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

Dr. Bre · 20-09-2018 8:48pm

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

King Mob · 20-09-2018 10:51pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2018 1:21am

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.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:11am

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.

Kermit.de.frog · 21-09-2018 2:18am

Dr. Bre wrote: »

The sheep just keep believing the official story

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

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:26am

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.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2018 2:27am

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

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:32am

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.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2018 2:47am

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

Conspiracy theories without the theory part.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:53am

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.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 10:23am

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.

RocketRaccoon · 21-09-2018 10:36am

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.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 11:53am

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.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 11:57am

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.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 12:02pm

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.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 12:10pm

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.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 12:14pm

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:

RocketRaccoon · 21-09-2018 12:21pm

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?

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 12:26pm

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.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 12:30pm

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.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 12:31pm

King Mob https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/9780784479018.ch02 Ethical standards for peer review are listed number 2 NIST never did do.
Quote
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. All reasonable
requests by editors or reviewers for materials, data, and associated protocols should be fulfilled.
Authors should clearly note any data sharing restrictions in their cover letter when submitting

King Mob · 21-09-2018 12:33pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/9780784479018.ch02 Ethical standards for peer review are listed number 2 NIST never did do.
Quote
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. All reasonable
requests by editors or reviewers for materials, data, and associated protocols should be fulfilled.
Authors should clearly note any data sharing restrictions in their cover letter when submitting

But they did submit these documents to the journal, otherwise they would not have published it.
You are being silly and desperate now.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 12:39pm

King Mob wrote: »

But they did submit these documents to the journal, otherwise they would not have published it.
You are being silly and desperate now.

How I am desperate its well known NIST has not submitted its data to be peer-reviewed.

In a letter.

Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the
disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the
collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September
11,2001, might jeopardize public safety.

Therefore, NIST shall not release the following
information:
1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed
connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads,
break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable
ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop
floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA
47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures
leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to
develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

Patrick Gallagher
Director
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009

King Mob · 21-09-2018 12:43pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How I am desperate its well known NIST has not submitted its data to be peer-reviewed.

But they submitted them to the journal and the people who reviewed it and/or the people doing the review were able to do so without needing those exact files. Otherwise, it would not have been peer reviewed and published in the paper.

You are desperate because you don't understand what peer review is, and you don't want to admit this or admit that you were wrong when you said that there were no peer reviewed papers.
You are now grasping at quotes from random out of context places that again, I don't think you understand.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 12:51pm

King Mob wrote: »

But they submitted them to the journal and the people who reviewed it and/or the people doing the review were able to do so without needing those exact files.

You are desperate because you don't understand what peer review is, and you don't want to admit this or admit that you were wrong when you said that there were no peer reviewed papers.
You are now grasping at quotes from random out of context places that again, I don't think you understand.

That's ridiculous you have to include the data in a peer review paper. Imagine Professor Harrit released a paper not showing how he arrived at his conclusions and assumptions about the red/grey chips found in the WTC dust. The public has to able to access this information to verify if it's accurate and correct. Independent verification is why peer review exists that you don't understand how it works is truly troubling.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 12:58pm

Kingmob you have just ignored a peer review rule that ASCE has on their own website

Quote
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.

How can this be a genuine peer review paper when independents cannot verify NIST calculations and analysis
result data?

King Mob · 21-09-2018 1:03pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's ridiculous you have to include the data in a peer review paper. ...Independent verification is why peer review exists that you don't understand how it works is truly troubling.

No, you don't understand what peer review is. I'm not bothered to get into points you are incapable of understanding.

The paper was peer reviewed by a respected journal.
Claiming otherwise is a lie.
One which you will no doubt repeat.

Are you claiming that the ASCE is now also involved in the conspiracy?
If so, proof of this accusation please.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 1:13pm

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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?

There is a backstory that you have overlooked. Watching two planes hit two towers on 9/11 does not explain what occurred

They're not religious lunatics. Independent researchers in Florida discovered Atta was a party animal. His girlfriend has done interviews saying he smoked, drank and took cocaine and had many white friends in years leading up to 9/11. He also trained a flight school partly owned by a well known CIA operative Wallace J. Hilliard, the school was Huffman aviation. The school was also financed by people who have connections to Saudi Arabia.

The official media will never do real journalism and investigate these links.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 1:25pm

King Mob wrote: »

No, you don't understand what peer review is. I'm not bothered to get into points you are incapable of understanding.

The paper was peer reviewed by a respected journal.
Claiming otherwise is a lie.
One which you will no doubt repeat.

