their doubts and concerns they fabricated a computer model which conclusions to this date are not released for peer review


  • Options
    #96
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    RocketRaccoon wrote: »
    It is important to talk about, I completely agree. But the conspiracy theories are painful, just utter nonsense.

    What ACTUALLY took place was some lunatic religious animals took control of aircraft and slammed them into buildings which then collapsed because of this. No explosives, no secrets.

    Can you tell me the type of plane that flew into building 7 ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Thanks, I watched it when it came out. It's a bit redundant in recent times because of the increases in terrorist incidents and attacks.

    After 911 the public mood was dark, some politicians and officials (e.g. Giuliani) took advantage of that. However fear was never really a doctrine, it was more a common sense approach taken by most countries to combat terrorism without going overboard (a delicate balancing act)

    Ironically conspiracy theorists latch onto an extreme version of this whereby every major terrorist attack is a neat "inside job" to scare the public into some sort of unspecified dystopian future (which never happens). Ironically the conspiracy community use fear-mongering and disinformation to an extreme to get to this narrative

    You refuse to accept there sinister people in the world. You believe the Nazis existed don't you and that only occurred 70 odd years ago. You also have ignored America dark history of involvement in coups and overthrow of governments around the world. Are you really so sure some people in power in America would not risk a few thousand American lives for a greater project they had imagined? You also ignore the Neocon wrote a manifesto for greater domination in the Middle East and elsewhere in 1997. They clearly had a goal in mind pre 9/11. Travel to Syria or Iraq Libya and ask them what 9/11 did for them? Are you trying to claim the patriotic act never happened after 9/11


  • Options
    #98
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    RocketRaccoon wrote: »
    It is important to talk about, I completely agree. But the conspiracy theories are painful, just utter nonsense.

    What ACTUALLY took place was some lunatic religious animals took control of aircraft and slammed them into buildings which then collapsed because of this. No explosives, no secrets.

    So you believe NIST even though in fact they did not include shears studs web plate and fasteners on the girder that fell down?

    You do realise after the NIST study came out in 2008 new evidence has surfaced that shows that all these fittings were on the girder during the construction of WTC7.

    Do you trust your eyes are not lying to you?

    Well, this is NIST computer simulation of the progressive collapse. Do you see the walls and exterior wall face are all dehaping crushing in you see that, right?



    This is not conspiracy video this is a real-time capture of the actual collapse. Do you see any deforming of the walls and face? Do you see anything that resembles NIST model?



  • Options
    #99
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If you join any forum claiming 911 or Sandy Hook or the Holocaust was an inside job with no credible evidence you'll find people will challenge you. Likewise if you don't "buy the official story on the world being round".

    Calling someone out on a complete lack of logic or reason is not abuse.

    Sure I was challenged on here that's fine. Who said the Holocaust was an inside job? Nobody has denied the Holocaust on here. Denying the Holocaust is claiming no Jews died in concentration camps. Clearly, millions were killed by murder, disease and overwork and lack of food. But how many were truly killed by gas? There nothing wrong disputing numbers because there no record left behind to verify the number. Of course, people got triggered by talking about it. What got me interested in the holocust was Belsen. People were claiming for years the mass graves were Jews shot by Nazis. I did some research and the official story was not accurate a British doctor who visited the camp found out from inmates they died from hunger and malnutrition so you see how fake news can spread. Anyway, let us not go back to that debate.

    Sandy Hook is not even supported by anyone on this forum so not sure why you keep bringing that up in conversation


  • Options
    #100
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Ipso wrote: »
    Jason Burke appeared on that show and has a very good book on Al Qaeda, his idea is that the nature of Al Qaeda was mis-represented, it's not a massive monolithical structured organization where the orders come from the top down.
    It's more of a banner or something to rally behind, local nut jobs come up with attack idea and then turn to the leadership for resources etc

    You right, but Jason Burke is ignoring who finances the operation. And Yes he is correct young men joined the organisation to do jihad.

    Bin Laden denied he did 9/11 people seem to have conveniently forgotten that over time.


  • Options
    #101
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No need to be pedantic thanks

    Conspiracy theorists try to play the story as the DoD (or Pentagon) "losing" or "hiding" money.

    The reality is that the DoD has apparently had accounting and reconciliation issues for decades due to shiatty practices, a myriad of old software and having an enormous bureaucracy

    When they mentioned 2.3 trillion, it doesn't mean it "disppeared" into the ether, they are claiming it can't be accounted for properly, up to their auditing standards

    The accounting department investigating the lost 2.3 trillion was hit on 9/11. So we will never know if they have recovered all the records? After 9/11 I don't think anyone was going to be digging too deeply into this.

    Rumsfield is a strange character there clearly something fishy about his activities leading up to 9/11, during it and after statements making no sense. Let us not forget his one of the chief proponents of fighting a war in Iraq.

