Page 1 of 10
#1
One of the most powerful films to come out in protest of the official 9/11 theory has been released by Architects&Engineers for 9/11 Truth, lots of credible people putting their careers on the line for the victims of the attacks and criminal wars that were the result and have lasted 10 years and are ongoing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&feature=youtu.be


Download and burn the DVD and show friends/family if you give a damn
#2
I'm not sure whether you're an adbot or a pyschopath...
Quote by ErikLensherr
It's threads like this that separate grammar Nazis from only mildly anti-Semitic grammar conservatives.
#3
Another film telling us sheeple the truth!


lol jk there's been like 1000 of these and most if not all of everything they have said has been debunked.
#5
of course i haven't seen it, there's dozens of these things preying on the sadness/inevitable fascination of a national tradegy. a plane flew into a building, beleive it or not, this can have a negative consequence on the building's structural integretity
Quote by ErikLensherr
It's threads like this that separate grammar Nazis from only mildly anti-Semitic grammar conservatives.
#6
Quote by teh_goon
of course i haven't seen it, there's dozens of these things preying on the sadness/inevitable fascination of a national tradegy. a plane flew into a building, beleive it or not, this can have a negative consequence on the building's structural integretity


Just adding a side-note here, they were built to withstand such a tragic thing happening. Just sayin'.

,--.-'-,--.
\ /-~-\ /
/ )' a a `( \
( ( ,---. ) )
THIS WAS MEANT TO BE A PIG
\ `(_o_o_)' /
\ `-' /
| |---| |
[_] [_]
#7
I'm waiting Jackel52 to get here.
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#8
Quote by teh_goon
of course i haven't seen it, there's dozens of these things preying on the sadness/inevitable fascination of a national tradegy. a plane flew into a building, beleive it or not, this can have a negative consequence on the building's structural integretity

Right but I find it strange how the 3rd building just collapsed like that being far from both towers
#9
Give me one honest realistic reason why anyone within the us government would want to destroy their own trade centre and i'll consider the arguments for it being an inside job
Quote by ErikLensherr
It's threads like this that separate grammar Nazis from only mildly anti-Semitic grammar conservatives.
#11
I kept skipping through it to get a rough idea of what they were saying.

It seems like it's just a lot of people saying they're qualified in some way and doubting the official story. I've yet to see an explanation of why it couldn't happen as portrayed by the official story.

They just point to the official story being unlikely.

But then it's unlikely for one man to survive 2 nuclear explosions, but that happened.

Building 7 would require multiple support beams to fail almost at once. Aren't those beams pretty close together in terms of fire spread etc?

And any budding engineers can correct me on this, but when one support fails in the middle, would that not immediately increase the strain on the other central supports?
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#12
alright i agree bush was a total dick, but do yopu really think he was that much of a dick?

makinlattes-that kinda proves my point, as they didn't go through with it, the cia is one of the worst most evil (much as i hate to use that word) organisations that has existed in modern times but i don't get what they gain by damaging their own economy so severely, not to mention killing the people they';re meant to protect
Quote by ErikLensherr
It's threads like this that separate grammar Nazis from only mildly anti-Semitic grammar conservatives.
Last edited by teh_goon at Sep 9, 2011,
#13


Quote by Lemoninfluence
And any budding engineers can correct me on this, but when one support fails in the middle, would that not immediately increase the strain on the other central supports?

yeah, but they're also designed to be able to handle a lot of extra stress in case something like that does happen.

you can't just kill one support to kill a building like a jenga tower, shouldn't be able to anyway
#15
The building fell far too quickly, and with so little debris, it could not have been just down to a failure in structural integrity.


how would a failure in structural integrity not result in a collapse? let's be honest here, none of us have degrees in engineering, no-one was present to take detailed information/data about the collapse fire so all we can really do is speculate at best
Quote by ErikLensherr
It's threads like this that separate grammar Nazis from only mildly anti-Semitic grammar conservatives.
#16
Popular Mechanics did a pretty thorough debunking of the many 9/11 theories a while back. I'm an electrical engineering and physics student, so I can't verify everything they say beyond stuff about structural integrity I learned at an internship where I helped design parts for a gas turbine, but their experts are very qualified in their fields. It's definitely worth a look. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

For instance, about the kerosene temperatures:

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
#17


Seriously, why do we have to have a thread every goddamn time there's some new movie about this shit?
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#18
Quote by iro-bot31
Popular Mechanics did a pretty thorough debunking of the many 9/11 theories a while back. I'm an electrical engineering and physics student, so I can't verify everything they say beyond stuff about structural integrity I learned at an internship where I helped design parts for a gas turbine, but their experts are very qualified in their fields. It's definitely worth a look. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

For instance, about the kerosene temperatures:


(Invalid img)

#19
Quote by Diamond Dave
yeah, but they're also designed to be able to handle a lot of extra stress in case something like that does happen.

you can't just kill one support to kill a building like a jenga tower, shouldn't be able to anyway


but could they not be weakened by fire at the same time?

plus I don't see why only one support can fail at a time.