Are you claiming that the ASCE is now also involved in the conspiracy?
If so, proof of this accusation please.

Well, you don't understand all peer review papers have to be independently verified.

And I posted on this site what the director of NIST said.

NIST shall not release the following for independent verification
:

All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed
connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads.

ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable
ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

ll input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA
47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures
leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to
develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

Stop claiming this paper was peer-reviewed in the correct way it was not. NIST probably got a pass on this because of who they are, who they speaking for. Everyone else who published a paper without the data would fail to have their work published.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 1:34pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Stop claiming this paper was peer-reviewed in the correct way it was not. NIST probably got a pass on this because of who they are, who they speaking for. Everyone else who published a paper without the data would fail to have their work published.

The paper was peer reviewed. You do not understand what peer review is or how it works.
You are now inventing a whole new wing to the conspiracy so you can continue to deny facts. You have no proof that they "got a pass" because you are plucking that out of your imagination. It never happened.

Remember, just a few posts ago, you thought and claimed that it was the NIST who did the peer review. So it sounds like you're making up these pathetic excuses on the fly as they pop into your mind.
I suggest taking a moment and thinking about them critically before declaring your fantasies as reality.
Else you'll embarrass yourself again like when the plane didn't crash into the pentagon...

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 1:50pm

King Mob wrote: »

The paper was peer reviewed. You do not understand what peer review is or how it works.
You are now inventing a whole new wing to the conspiracy so you can continue to deny facts.

You are denying facts. NIST director even publically stated information was withheld are you just continue to ignore that?

Nobody can independently verify every calculation or the structural collapse analysis was done by NIST correctly I not going to continue on debating this with you when you have not understood a basic guideline for a peer review paper to be taken seriously.

Either way, in any case, you can debunk the NIST WTC7 study by just analysis of the computer simulation WTC7 they released.

When the Penthouse fell in. NIST has a timeline of 20+ seconds for all floors across the width of the building of WTC7 to fall down. The actual collapse shows the onset of collapse was more rapid it took only 6 to 7 seconds. That right there proves the NIST theory of the progressive collapse of floors is false. The model and actual collapse should be matching with the same time it took.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 1:53pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You are denying facts. NIST director even publically stated information was withheld are you just continue to ignore that?

It was published in a peer reviewed journal.

You just have issues understanding people's statements and how peer review works.

You are now reverting to your tactic to spewing out as many factoids as you can to distract from how silly your position has been shown to be again.

Who do you think that fools exactly?

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:01pm

King Mob wrote: »

It was published in a peer reviewed journal.

You just have issues understanding people's statements and how peer review works.

You are now reverting to your tactic to spewing out as many factoids as you can to distract from how silly your position has been shown to be again.

Who do you think that fools exactly?

ASCE list guidelines on their own website.
Ethical Standards

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/9780784479018.ch02

How do you not understand 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"

How can the author peers review this technical paper if they have not got the data NIST is withholding? What part don't you follow or understand?

ASCE did not follow their own guideline they published a paper because it was released by NIST.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 2:01pm

Tell you what Cheerful, explain in your own words how peer review works in other journals.
Without copy pasting from google, explain the process of getting a paper published in a real journal.

I guarantee, like with the high school physics problem, you will be unable to do this.

And if you are unable to do this, your claims about the paper are simply meaningless hot air from someone completely ignorant of what they are talking about.

I await the answer with baited breath...

King Mob · 21-09-2018 2:04pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How can the author peers review this technical paper if they have got the data NIST with withholding?

They either provided the data, or the reviewers had the data they needed.
Quite simple.

The problem is that you don't understand the statements from the NIST or how peer review works.

And if it's a case of it either being a vast conspiracy or someone like yourself is just a bit ill informed and confused....

ASCE did not follow their own guideline they published a paper because it was released by NIST.

Also again, not how journals work.
The report was not released by the NIST.
It was written by someone who works for the NIST among others, who then submitted it to the journal who then published it.
The journal was who released it.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:12pm

King Mob wrote: »

Tell you what Cheerful, explain in your own words how peer review works in other journals.
Without copy pasting from google, explain the process of getting a paper published in a real journal.

I guarantee, like with the high school physics problem, you will be unable to do this.

And if you are unable to do this, your claims about the paper are simply meaningless hot air from someone completely ignorant of what they are talking about.

I await the answer with baited breath...

You keep repeating factoids.

A peer review paper is sent out for the peer review and their peers review it and accept it for publication.

What you not able to comprehend here is ASCE published a technical paper were no independent peer can verify if it's correct. Everything NIST claimed in their study has to be validated. When your denied access to their results and data your paper is worthless. That how peer reviews work when you publish a scientific paper.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 2:18pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You keep repeating factoids.

