9/11 : Science and Conspiracies. GREAT Documentary. Shame on the "Truthers"
 

There's lots of documentaries on TV this week surrounding 9/11 but watch for this one : 9/11 : Science and Conspiracies. (or 9/11 : Science vs Conspiracies) on the Discover Channel this week. Real Scientists prove, with actual experiments, that the jet fuel fires were hot enough to weaken the steal which led to the colapse of the towers, plus lots of other things. During the documentary, they present these proofs to the director of "Loose Change" and other "Truthers" who of course, dismiss all of the science because it upsets their own personal beliefs. A great doc.

lol.. how can you judge if what they present is accurate unless you have researched the subject for yourself, with an open mind of course...? How do you know there are not just knocking down strawmen?

Sick of seeing those documentaries to be honest. They go on about "proof" all the time, when really they produce none.

Jet fuel is just kerosene/diesel fuel ... it doesn't burn that hot.


.

they had an entire segment on this, it contradicted your conclusion

"WEAKEN"

not "melt"

what is it about you fucking dipshits that you can ignore something so simple???

I watched it last night. I just don't know what to think. I see their points as well as the "tests" they did. You can't deny one thing.

It happened, people died, and people lost family and friends, no matter whom was responsible.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

I agree! But the people with the closed minds here seem to be the Truthers.

They ignore lots of basic science. Jet Fuel CAN burn hot enough and long enough to WEAKEN the steal. They were shown an actual test but completely dismissed it. They look like fools.

Plus, I love how they say that anyone who disagrees with them must be a part of the conspiracy. For example. When people from demolition companies tell them that it cannot possibly be a controlled demoltion, the truthers dismiss them and their proof, saying that it is in their own best interest to lie. Lol!

Thank you!

Um how did building number 7 fall down exactly like a controlled demolition even though it was not attacked? Oh yeah some debris from the bigger towers fell onto building 7. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Pull it!

In the documentary? who dismissed it and looked like fools?

Building 7 was not hit by a jet btw..


what? where did you see that? in the doc? What about demo experts saying there's no doubt it's a controlled demo.. ? Where they left out of the doc?

I agree with most. Building 7 really does look like a controlled demolition but is missing some tell-tale signs such as explosions normally seen through the windows, etc. But watch the documentary. Most of the images we have been shown are only from one side of that building. When you see the other side, alot of it was destroyed from falling debris from towers.

I'm no expert of course so I can only go on what seems more plausible to me. So what's more plausible? That a falling skyscraper damaged a nearby building so badly that it too was destroyed? Or, that secret demolition crews, made up of hundreds of people, worked for months to open holes in walls, cut steal, plant bombs, run tens of thousands of feet worth of detonation cables, and did it all while remaining completely unnoticed?

Sorry, I'm going with damage from the nearby tower.

This "dipshit" has yet to hear a semi-valid reason why building 7 was "pulled" once that happens I'll be open to the idea of weakened structural failure. Building 7 disturbs my judgment.

.

I swear the average IQ of GFY falls daily.

Cue Pornstar69 or whatever the retard's name is to post pictures from the Matrix as conclusive proof.

So it makes more sense to you that Silverstein runs the NYFD, an organization generally hell bent on saving lives and preventing destruction, then commanded the fire chief to "pull" the building, by which he meant to engage a demolish plan that had been prewired completely in secret?

You're right, how could anyone ever come to the conclusion that you're a dipshit? I mean, there's absolutely no evidence for that here!

Can this help you out: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Please let us know how this report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf is flawed and we should rely on your judgment.

i think i saw this last year, pretty great flick.

points out things that the steel did NOT melt, but rather was weakened because of the lack of fireproofing that was done on the cross beams, etc.

bombard truthers with facts and figures and they will completely ignore all of it and change the subject to bldg 7.

I think pornographers arguing facts as if THEY know what happened, is pretty damn funny. If you all were so fucking smart, you wouldn't be in this business, you would be working at NASA or something worthwhile.

But you think you have a clearer idea somehow? You ask him how he could possibly know based on a documentary and the experts in it, yet you seem to proclaim your knowledge and belief that is ALSO merely based on what someone else said and nothing you know anything about.

This is what is so laughable about people who argue over this and all it comes down to is they take sides based on their personal agendas or attitudes. Anyone who thinks their take on the events are any better than those with opposing views is simply an idiot.

Why?

Because the best you can do is speculate and even that speculation is based on an already biased leaning coupled with someone saying exactly what you want to hear and running with it.