If they're all (or even several) exposed to similar conditions (debris and prolonged exposure to fire) why is it that there has to be only a single failure?

Quote by magnus_maximus
Points I would raise are thus - kerosene doesn't burn long or hot enough to bend steel such as was used in the supports enough for it to fail.


surely that'd depend on the load as much as the temperature.

The building fell far too quickly, and with so little debris, it could not have been just down to a failure in structural integrity.



isn't a controlled demolition down to a failure in structural integrity?

yes, it's made to fail in a specific way, but I don't see how it's inconceivable that 'the stars alligned' for lack of a better phrase. Call me naive, but I don't see how the conspiracy theories can hold much water.

You think that the people who planned this intricate event chose to bring down a building that wasn't right next to the initial attacks, yet despite this seemingly obvious oversight, they managed to keep the plot a secret from the hundreds of people who work in that building each day?

It's just too clumsy for it to be part of a world wide conspiracy planned and implemented by people so secretive that the majority of people don't acknowledge their existence.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#20
Quote by Psycho Pigeon
One of the most powerful films to come out in protest of the official 9/11 theory has been released by Architects&Engineers for 9/eleven Truth, lots of credible people putting their careers on the line for the victims of the attacks and criminal wars that were the result and have lasted 10 years and are ongoing.


!
Quote by Saint78
That's forever imprinted in my brain in Dwight's voice. Seriously.

Voted UG's best threadstarter 2014.
#21
I don't believe in cover-ups and conspiracy theories. The government simply isn't competent enough to pull off such deception.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#22
Quote by magnus_maximus
But the CIA and FBI are.


You clearly have never visited DC.

You also seem to be under the illusion that government agencies, for the most part, like to work together.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#23
Quote by magnus_maximus
Also, the towers collapsed in a "pancake" fashion. Why? The towers were hit in specific, albeit areas of relatively large spacial area, points, surely if there was a structural failure it would have been at these points and the towers would have "fallen" to the side rather than collapsed?

They were hit at almost the top floor. The top floors collapsed, which caused all the floors underneath them to collapse under the shock.
#24
Quote by magnus_maximus
You're forgetting most structures are designed with a "factor of safety". Even if the steel was 50% weaker due to temperatures, many structures are designed to deal with loads 5 times as heavy as they're ever likely to experience due to normal stress.
I do not expect the WTC to be any different. Furthermore, what about the tower which randomly collapsed not anywhere near where the planes crashed?

Also, the towers collapsed in a "pancake" fashion. Why? The towers were hit in specific, albeit areas of relatively large spacial area, points, surely if there was a structural failure it would have been at these points and the towers would have "fallen" to the side rather than collapsed?

That's the tower I've been discussing.

WTC 7.

As far as I'm aware it's about 100 yards away from tower 1. If a guy can throw a football the length of a football pitch, what's to stop debris being flung that far, both inflicting impact damage (albeit drastically reduced compared to the initial impact) and a source of ignition for whatever combustible materials were there?

as for the twin towers collapsing in a pancake fashion, the first one doesn't (at least not in a purely pancake fashion). You can see it lean as one side collapses then the other follows almost immediately. It just so happens that the smoke from the other tower makes it difficult to see.

And the second tower is hit square in the middle, which would inflict damage on the central support beams.



EDIT:

http://tinypic.com/r/9uyzaa/7
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Sep 9, 2011,
#25
Quote by magnus_maximus
You're forgetting most structures are designed with a "factor of safety". Even if the steel was 50% weaker due to temperatures, many structures are designed to deal with loads 5 times as heavy as they're ever likely to experience due to normal stress.
I do not expect the WTC to be any different. Furthermore, what about the tower which randomly collapsed not anywhere near where the planes crashed?

Also, the towers collapsed in a "pancake" fashion. Why? The towers were hit in specific, albeit areas of relatively large spacial area, points, surely if there was a structural failure it would have been at these points and the towers would have "fallen" to the side rather than collapsed?

You might be interested in the video i posted, if you havn't already seen it, on the last page. The barry jennings one
#26
Quote by Lemoninfluence
That's the tower I've been discussing.

WTC 7.