    Rumsfield denying the existence of WTC7 has to be one of oddest things I have ever heard. Rumsfield was the chairman of Soloman and Barney prior to becoming Defence secretary. But he said on radio two times he did know what WTC7 is? That he denies this he clearly hiding something. Soloman and Barney occupied more building space in WTC7 then any other business. Rumsfield reaction to the second plane hitting the second tower tells me all I need to know there too. If your country was under attack would you continue on with a boring intelligence briefing for another half hour or would you get on the phone and get planes up in the air to defend the country?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,568 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    RocketRaccoon wrote: »
    It is important to talk about, I completely agree. But the conspiracy theories are painful, just utter nonsense.

    What ACTUALLY took place was some lunatic religious animals took control of aircraft and slammed them into buildings which then collapsed because of this. No explosives, no secrets.

    The sheep just keep believing the official story


  • Options
    #103
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Up until that part you perfectly describe how NIST put together their report

    And to get rid of their doubts and concerns they fabricated a computer model which conclusions to this date are not released for peer review
    Perfect example.

    You keep bleating on about peer review as if it's some irrefutable point that proves the conspiracy.
    However, in the same breath, you show either you don't understand what peer review is or you simply don't care. This is because you laud an "expert" and a "study" that are completely unscientific in that they start with a predetermined conclusion and their idea of peer review is hand picking their own reviewers.
    And this is on top of the fact that the people behind this report clearly have a motivation to produce a preferred conclusion.

    And then, this is the beside the fact that the NIST report WAS peer reviewed, so your argument is based on false information.
    And this is odd, since it was pointed out directly to you that this is the case.


  • Options
    #104
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Up until that part you perfectly describe how NIST put together their report

    And to get rid of their doubts and concerns they fabricated a computer model which conclusions to this date are not released for peer review

    You have personal issues with the NIST report (no other recognised body of engineers or architects or related experts in the world does by the way)

    1. You are an expert who has spotted genuine issues with the report - in which case you should contact them immediately in order to point these out

    2. You are a lay-person who doesn't understand some portions or parts of the report (some of it is highly complex), in which case you can probably go to engineering forums and ask your questions there related to it (if the topic isn't banned)

    Whether 1 or 2, if your intentions are genuine, there is no reasonable explanation as to why you would be bringing this up on a conspiracy theory forum of all places.


  • Options
    #105
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Perfect example.

    You keep bleating on about peer review as if it's some irrefutable point that proves the conspiracy.
    However, in the same breath, you show either you don't understand what peer review is or you simply don't care. This is because you laud an "expert" and a "study" that are completely unscientific in that they start with a predetermined conclusion and their idea of peer review is hand picking their own reviewers.
    And this is on top of the fact that the people behind this report clearly have a motivation to produce a preferred conclusion.

    And then, this is the beside the fact that the NIST report WAS peer reviewed, so your argument is based on false information.
    And this is odd, since it was pointed out directly to you that this is the case.

    Actually, your wrong NIST study was never peer reviewed independently. If there was a peer review this would be readily available online to read.


  • Options
    #106
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,551 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    The sheep just keep believing the official story

    What area of architecture and/or demolition expertise are you in?


  • Options
    #107
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You have personal issues with the NIST report (no other recognised body of engineers or architects or related experts in the world does by the way)

    1. You are an expert who has spotted genuine issues with the report - in which case you should contact them immediately in order to point these out

    2. You are a lay-person who doesn't understand some portions or parts of the report (some of it is highly complex), in which case you can probably go to engineering forums and ask your questions there related to it (if the topic isn't banned)

    Whether 1 or 2, if your intentions are genuine, there is no reasonable explanation as to why you would be bringing this up on a conspiracy theory forum of all places.

    You have this false belief thousands of architects and engineers sat down and read the NIST reports after it was finished. They got away with this bogus study because the mainstream is trusting and putting faith in they would not cover up.

    The NIST study involved a small selected group they were worked for the US government. The employer would not want NIST looking into the WTC7 brought down by demolition. They probably picked people in NIST who were willing to lie for them.


  • Options
    #108
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Dozens of threads, countless posts

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

    Apparently the Jews, Bush, Bin Laden, Rumsfeld, the Saudis, secret energy weapons, mini-nukes, holograms, remotely piloted planes, and Mossad did it


  • Options
    #109
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Dozens of threads, countless posts

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

    Apparently the Jews, Bush, Bin Laden, Rumsfeld, the Saudis, secret energy weapons, mini-nukes, holograms, remotely piloted planes, and Mossad did it

    That's for future investigation who was involved in the demolition of the building. There plenty of evidence the NIST WTC7 study is wrong. Have you another fire collapse theory than the one proposed by NIST? If there is no other fire collapse explantation you left with only one other explanation for the collapse.


  • Options
    #110
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Can't provide a single credible alternative theory. Aren't interested in a credible alternative theory.

    Conspiracy theories without the theory part.


  • Options
    #111
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Can't provide a single credible alternative theory. Aren't interested in a credible alternative theory.

    Conspiracy theories without the theory part.