You can believe whatever you want, but to argue your definitive correctness based on secondary information or knowledge that you have NO understanding of is ridiculous... What makes your source any more credible than the sources of those opposing yours and vice versa.


FACT!

darkland = nasa rocket scientist!

Not me... I don't have a hand in this argument but I can see the retarded way in which these people argue their points. It can basically be reduced down to...

Guy 1: "See I was right, this guy on TV... you know that one guy, he is an expert. Anyways he said this is how it had to happen."

Guy 2: "Bullshit... I saw this other guy on TV, he is an expert and HE said it COULDN'T have happened that way so you are wrong."

Guy 1: "Fuck you, you don't know what you are talking about..."

Guy 2: "Look who is talking... fucking sheep. You just believe anything anyone tells you don't you."

It is quite comical.

i hear ya, it's totally comical.

my comment was actually a tongue in cheek reply to the comment that preceded yours about arguing facts on gfy.


you prolly knew that though. :-)

After all the report definitions, contributors, yada yada.. and finally reaching the actual discussion on the fall of WTC 7, and what caused it to fall..

"The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 involved the initiation of the buckling of a critical interior column in that vacinity."
Then the report goes into all sorts of detail about this, "probability."

The flaw is right at the beginning with, "probable".

Lol at everyone and anyone who can't see it for what it is.
Let's start with how ugly your fucking women are?

you have to change the subject because you're a dipshit. the only claim about the fires/jet fuel has been that it weakened the steel trusses in the towers... not melted steel. it has nothing to do with building 7. blowing up building 7 intentionally after the fact, has nothing to do with how the towers came down, the planes, the passengers, the hijackers, the pentagon or anything else.

dude it's bullshit..anybody can be bought

Among all of the heat/steel debates, the one thing the truthers never seem to notice is that above the "weakened" beams were thousands upon thousands of tons of building pressing down upon it.

It didn't need to melt all the way through.

This is the kind of common sense that truthers will just ignore.

my uncle was on the building 7 demolition crew. feels kinda bad about it.

:1orglaugh

You ride. Just how hot does steel have to get to weaken?

Fire

I am pretty sure the one I saw did include them, so they would have someone to debunk.

You seem to think it is easy to do a controlled demolition with no one noticing the preparation involved. Was it the first thing Bush ordered after he was inaugurated?

I cant believe how fuckin stupid you people are. You act like your experts and all this shit.

Let me ask you 'gfy experts' some questions.

Have any of you actually been to what once was WTC?
Have you ever walked around WTC?
Been inside WTC?

Did it ever occur to any of you that when the towers came down, all that steal had to go somewhere?. WTC 7 was directly across the street. When you have tons of steal flying through the air at a high rate of speed at a building, its going to cause major structure damage... Then add the fire to the equation and you have a destroyed building.

Some of you are so fuckin stupid its comical.

And BTW, Im a 9/11 survivor and so is my husband.

yes i have been to what once was the wtc, and yes to the other two questions as well. i had visited around several of the towers during a visit to my brothers back in 99.

many of the people in this thread are fucking lunatics and have a real big issue with not accepting the most reasonable explanation present that we witnessed. planes hit the towers, they got fucked up, weight above crushed them sending debris everywhere. fires started buildings got damaged and 7 had its side just about removed before it ever fell. sorry that it pancaked and got everyones panties in a fucking ruffle.

and btw, i was not present at 9/11 but i can not say the same for my brother.

You cannot demolish a building like that with just a few hours of prep. You need weeks or even moths. You sound like a total idiot when you say the building was demolished.

The official excuse for WTC 7 is from fire not by falling debris damage. WTC 5 and 6 were blocking the way. Sure it did get hit by some but 5 and 6 took most of the blow.

Map showing 5 and 6 in the way

http://www.informationliberation.com...806wtcplan.jpg

Fire at WTC &
http://www.informationliberation.com...30806wtc8a.jpg

Fire at WTC 5 pretty much burning to the ground without collapsing

http://www.informationliberation.com...06wtc5fire.jpg

WTC 5 two days after 9/11

http://www.informationliberation.com...30806wtc1a.jpg

Building 6 falling over sideways after burning to the ground and hit by debris

http://www.informationliberation.com...30806wtc2a.jpg


And the building on the other side of this collapses? OK :1orglaugh

That's a lie. WTC was damaged by falling debris from the towers. what do you think caused the fires? - severe damage + intense fire = weakened structure. you don't need an engineering degree to understand that simple fact. the final collapse was explained by structural beams being weakened.

