9/11 - What do you think?

[jhale667]

How can you watch this video and not notice that this tower dropped pretty much the same way the WTC towers did?

Though I too am somewhat skeptical of the "official" version of what happened, you can clearly see all the tiny structural charges strategically set on the support beams going off through the windows in that video. Not so in any of the 9/11 footage I've seen, though there are several unexplainable explosion sounds (but nowhere near as many as this example) prior to the collapse on the audio...

[FORD]

Though I too am somewhat skeptical of the "official" version of what happened, you can clearly see all the tiny structural charges strategically set on the support beams going off through the windows in that video. Not so in any of the 9/11 footage I've seen, though there are several unexplainable explosion sounds (but nowhere near as many as this example) prior to the collapse on the audio...

Right, but the difference between this tower and the WTC is that this tower was pretty much a skeletal frame of a building, with everything that could be stripped away from it (insulation, drywall, carpeting, etc.) already moved. The WTC buildings were fully intact before the morning of 9-11-01, so everything inside those buildings, the drywall, the carpeting, the office fixtures, etc. would all muffle the sound of explosions, compared to an empty building. Not to mention the regular noise of a big city like NYC, and all the additional noise (sirens, helicopters, etc) present due to the situation itself.

[Seshmeister]

There is an extremely thorough BBC documentary on the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories tonight.

I'll link to it when it goes online.

[Dr. Love]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/nyregion/911-tapes.html

Audio excerpts from 9/11 ...

[jhale667]

Right, but the difference between this tower and the WTC is that this tower was pretty much a skeletal frame of a building, with everything that could be stripped away from it (insulation, drywall, carpeting, etc.) already moved. The WTC buildings were fully intact before the morning of 9-11-01, so everything inside those buildings, the drywall, the carpeting, the office fixtures, etc. would all muffle the sound of explosions, compared to an empty building. Not to mention the regular noise of a big city like NYC, and all the additional noise (sirens, helicopters, etc) present due to the situation itself.

Even taking all that into account, it was a fairly clear day - wouldn't you still be able to see the detonations of the structure-weakening charges that'd be still be in the corners near windows? I mean, I still kinda have a hard time building 7 wouldn't have fallen inward like a house of cards on the damages side rather than drop into it's own imprint like the towers, but I'm no architect or structural engineer. However, still no visual evidence to support the "controlled detonation" theory. Also interesting - unless it's mentioned in the previously posted video I in all honest haven't gotten a moment to watch yet - there's never been another known case of buildings collapsing on themselves AS IF in a controlled detonation because of a fire IIRC...?

I also want to listen to the audio the Dr. posted later, but have a feeling it's gonna be a huge bummer compared to looking at his sig photo, unfortunately...

[FORD]

Ah that pic's not as good as the last one. She's wearing too much clothing

[Dr. Love]

lol... I'm still perusing for my next pic

[Seshmeister]

Some interesting stuff on this tonight.

I'm not sure if you can use BBC iPlayer outside the UK but here are the links.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0148yz5/The_Conspiracy_Files_9_11_Ten_Years_On/

A decade after the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, the Conspiracy Files looks at why some people still question what really happened on 9/11. Conspiracy theories continue to evolve and now question every aspect of the official account. Why, they ask, was the hole in the Pentagon so small? Why did the World Trade Centre buildings collapse as if being demolished by explosives? Why did one skyscraper fall when it was never hit by a plane? And why was the world's greatest military power so unprepared and so slow to react when warnings had been received?

The death of Osama Bin Laden might have been expected to put an end to the conspiracy theories, but the failure to release any pictures of Bin Laden's death and the hasty disposal of his body in the Arabian Sea, has instead given these theories a new burst of life.

Featuring key witnesses, CIA and FBI interviewees and leading sceptics, the programme analyses the evidence and looks at what makes conspiracy theories so persistent and so powerful.

Second one was most interesting in seeing how the conspiracy theorist brain works.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b014gpjx/9_11_Conspiracy_Road_Trip/

Andrew Maxwell, a comedian, believes in the findings of the official investigation, which claim the responsibility for the attack lies with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He thinks the conspiracies theories are unsubstantiated nonsense. So in this film he offers to take five young Brits, who believe some of these conspiracy theories, on a road-trip from New York to Washington. They visit Ground Zero where two planes hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, home of vast American defence HQ and Shanksville in Pennsylvania where United 93 crashed.