    Conspiracy people are not the FBI. They have not got the resources to gain access to secure buildings or have access to classified material from 9/11. Do you not realise there over 80,000 documents still classified about 9/11? If files are classified they likely information in these files they don't want out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Actually, your wrong NIST study was never peer reviewed independently. If there was a peer review this would be readily available online to read.

    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398
    Abstract
    This paper presents the structural analysis approach used and results obtained during the investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to model the sequence of fire-induced damage and failures leading to the global collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7). The structural analysis required a two-phased approach to address both the gradual response of the structure to fire before collapse initiation (approximately 4 h) and the rapid response of the structure during the collapse process (approximately 15 s). This paper emphasizes the first phase, a pseudostatic (implicit) analysis that simulated the response of structural elements to fires that spread and grew over several hours and presents key aspects of the second phase, a dynamic (explicit) analysis that used the first-phase damage as initial conditions and simulated the progression of structural failures that resulted in global collapse. The analyses accounted for (1) geometric nonlinearities; (2) temperature-dependent nonlinear materials behavior for both members and connections (including thermal expansion, degradation of stiffness, yield and ultimate strength, and creep); and (3) sequential failure of structural framing and connections. Analysis uncertainty was addressed by determining rational bounds on the complex set of input conditions and by running several multiphase analyses within those bounds. The structural response from each analysis was compared to the observed collapse behavior. This approach allowed evaluation of fire-induced damage, sequential component failures, and progression of component and subsystem failures through global collapse of WTC 7.


  • Options
    #113
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    Cheerful Spring, could you do me a favour? Explain as if I am a 5yr old exactly what it is you think happened that day. Don't go off ranting for paragraphs as I won't read them. Just a few sentences will do.


  • Options
    #114
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


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

    That's not a peer review paper that a report submitted by NIST to ASCE for people over there to read and download.


  • Options
    #115
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    RocketRaccoon wrote: »
    Cheerful Spring, could you do me a favour? Explain as if I am a 5yr old exactly what it is you think happened that day. Don't go off ranting for paragraphs as I won't read them. Just a few sentences will do.

    If you are this lazy why should I take the time to explain the events on 9/11 for you? 9/11 cannot be explained in a few sentences.


  • Options
    #116
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    That's not a peer review paper that a report submitted by NIST to ASCE for people over there to read and download.
    Lol, no.
    It's a peer reviewed paper that was submitted to Journal of Structural Engineering, a well respected journal with robust peer review process.
    It appeared in Volume 138 Issue 1 - January 2012, which you seem to have missed when you read it. This information was buried deep in the very top of the page I'm sure you opened.

    It is not a "report submitted by the NIST". That is a lie you made up.


  • Options
    #117
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, no.
    It's a peer reviewed paper that was submitted to Journal of Structural Engineering, a well respected journal with robust peer review process.
    It appeared in Volume 138 Issue 1 - January 2012, which you seem to have missed when you read it. This information was buried deep in the very top of the page I'm sure you opened.

    It is not a "report submitted by the NIST". That is a lie you made up.

    The authors are listed at the side of the page. These people were involved in the NIST study of WTC7. The names are very familiar to people who have studied 9/11. Even having jobs at NIST is listed on that page you posted.

    NIST is peer reviewing it's own work on there.


  • Options
    #118
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The authors are listed at the side of the page. These people were involved in the NIST study of WTC7. The names are very familiar to people who have studied 9/11. Even having jobs at NIST is listed on that page you posted.

    NIST is peer reviewing it's own work on there.

    Lol... I think you don't understand what peer review is either...

    Those authors are not the ones who do the peer review.
    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #119
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    If you are this lazy why should I take the time to explain the events on 9/11 for you? 9/11 cannot be explained in a few sentences.

    But I explained what actually happened in a few sentences. Can you do the same?

    Religious lunatics hijacked aircraft, crashed them, buildings collapsed. The one aircraft that didn't crash into a building was most likely shot down.

    There you go, very quick summary. Now can you do the same?


  • Options
    #120
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol... I think you don't understand what peer review is either...

    Those authors are not the ones who do the peer review.
    :rolleyes:

    Name the people who analysed this paper and submitted a review about it? Where show me an independent review where they agree with the assumptions and conclusions in this paper? NIST refuses to release calculation data to verify how they arrived at their conclusions so nobody can peer review their work anyhow. In a genuine peer review process, people have to independently review your work through public resources. NIST has refused to release their data to the public.

    All i see on that link of yours is technical paper published by ASCE for people to read.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Name the people who analysed this paper and submitted a review about it?
    No. You said that there was no peer reviewed papers. You are wrong.
    I'm not going to waste time with your pathetic attempts to wiggle out that reality.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    In a genuine peer review process, people have to independently review your work through public resources. NIST has refused to release their data to the public.
    Yea, you don't understand what peer review is or how it works.
    That's rather embarrassing on your part.
    All i see on that link of yours is technical paper published by ASCE for people to read.
    A technical paper that underwent peer review.


Advertisement