ALLLLLLLLLL of these buildings were unique. you can't compare each one to each other as if they were the exact same.

And all you retards have to continually fall back on building 7 discussion because all your moronic theories about the towers collapse are completely impossible. building 7 has ZERO to do with the towers and pentagon and planes and hijackers etc etc etc. You can't throw in building 7 as proof of something greater if you can't explain everything else.

I don't doubt there were solid reasons to destroy building 7 and let it burn rather than let clean up crews run around and explore for souvenirs... CIA, IRS, Secret Service, SEC offices etc. All of that has NOTHING to do with the rest of the events on 9/11... and are totally unrelated to some idiots hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings and the towers coming down.

I think many Americans still have problems coming to grips with the issue that a few towel heads with pocket knives were able to bring the almighty country to its knees.

the show was a complete flop. I dont believe 99% of the shit the "truthers" spew, but the "documentary" was absurd. They certainy didn't "prove" anything. Most of the evidence and comments from the experts were at best juvenile retorts. Dunno why they didn't approach it better. At one point they blow up this tiny tiny building and then point to detonation cord on the ground and say " see look at all this det. cord, you would have found it in the rubble" hardly scientific. Another common theme is " it would have taken an army of workers to blow the building" . hmm well according to the official version it took just a few guys and some jet fuel.. How big was the "team" in oklahoma ? how big was the team that bombed the wtc the first time ? hmm just a couple guys with a truck you say ? so if a couple guys with a truck filled with explosives can blow a building then its very possible for a small team of guys ( 4 ) to unload a truck filled with explosives.

let me add i dont think the wtc were bombed in any way anyways , but i find the approach to disprove it foolish. Stop spouting the "army of guys needed" to blow wtc. The official version says the fire destroyed one area only , the resulting collapsed floor caused a pancake effect collapsing every floor under it. So lets be clear , according to the official version all you would need to do to blow the wtc is put explosives in 1 particular area .

SO you either believe the wtc couldnt have been bombed without teams of guys and thus the oklahoma bombing wasn't real because we all know just 1 guy did that with no det cord and without even having access to the building . Or you understand the truth.

Yet when someone suggests that it was an inside job, the response is, "Do you realize the number of people it would take to pull something like this off?"

It's more than coming to grips with the issue..

You have lists of structural engineers, physicists, demolition experts, commercial pilots, and on & on that give differing opinions.

You have videos and photos of this & that which support varying sides of the arguments..

You have official reports full of, "the probable cause...", "could have been caused by...", "may have contributed to..."

You have varying eye witness accounts of what they saw and heard.

Nothing has been presented by anyone that will satisfy, without a doubt, the concerns or answer the questions being asked... and if someone did do that very thing, there would still be those who would refuse to believe it, no matter which way the door swung.

Hi DWB,

I dunno.. I've met some pretty smart people in this biz'...!

And of course none of us here know everything, know what "really" happened, or were there. For the most part we saw it on TV like everyone else.

All I am trying to say is that when it comes to hearing both sides of the argument, All I am saying is, is that I am going with the SCIENCE. The PROOF. The Achems Razor. The Simplest answer. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into WYC 1 & 2. Fire, started from Jet Fuel, weakened key components enough for both towers to fall. Debris from these damaged WTC enough to destroy it as well. Another Jet hit the Pentagon (Not a cruise missile, please). It's all so simple and makes TOTAL sense.

All the Troofers are crack-heads so this is where all their first hand experience with flames and metal. Probably why they all use glass crack pipes now.

:1orglaugh

I'm not a "conspiracy" believer, but the building #7 video just doesn't make sense to me.

Worldwide you just never see a building fall like this .......

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse2.mpg

.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Christians/Muslims and Jews do the same thing when they try to prove the existence of their god. I think a lot of these people are the same way.

sure... its the exact same thing... nothing more than a simple expression of insecurity and anxiety and a deep rooted need to find personal comfort, make sense of a senseless world and have easy answers to complex and often unanswerable questions. the "facts" are irrelevant and do not preclude the need to express that insecurity and anxiety or find that sense of personal comfort.

and notice the common theme... if your not equally paranoid, insecure, anxious or delusional... then you're "brainwashed by fox news"... what other explanation could there be! thats the final explanation for how you can calmly deal with the world around you :)