As far as I'm aware it's about 100 yards away from tower 1. If a guy can throw a football the length of a football pitch, what's to stop debris being flung that far, both inflicting impact damage (albeit drastically reduced compared to the initial impact) and a source of ignition for whatever combustible materials were there?

as for the twin towers collapsing in a pancake fashion, the first one doesn't (at least not in a purely pancake fashion). You can see it lean as one side collapses then the other follows almost immediately. It just so happens that the smoke from the other tower makes it difficult to see.

And the second tower is hit square in the middle, which would inflict damage on the central support beams.


The 2nd tower wasn't hit quite that directly, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU&feature=related
You can see that it isn't by any means an impact straight into the center part of the tower, a lot of the fuel is burnt up in the huge fireball outside of the tower. I can understand fireproofing materials being 'blown off' by the impact in the actual place that the plane did impact, but that didn't hit the tower directly enough to blow away all the materials since it didn't hit the entire area.
#27
9/11 would be to big of an inside job for it to still be a secret...somehow proof would have escaped by now if it was an inside job.

As an industrial engineer, I have taken some materials classes, I am by no means an expert as my focus is more on other things, but I believe the 9/11 happened as reported (in relations to collapses and such). My university did a study on this after 9/11, and ran a simulation and got the results pretty much the same as what happened.
#28
Quote by magnus_maximus
Like the JFK assasination and the "magic bullet"?


I think that was just poor investigation and now the gov. dosen't want to look stupid.

Technology is different. With the internet and such its a lot easier for inside jobs to be discovered.
Last edited by FireHawk at Sep 9, 2011,
#29
Quote by FireHawk
9/11 would be to big of an inside job for it to still be a secret...somehow proof would have escaped by now if it was an inside job.

As an industrial engineer, I have taken some materials classes, I am by no means an expert as my focus is more on other things, but I believe the 9/11 happened as reported (in relations to collapses and such). My university did a study on this after 9/11, and ran a simulation and got the results pretty much the same as what happened.

Plenty of evidence has 'escaped' if you can call it that, i mean people can even look at the speed of wtc7 collapsing and match it up to basically free fall speed apparently. You can type in '9/11 explosions' on youtube and you'll get the Barry Jennings video and videos of firefighters reporting what they heard on the actual day of it on news reports from the ground too for instance.

edit: there's loads of stuff, look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM
Last edited by Zoot Allures at Sep 9, 2011,
#30
Quote by Zoot Allures
You might be interested in the video i posted, if you havn't already seen it, on the last page. The barry jennings one



Oh the Barry Jennings who claimed to have 'heard explosions' in the building?
A building just hit by a jet airliner?
A building where the many supports had collapsed?
A building on fire?
While he was panicking?
His adrenaline running?
And how can his judgement in such a tense and confusing situation be reliable?
The man who waited a few years later to release his believe, and after a while how can anyone's memory of a certain situation be completely clear?
And what about the lawyer with him DURING THE TIME he claimed to hear the explosions did not report hearing any explosions?
The one of few to claim to have heard explosions despite any factual evidence?
Someone who believes there was explosions to cause the towers to fall even though experts who have recieved degrees from colleges, recognized by society as professional and have long-term careers as Civil Engineers or other engineers state otherwise?
And now anecdotal evidence holds more weight then factual evidence that can be proven or replicated?


You got your arguement.
Quote by ErikLensherr
Don't belittle it like that, your mom produces top quality stuff.



C4C
[thread="1339859"]Hammerhead[/thread]
[thread="1341152"]Anglerfish[/thread]

VOTE
Thrustor: 2012
Last edited by vicarious46 at Sep 9, 2011,
#31
If you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories, you're a moron that shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Also, I know I'm a sheep, so there's no need to point it out.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#32
Quote by vicarious46
Oh the Barry Jennings who claimed to have 'heard explosions' in the building?
A building just hit by a jet airliner?A building where the many supports had collapsed?
A building on fire?
While he was panicking?
His adrenaline running?
And how can his judgement in such a tense and confusing situation be reliable?
The man who waited a few years later to release his believe, and after a while how can anyone's memory of a certain situation be completely clear?
And what about the lawyer with him DURING THE TIME he claimed to hear the explosions did not report hearing any explosions?
The one of few to claim to have heard explosions despite any factual evidence?
Someone who believes there was explosions to cause the towers to fall even though experts who have recieved degrees from colleges, recognized by society as professional and have long-term careers as Civil Engineers or other engineers state otherwise?

No jet airliner hit building 7, which is what Barry Jennings was in.
#33
Quote by Zoot Allures
No jet airliner hit building 7, which is what Barry Jennings was in.


