Explosive 9/11 Documentary About To Air On Public Television In United States

reply to post by TheMindWar


Considering the subject of this thread. Could you explain to me how explosives can both melt steel and throw steel huge distances? AE911Truth never elaborates on this point, they claim they have evidence of explosives altering the trajectory of debris, but they never explain it. Then they invoke thermite, which is used to melt steel instead of propelling copper through it.


I assume as you seem so confident you know what really happened you'll have a good explanation?

reply to post by D1Useek

Are these the same people who put out the “true” documentary “Mermaids: The Body Found” about the mermaid killing and subsequent government cover up?

What?? Somebody killed a Mermaid??

reply to post by Flatcoat


Sorry, but the fire was started by debris on the roof. Go check the facts.

And similar is not the same. Trying to draw exact comparisons from similar things isn't vaguely logical. You can say, yes, isn't that unusual, but unless you present ACTUAL evidence, unusual is just that, unusual. What about 9/11 was usual though?

You say:

Well I'm sure all the firemen and other witnesses who described explosions would be surprised to know that they are considered "truthers" by people like you... and there is audio of explosions.

None of these said there was a series of times explosions, like are used in a demo. Well a few birthers claim to see them, randomly, in some videos, but no witnesses on the day did. The video in question talked about explosions, then shows footage of people describing pancaking floors, not explosions. Typical.

You say that building seven looks like a typical demo. I would grant that it looks a LOT more like a typical demo than the towers, minus the hundreds of timed VISIBLE and AUDIBLE explosions.

The Towers look NOTHING like explosive demos, in the least. and you obvious get that, as you can see they look NOTHING like seven.

You say:

Yes but in those cases the building is pre-weakened and the "top half" is basically the same size as the "bottom half" ...not 15 floors crushing 80.

Are you serious? You can't be serious? I'm always shocked by this sort of elementary error.

The top 15 floors didn't crush 80 floors, all at once, as the video plainly shows, they crushed the floors progressively... so first they crushed one floor, and as they gained weight and momentum the debris was able to move through the floors more quickly. You must be joking though, yes?

You say:

It's generally the debunkers who like to bring up "laser beams" and "invisible planes"...

Again, you must be kidding. This must be a joke post. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that debunkers came up with those concepts? Holograph planes? Gimme a break.

reply to post by Gaeos


There's no evidence for thermite. That's a truther fairy tale. The ONE journal that "tested it:
- publishes anything for money
- was debunked by other scientists

The "evidence" was mailed by random people to be tested, no one knows for sure where it came from.

All the "thermite evidence" has been explained, quite clearly, as nonsense, repeatedly.

One example of many: www.debunking911.com...

As for the verniage, you seem to not get how it works and how the WTC supported it's load. The Towers were unique in the world, in many ways, one way was that the outer walls carried a large than normal percentage of the load of the structure, as the debris fell it destabilised the outer shell and greatly compromised the integrity.

Basically, these damaged buildings had a large building (the top 10+ floors) fall onto them. That would be enough to destroy a lot of buildings. The unique design of the outer shell just added to the issue.

As for claims that whoever benefited from the attacks was probably in a conspiracy behind the attacks... well, that's just meaningless conjecture AND lots of people benefited from the attacks... Choosing one beneficiary at random is pretty weak logic.

You say there was audible explosions? Yes, but not the hundreds necessary to bring down a sky scrapper, never mind that that an explosion in the basement wouldn't cause a building to pancake down a few floors at a time, floor the floor it was hit by a plane on.

Go look at any demo videos. Tell me that you could watch a proper demo and not see hundreds of explosions... or see them ripple up the buildings. NO ONE SAW OR HEARD THAT.

reply to post by longlostbrother

The top 15 floors didn't crush 80 floors, all at once, as the video plainly shows, they crushed the floors progressively... so first they crushed one floor, and as they gained weight and momentum the debris was able to move through the floors more quickly. You must be joking though, yes?

It's absolutely normal for skyscrapers to collapse at the rate of approximately 10 stories per second.

Originally posted by Nostalgic
It's pretty hard to take these guys seriously while they're throwing that "Buy me now! Only $60!" advertisement around every 10 minutes. As valid as some of the information may be, if the objective is to spread knowledge and educate the masses, pushing blatantly overpriced DVD's is probably the worst way to go about it. Not to mention, all of this information has been said before, and is free all over the internet. Only a fool would spend $60 on rehashed 9/11 material.