Each of them believes different elements of the conspiracy theories. Charlotte, a North London nanny who witnessed the attacks, thinks the American government is responsible. She can't believe the hijackers, barely out of flying school, could have steered jetliners into the Twin Towers with such deadly accuracy. Rodney a health worker who studied biochemistry suspects the collapse of the towers was not caused by the planes that went in to them and he wants to get to the bottom of the science. Student Emily, an active member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, thinks the US government was forewarned of the attacks and yet ignored the intelligence allowing it to happen. Shazin, a qualified surveyor, wants to find out how the passengers on United 93 could have made phone calls to loved ones from a plane. And Charlie, an ex-banker thinks 9/11 was an excuse for the US Government to go to war with Iraq. Andrew Maxwell thinks all five of them are wrong and wants to change their minds by confronting them with the facts. So as the bus criss-crosses the east coast of America he tries to convert them to his point of view. He wants to prove to them that 9/11 was no conspiracy and that sometimes the truth, whilst not easy to accept, is staring you right in the face. In order to do so, he takes them to meet experts, the chief air traffic controller on the day, demolition specialists, voice morphing engineers and he gets them to conduct scientific experiments and even fly an aeroplane.

On the thermite thing the first of these shows how there wasn't any found, it was almost certainly just paint.

The second one shows the effect of thermite on steel, you need lots and lots of it to have any effect and magnesium to light it.

[Seshmeister]

Some interesting stuff on this tonight.

I'm not sure if you can use BBC iPlayer outside the UK but here are the links.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0148yz5/The_Conspiracy_Files_9_11_Ten_Years_On/

A decade after the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, the Conspiracy Files looks at why some people still question what really happened on 9/11. Conspiracy theories continue to evolve and now question every aspect of the official account. Why, they ask, was the hole in the Pentagon so small? Why did the World Trade Centre buildings collapse as if being demolished by explosives? Why did one skyscraper fall when it was never hit by a plane? And why was the world's greatest military power so unprepared and so slow to react when warnings had been received?

The death of Osama Bin Laden might have been expected to put an end to the conspiracy theories, but the failure to release any pictures of Bin Laden's death and the hasty disposal of his body in the Arabian Sea, has instead given these theories a new burst of life.

Featuring key witnesses, CIA and FBI interviewees and leading sceptics, the programme analyses the evidence and looks at what makes conspiracy theories so persistent and so powerful.

Second one was most interesting in seeing how the conspiracy theorist brain works.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b014gpjx/9_11_Conspiracy_Road_Trip/

Andrew Maxwell, a comedian, believes in the findings of the official investigation, which claim the responsibility for the attack lies with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He thinks the conspiracies theories are unsubstantiated nonsense. So in this film he offers to take five young Brits, who believe some of these conspiracy theories, on a road-trip from New York to Washington. They visit Ground Zero where two planes hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, home of vast American defence HQ and Shanksville in Pennsylvania where United 93 crashed.

Each of them believes different elements of the conspiracy theories. Charlotte, a North London nanny who witnessed the attacks, thinks the American government is responsible. She can't believe the hijackers, barely out of flying school, could have steered jetliners into the Twin Towers with such deadly accuracy. Rodney a health worker who studied biochemistry suspects the collapse of the towers was not caused by the planes that went in to them and he wants to get to the bottom of the science. Student Emily, an active member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, thinks the US government was forewarned of the attacks and yet ignored the intelligence allowing it to happen. Shazin, a qualified surveyor, wants to find out how the passengers on United 93 could have made phone calls to loved ones from a plane. And Charlie, an ex-banker thinks 9/11 was an excuse for the US Government to go to war with Iraq. Andrew Maxwell thinks all five of them are wrong and wants to change their minds by confronting them with the facts. So as the bus criss-crosses the east coast of America he tries to convert them to his point of view. He wants to prove to them that 9/11 was no conspiracy and that sometimes the truth, whilst not easy to accept, is staring you right in the face. In order to do so, he takes them to meet experts, the chief air traffic controller on the day, demolition specialists, voice morphing engineers and he gets them to conduct scientific experiments and even fly an aeroplane.

On the thermite thing the first of these shows how there wasn't any found, it was almost certainly just paint.

The second one shows the effect of thermite on steel, you need lots and lots of it to have any effect and magnesium to light it.