Oh sorry my mistake, I'll just link you the agreed up by the AMSCE who are Civil Engineers and other Engineers, experts on these such situations and conditions who have spent their career studying how structures are supported and can fail

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

When you get your masters degree as a Civil Engineer, spent years in the field, are a distinguished member of this society and can thorougly prove to me that that 9/11 was an inside job, let me know and I may just listen
Quote by ErikLensherr
Don't belittle it like that, your mom produces top quality stuff.



C4C
[thread="1339859"]Hammerhead[/thread]
[thread="1341152"]Anglerfish[/thread]

VOTE
Thrustor: 2012
#34
Quote by vicarious46
Oh sorry my mistake, I'll just link you the agreed up by the AMSCE who are Civil Engineers and other Engineers, experts on these such situations and conditions who have spent their career studying how structures are supported and can fail

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

When you get your masters degree as a Civil Engineer, spent years in the field, are a distinguished member of this society and can thorougly prove to me that that 9/11 was an inside job, let me know and I may just listen
.gov

They're obviously in on it.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#35
Quote by element4433
.gov

They're obviously in on it.



...You're right. What was I thinking? If they're on a .gov site they must ALL be owned by the gov't and ALL comply with what certain officials tell them to do and say

How could I be so niave?
Quote by ErikLensherr
Don't belittle it like that, your mom produces top quality stuff.



C4C
[thread="1339859"]Hammerhead[/thread]
[thread="1341152"]Anglerfish[/thread]

VOTE
Thrustor: 2012
Last edited by vicarious46 at Sep 9, 2011,
#36
Quote by vicarious46
...You're right. What was I thinking? If they're on a .gov site they must ALL be owned by the gov't and ALL comply with what certain officials tell them to do and say

How could I be so nieve?

Well that's actually true.
#37
Quote by vicarious46
...You're right. What was I thinking? If they're on a .gov site they must ALL be owned by the gov't and ALL comply with what certain officials tell them to do and say

How could I be so nieve?
Now you're thinking like an enlightened one!

Also naive*
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#38
Quote by Dirge Humani
Well that's actually true.


I meant each individual who conducted experiments and formed conclusions on the subject

dunno if that was sarcasm, but my sarcasm detector is out of batteries tonight

EDIT: goddammit Element
Guess my spelling is a little off tonight too
Quote by ErikLensherr
Don't belittle it like that, your mom produces top quality stuff.



C4C
[thread="1339859"]Hammerhead[/thread]
[thread="1341152"]Anglerfish[/thread]

VOTE
Thrustor: 2012
Last edited by vicarious46 at Sep 9, 2011,
#39
Quote by vicarious46
Oh sorry my mistake, I'll just link you the agreed up by the AMSCE who are Civil Engineers and other Engineers, experts on these such situations and conditions who have spent their career studying how structures are supported and can fail

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

When you get your masters degree as a Civil Engineer, spent years in the field, are a distinguished member of this society and can thorougly prove to me that that 9/11 was an inside job, let me know and I may just listen

You do realise a lot of the things in this thread are 'yes' or 'no' things. Such as that guy saying there was evidence of thermite used. He's either lying about that or it's true.

also, i've seen this thing before and one of the first points in it is
•The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires.


and
•The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

And this was mentioned earlier in the thread, someone brought up fireproofing being blown off, in the 2nd impact it's clear that only some of the fireproofing on the side of the impact would have been blown off, i'm sure you've seen the video of that plane hitting the tower.


A lot of this talks about fire damage, there have been much worse fires in steel framed buildings in the past that has never brought them down like this. And in this instance of 9/11 you've got 3 buildings all doing it.

•NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.
In another video i linked apparently people were talking about melted steel in pools that was found. Someone else in the thread said it's possible for steel to buckle at high temperatures, but if it melted then that's a serious problem with the story being given in that quote.

None of this even touches upon building 7 either, falling at apparently near free fall speed and no plane hit that building. It isn't just Barry Jennings who reported hearing explosions either, there's videos of firefighters saying similar stuff, and then there's that one about the 'pools of melted steel' which i hadn't actually heard about, but if that's true then it's seriously a problem for the story.
Last edited by Zoot Allures at Sep 9, 2011,
#40
I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories, but one thing I have never understood is that even if the buildings were demolished from the inside using bombs/whatever else, who says it has to be an inside job? Why couldn't an outside organization have demolished the buildings as well as hit them with planes? Why does it have to be the government that did it?
Quote by ThinLizzyFan
I love you



Who's in a bunker?
Who's in a bunker?
Women and children first
And the children first
And the children