9/11 Discussion Thread

#1
I thought it might be a good idea to give this topic its own thread since people seem interested in exploring it.

There is certainly enough evidence available to conclude that there is a mystery.

When I first went on about this subject, before The Great Forum Crash, I argued that the buildings collapsed in a manner inconsistent with fire damage or pretty much anything we know of for that matter.

On the Sandy Hook thread a video was posted:


In it, the first thing Dr. Niels Harrit argues is that we have a great deal of evidence that steel framed buildings do not collapse due to fire.

Dr. Judy Wood argues that an unknown technology was responsible for the collapse of the towers:


I recently saw one on Netflix, although I can't remember the name of it, that argued that evidence showed that aircraft bore a resemblance to military versions of the commercial aircraft.

So there is a lot to debate.
 
#4
I thought it might be a good idea to give this topic its own thread since people seem interested in exploring it.

There is certainly enough evidence available to conclude that there is a mystery.

When I first went on about this subject, before The Great Forum Crash, I argued that the buildings collapsed in a manner inconsistent with fire damage or pretty much anything we know of for that matter.

On the Sandy Hook thread a video was posted:

In it, the first thing Dr. Niels Harrit argues is that we have a great deal of evidence that steel framed buildings do not collapse due to fire.

Dr. Judy Wood argues that an unknown technology was responsible for the collapse of the towers:


I recently saw one on Netflix, although I can't remember the name of it, that argued that evidence showed that aircraft bore a resemblance to military versions of the commercial aircraft.

So there is a lot to debate.
So you watched the Harrit interview? I found it very entertainng. I can't believe I watched it all from start to finish without getting bored...

I have some new points to bring up in a bit. Until then...

Once again >>>

 
#9
I would like to hear some input from you about these guys theory.

I don't think there's anybody who believes this guy's theory other than himself, but I'm not sure even he buys it. One of the many things nobody can get around is the fact that thermite was found in the WTC dust by 3 separate independent labs. Where does that fit into this dude's theory? None of this matters anyway, because there has never been a real investigation of the events. Anybody who says a certain interpretation should be accepted without further inquiry is a shithead.

Edit: But honestly, I didn't make it through the entire video.
 
#11
This is especially great for introducing someone to the idea. Thanks for sharing!
My pleasure! I was intrigued due to it being a fairly recent production. I think the guy did an excellent job of presenting a straightforward, non nonsense case without any unnecessary theorizing or extrapolating from the facts. I didn't know anything about the significance of the "squibs"- had never seen those before... nor the distance of debris ejection.-- As a scientist in one of the clips stated, 'gravity works vertically.' :)
 
#13
I just started watching it...i'm 7 minutes in...he says he can't understand why the president would stay in the school for a half hour after he heard about the second plane...I can. He and his handlers froze and didn't want to freak out the human beings around them. They show him on the phone soon after he finds out...it certainly could have been that it was just a fluid situation and they kinda botched it from a protocol standpoint. anyway, it's this kind of argument from ignorance and incredulity that turns me off right away to these kinds of videos. It's freakin' easy to understand why he might not get up and leave right away, but the documentarian just can't imagine it...really? You can't understand it? just can't make sense of it? of course, my explanation might not be the truth, but to act like you just can't figure out why they might behave that way is pretty silly.

then he mentions that the government official said that it wasn't explosives and this is somehow evidence that, like a child, he is trying to get out in front of a lie? this is your evidence? and the documentarian acts like no one was talking about explosives that day...There were plenty of people in NY talking about explosives that day. i remember talking to a navy officer that day who said it looked like explosives to him, and almost everyone I spoke with that day here in NY thought it involved explosives....anyway, it's this kind of stuff that turns me off. Just make points based on the evidence without speculating! I don't know if 9/11 was an inside job, or how complicit (if at all) the U.S. government was, but if the video's first two arguments are anything like the rest, I'll pass...i'll watch some more and comment afterwards, but thought sexy might like to have something salty to chew on.
 
Last edited:
#15
I would like to hear some input from you about these guys theory.

The video stopped on me, but here is the same thing on YouTube:

It appears to be a very good theory; We should respect all those that look into these things, and not just try and cover it up.
Obviously there is a large problem here with building 7. No plane hit that one, but it came down in a very similar way.

I recommend watching the video. If nothing else for to experience the dramatic narrator.
 
#16
I just started watching it...i'm 7 minutes in...he says he can't understand why the president would stay in the school for a half hour after he heard about the second plane...I can. He and his handlers froze and didn't want to freak out the human beings around them. They show him on the phone soon after he finds out...it certainly could have been that it was just a fluid situation and they kinda botched it from a protocol standpoint. anyway, it's this kind of argument from ignorance and incredulity that turns me off right away to these kinds of videos. It's freakin' easy to understand why he might not get up and leave right away, but the documentarian just can't imagine it...really? You can't understand it? just can't make sense of it? of course, my explanation might not be the truth, but to act like you just can't figure out why they might behave that way is pretty silly.

then he mentions that the government official said that it wasn't explosives and this is somehow evidence that, like a child, he is trying to get out in front of a lie? this is your evidence? and the documentarian acts like no one was talking about explosives that day...There were plenty of people in NY talking about explosives that day. i remember talking to a navy officer that day who said it looked like explosives to him, and almost everyone I spoke with that day here in NY thought it involved explosives....anyway, it's this kind of stuff that turns me off. Just make points based on the evidence without speculating! I don't know if 9/11 was an inside job, or how complicit (if at all) the U.S. government was, but if the video's first two arguments are anything like the rest, I'll pass...i'll watch some more and comment afterwards, but thought sexy might like to have something salty to chew on.
I only read the first couple sentences of this comment, and I agree with you. That's not evidence for anything, just some random speculation by the filmmaker. It might be more meaningful for someone who doesn't buy the official story, however. But best to focus on the actual hard evidence and use common sense- that is my issue. Those collapses defy common sense. I'm not saying the official story isn't true, because after all, I do not have a problem with the paranormal. Throughout history there have been so many witnesses to so many strange and nonsensical anomalies. Maybe that's all we're seeing, similar to witnessing an apparition or a UFO.

If somebody does not find it amazing that drywall and office furniture can crush a steel support structure at freefall speed, then I take issue if they claim to have rational senses. This also includes anybody who claims office fires can burn hot enough to produce molten steel.

I'm skeptical.
 
Last edited:
#19
The thing about 9/11 that got me was how the towers fell. The manner in which they collapsed was unlike anything I've ever seen. There is simply nothing to compare it to. How does a 100 story high rise shatter like that so evenly from the top down? Not even controlled demolition can do that.
 
#20
The thing about 9/11 that got me was how the towers fell. The manner in which they collapsed was unlike anything I've ever seen. There is simply nothing to compare it to. How does a 100 story high rise shatter like that so evenly from the top down? Not even controlled demolition can do that.
Here is an explanation for why they fell straight down (from Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, MIT, in the Journal of Minerals, Metals and Materials):

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#authors

"Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."
 
Top