A peer review paper is sent out for the peer review and their peers review it and accept it for publication.

Lol.
My point is proven.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:26pm

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
My point is proven.

Sure what ever makes you feel good

You can't peer review this paper accurately without knowing NIST results, end of story. This was not an ethical peer review of WTC7 collapse.

It's pseudoscience.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:31pm

There is no proper peer review of WTC7 collapse. Junk science is not acceptable.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 2:34pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There is no proper peer review of WTC7 collapse. Junk science is not acceptable.

Just like no 757 hit the pentagon.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:42pm

King Mob wrote: »

Just like no 757 hit the pentagon.

I don't accept the official narrative of where the plane impacted the Pentagon. That's why i argued a plane did not hit the Pentagon. The damage did not match up with the 9/11 commision findings.

I found information since and fits with the damage I see the plane was further north of the Cisco petrol station on approach to the Pentagon. South of the Cisco had a lot of complaints about that. You clearly see the Pentagon damage matches a plane coming straight in. Whereas the 9/11 Commission claims the plane came in a weird angle from the southwest, that damage does not match up.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 2:46pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't accept the official narrative of where the plane impacted the Pentagon. That's why argued a plane did not hit the Pentagon. The damage did not match up with the 9/11 commision findings.

I found information since and fits with the damage I see the plane was further north of the Cisco petrol station on approach to the Pentagon. South of the Cisco had a lot of complaints about that. You clearly see the damages matches a plane coming straight in. Whereas the 9/11 Commission claims the plane came in a weird angle from the southwest, that damage does not not match up.

And then you declared as a fact that a 757 could not have hit the pentagon.
You declaring that no peer reviewed study exists when one is staring you in the face is exactly the same thing.

Your statements are odds with reality.

Honestly, you are making all conspiracy theorists a joke at this stage...

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2018 2:54pm

"It might be a conspiracy. I don't get this, explain it to me. I reject your explanation. It's a conspiracy."

Same techniques. Multiple threads and subjects. Very similar to AE911 and Alex Jones styles.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 2:56pm

King Mob wrote: »

And then you declared as a fact that a 757 could not have hit the pentagon.
You declaring that no peer reviewed study exists when one is staring you in the face is exactly the same thing.

Your statements are odds with reality.

Honestly, you are making all conspiracy theorists a joke at this stage...

My statements are reasonable because its position of the 9/11 commission a plane hit the Pentagon coming from a southwest position ( south of CISCO station) I looked at the evidence and there was no way a plane hit the Pentagon from that direction. The damage does not match what we see so I had an opinion no plane hit the building.

But when you find new evidence that makes more sense you change your opinion. The evidence is the plane came in further to the east and north of Cisco station. That means the plane was coming in almost straight on when it hit. The damage I see does match a plane coming in from that side.

Again it was not peer-reviewed scientifically that paper. You have the information directly from NIST stating they withheld information. NIST peers would need to look at the results to verify their conclusions and assumptions.

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 3:08pm

Kingmob the FAA radar returns and FDR data does support my position. The radar places the plane further east and north on approach. So not sure what information the 9/11 commission was using to claim the Pentagon was hit by a plane travelling from southwest position (South of Cisco)

King Mob · 21-09-2018 3:09pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

My statements are reasonable .

It was reasonable to state that a plane didn't hit the pentagon.
Lol

King Mob · 21-09-2018 3:13pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Again it was not peer-reviewed scientifically that paper. You have the information directly from NIST stating they withheld information. NIST peers would need to look at the results to verify their conclusions and assumptions.

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.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2018 3:14pm

"My statements are reasonable"

Lol

Cheerful Spring · 21-09-2018 3:18pm

King Mob wrote: »

It was reasonable to state that a plane didn't hit the pentagon.
Lol

Yes when the 9/11 commission is reporting facts inaccurately. The west damage to the Pentagon does not match with a plane coming in from that direction.When you find out eyewitnesses saw the plane further to the North then you have to go away and do a new analysis and see if the damage matches a plane hitting from there. I did that.

We also know there are cameras on the roof of the west wall. There 1 each on each corner and 2 in the middle. There is also two on the firehouse building. None recorded footage of the plane is just not believable. Right corner camera end of the wall on the west side would have captured the side of the plane when it came in at an angle from the Southwest if you believe 9/11 commission is correct.

King Mob · 21-09-2018 3:21pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes when the 9/11 commission is reporting facts inaccurately.

Lol.
But a plane hit the pentagon though.

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

Comments