Cheers

Normally I would agree with you, but not in this case. The simple fact that it is available for viewing free of charge blows your idea out of the water. If it had to be purchased to be viewed at all, then you would have been right, but this is not the case. Making a documentary like this isn't cheap, and I don't blame them for attempting to recoup their losses. But the fact that they are letting people see it for free does make it obvious they would like to spread the word. The people who would like to have a copy to watch on their own time will buy a copy, as many people are like that. I for one would much rather see information presented in a video by a live person as opposed to reading the same information online.

Anyway, I was surprised that PBS was airing this at first, but then again, I don't know if PBS could be strong-armed into not airing this program. But when you think about it, no one will ever be prosecuted for 9/11 like so many hope, and coupled with the fact that this happened over a decade ago means that they probably aren't censoring things as much as they were back then. And they were censoring things, and even those who buy the official story should be able to see that. For those people I have one word...or two words...Or one word and a number...Building 7.

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by TheMindWar

 

Considering the subject of this thread. Could you explain to me how explosives can both melt steel and throw steel huge distances? AE911Truth never elaborates on this point, they claim they have evidence of explosives altering the trajectory of debris, but they never explain it. Then they invoke thermite, which is used to melt steel instead of propelling copper through it.


I assume as you seem so confident you know what really happened you'll have a good explanation?

Golly Gee Sherlock, i guess they used at least TWO different kinds of explosives...wow they sure are HIGH TECH !!

Instead the Believers would think it is easier for just gravity to smash a building and melt it so that it spreads across a 500 square mile area, and jet fuel that burns CONTINOUSLY after even being covered in what the NYFD said was " A Lake we poured on it, and it STILL BURNED for MONTHS.

Naww, i will take the gravity and office furniture for 1000 Alex !!!

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by TheMindWar

 

Considering the subject of this thread. Could you explain to me how explosives can both melt steel and throw steel huge distances? AE911Truth never elaborates on this point, they claim they have evidence of explosives altering the trajectory of debris, but they never explain it. Then they invoke thermite, which is used to melt steel instead of propelling copper through it.


I assume as you seem so confident you know what really happened you'll have a good explanation?

Golly Gee Sherlock, i guess they used at least TWO different kinds of explosives...wow they sure are HIGH TECH !!

Instead the Believers would think it is easier for just gravity to smash a building and melt it so that it spreads across a 500 square mile area, and jet fuel that burns CONTINOUSLY after even being covered in what the NYFD said was " A Lake we poured on it, and it STILL BURNED for MONTHS.

Naww, i will take the gravity and office furniture for 1000 Alex !!!

Nice, and typical, move there.

I've never once seen a OS believer claim jet fuel buned for a month. That would be crazy.

As for gravity, being strong enough to smash a building, well are saying if I drop a 15 story building, on a damaged one story building, the one story building won't collapse? Because the towers collapsed, initially, one floor at a time, under the weight of 10+ floors of material.

Sherlock seems to understand the physics involved pretty well.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

The top 15 floors didn't crush 80 floors, all at once, as the video plainly shows, they crushed the floors progressively... so first they crushed one floor, and as they gained weight and momentum the debris was able to move through the floors more quickly. You must be joking though, yes?

It's absolutely normal for skyscrapers to collapse at the rate of approximately 10 stories per second.

There were no other buildings like the Towers, from a construction and engineering perspective.

Both were hit by planes.

Both failed in exactly the same way.

Neither look like any other explosive demo in history.

No witnesses ever saw or heard the hundreds of timed explosives necessary to bring down a building that size. There no other explosive demos in history where people couldnt see and hear these explosions.

There's no history of explosive, top down, pancaking demolition, anywhere.

There's no legitimate evidence for thermite.

And on and on.

Google the URL of that video:

www.youtube.com...

See the hundreds of truthers saying it damning proof...

Then watch the video of the guy who made it.

reply to post by longlostbrother

Sorry, but the fire was started by debris on the roof. Go check the facts.

I'm saying this quite sincerely mate, maybe you should go and do some more research before we continue this discussion.

Again, you must be kidding. This must be a joke post. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that debunkers came up with those concepts? Holograph planes? Gimme a break.