[jhale667]

Ah that pic's not as good as the last one. She's wearing too much clothing

Yes, I was referring to the previous one, too...lmao

[knuckleboner]

No, it's not. I totally believe the DOD doesn't want to release any video of it - I'm just questioning why. We've seen the towers about a bazillion times, what's one more? I can accept that a jet hit the pentagon. My issue is more with the towers and the explosions that witnesses heard in the basements along with the thermite that the architect & engineers group found upon independent inspection. Not to mention bldg 7. Did you watch the video that ThrillsNSpills posted? It raises a lot of questions in my mind.

no, i didn’t watch it. i’ve seen plenty in the past, both from the fringe critics and the mainstream explanations.

look, it’s not whether the WTC actually collapsed the way the official story says. it’s whether it’s theoretically possible a building COULD fall under similar circumstances. and the vast majority of reputable engineers the world over have agreed that it could. and it’s not actually that complicated. the theory on how it COULD have happened under the official story is that the plane fuel burned, weakening the steel support beams. heat weakens steel.

the steel support beams were designed to counteract the force of gravity that is pulling down on the mass of the floors above them. gravity pulls down. actually, gravity pulls STRAIGHT DOWN, to be technical.

if the weakened steel fails – and mind you, it does NOT need to melt, it just needs to lose the strength required to hold up the mass of all of the floors above it – then what’s above it is going to come STRAIGHT DOWN. now, yes, if it’s not much weight, and the weakened steel fails in a slant, then the above mass would likely move off to the side.

however, if the steel didn’t just fail right at the point of impact, but throughout the floor in the larger area of the fire, and especially if the mass above it is fairly significant, then it is more likely to simply fail straight, as in the direction of gravity.

if the steel weakened enough that the ceiling of impact could no longer withstand the force of gravity pulling on the mass of the above floors, they would likely come straight down. the mass of 1 floor falling might be stopped by the steel support of the floor below it. but there is a level of mass whereby the lower floor’s support would not be strong enough to hold it being pulled down and that floor collapses and adds its own mass to the total mass being pulled down, putting further stress on each floor below.

now, whether or not this actually happened at the WTC is not as important to believe as understanding that under the right circumstances this COULD happen. if the conspiracy theorists believe that the official story is impossible because a building hit by a plane wouldn’t fall straight down, then it’s not the official story that’s the problem, it’s that they don’t understand physics. if the conspiracy theorists wanted to argue that the strength of the remaining support beams would not be weakened enough relative to the specific amount of mass above them to cause a failure, then as long as they have data to back it up, fine.

but that’s NOT what the conspiracy theorists argue. they use accurate, but irrelevant facts like, “the fire wasn’t hot enough to melt steel,” and seemingly commonsense but factually incorrect statements like, “a building with a hole in it wouldn’t fall straight down.”

and therefore, anybody who tells you that the official collapse story is IMPOSSIBLE is either lying or does not understand physics.

[knuckleboner]

Not to mention bldg 7. Did you watch the video that ThrillsNSpills posted? It raises a lot of questions in my mind.

oh yeah, the building 7 conspiracy theory is the biggest red herring of them all. no need for physics. before 9/11, nobody who didn’t work in building 7 even knew it existed. the psychological impact of it falling – WELL after the other 2, and killing, i believe no one – was practically zero.

i understand why people argue that WTC 1 and 2 were conspiracies. but why, WHY would a scheming government actually care about WTC 7’s collapse? it makes no sense, whatsoever. In fact, it would be incomprehensibly insane to further complicate their plans and introduce greater risk of being found out.

seriously, the ONLY purpose of intentionally bringing down WTC 7 would have been to encourage conspiracy theorists to focus on WTC 7.

[ashstralia]

your posts make perfect sense to me, knuckleboner. and as each floor collapsed onto the one below, adding mass each time exponentially, i wasn't surprised when windows started popping out on levels below that.

[Seshmeister]

People who believe in the controlled demolition thing need to watch a TV program on a controlled demolition. There are quite a few on the Discovery channel and so on.

Controlled demotions take weeks and weeks of work, stripping shit out, and putting hundreds or thousands of charges in. You can't just strap an explosive to a steel or concrete pillar you need to drill into it after ripping out the shit around it to get at it.

The demolition thing is implausible, absolutely implausible.

It's like saying Jackie Kennedy shot JFK.

[ashstralia]

very true, sesh; sometimes they go horribly wrong, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canberra_Hospital_implosion