I never said they did. I suggest you go back and look at this thread ...in fact, the whole 911 forum, and see who is constantly talking about "laser beams" and "sinister alien agents" etc.
As for the rest of your post.......well.....I¡m just guessing here, but you probably read a lot of Popular Mechanics, do you?

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Sorry, but the fire was started by debris on the roof. Go check the facts.

I'm saying this quite sincerely mate, maybe you should go and do some more research before we continue this discussion.

Again, you must be kidding. This must be a joke post. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that debunkers came up with those concepts? Holograph planes? Gimme a break.

I never said they did. I suggest you go back and look at this thread ...in fact, the whole 911 forum, and see who is constantly talking about "laser beams" and "sinister alien agents" etc.
As for the rest of your post.......well.....I¡m just guessing here, but you probably read a lot of Popular Mechanics, do you?

Sorry, but and again, you can't blame the OSers for the ludicrous conspiracy theories some truthers believe.

Hell, I'll pretend those don't exist and the truthers still look nutso when they claim the buildings were brought down by hundreds of invisible and inaudible explosions.

I assume that's what you believe. Yes? Invisible explosions?

A "classic" explosive demo has hundreds of very visible, very audible, timed explosions. Go find some evidence of explosive demos where you can't see or hear the explosions.

reply to post by longlostbrother


You do realize your video doesn't say anything about debris starting a fire on the roof of wtc7? It's only talking about structural damage. And didn't NIST themselves say that the structural damage did not contribute to the collapse of the building?

Hell, I'll pretend those don't exist and the truthers still look nutso when they claim the buildings were brought down by hundreds of invisible and inaudible explosions.

Well, to me, OSers look a little "nutso" when they claim that the failure of one column in the corner of the 12th floor caused the sudden, complete global collapse of a 47 story skyscraper.......

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

You do realize your video doesn't say anything about debris starting a fire on the roof of wtc7? It's only talking about structural damage. And didn't NIST themselves say that the structural damage did not contribute to the collapse of the building?

Hell, I'll pretend those don't exist and the truthers still look nutso when they claim the buildings were brought down by hundreds of invisible and inaudible explosions.

Well, to me, OSers look a little "nutso" when they claim that the failure of one column in the corner of the 12th floor caused the sudden, complete global collapse of a 47 story skyscraper.......

Why say insane stuff like that?

No OSers believe one column collapsing caused it. Though many believe that that, after 7 hours of fires, impact of thousands of pounds of debris, etc., that one column was the straw that broke the camels back. Could that column have collapsed without the rest of that happening? Hmmm...?

I see you avoided the question as well, so I'm gonna assume you're one of the truthers that believes that hundreds of invisible and silent explosives brought down WTC7. What fantasy technology was used, do you think?

reply to post by Flatcoat

reply to post by longlostbrother

Why say insane stuff like that? No OSers believe one column collapsing caused it.

Maybe you should read the NIST report.

I see you avoided the question as well, so I'm gonna assume you're one of the truthers that believes that hundreds of invisible and silent explosives brought down WTC7. What fantasy technology was used, do you think?

If I had to hazard a guess, well......yes. I think it was most probably demolished intentionally. I certainly don't believe the "one column failure" garbage.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Why say insane stuff like that? No OSers believe one column collapsing caused it.

Maybe you should read the NIST report.

I see you avoided the question as well, so I'm gonna assume you're one of the truthers that believes that hundreds of invisible and silent explosives brought down WTC7. What fantasy technology was used, do you think?

If I had to hazard a guess, well......yes. I think it was most probably demolished intentionally. I certainly don't believe the "one column failure" garbage.

Maybe you should reread it, starting on page 21.

So you have no evidence, you're just guessing, yes?

And you can't explain how it was intentionally demolished, at all?

But you're still somehow sure NIST is wrong?

Fair enough.

But it's hard to argue a position when you're just randomly choosing a belief.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Why don't you read this link here

Here's an excerpt

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers? Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Why don't you read this link here

Here's an excerpt

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers? Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

Read this:

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse? The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

Note how it doesn't say that the column, independent of the other damage, caused it to collapse. Where it was purely fire, or fire and structural damage, it certainly wasn't:

No fire, no structural damage, just one column.

Here's the sequence, not where the one column comes into play:


- Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control.

- These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

- These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence,

- heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

- Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1).

- The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

- The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse.

- What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

--

You read that and say the OS is that WTC7 collapsed because one column failed.

That's obviously a pretty disingenuous summary of the official story.