Interesting documentary on twin tower collapse.

I found this documentary on the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11. Yes, I know what you're all thinking, but please, save me your ridicule until you've at least watched the documentary (which is 2h 15m by the way).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

This video contains lots of interviews with an array of structural engineers, demolition experts and physicists who raise some very good questions on the collapse of the world trade centres and the validity of the subsequent NIST report (which has been harshly criticized by some scientist).

For those of you who've watched it, what do you think? Discuss your thoughts on the opinions given in this documentary and whether you think there should be another investigation into the collapses. Try and keep it civil, guys, I know people like to go crazy in threads like this. If the opinions of these people are really so insane, please explain why instead of calling people names, that way we can actually achieve something.

Posted by A & E 9/11 Truth?

Oh really? If it's so obvious, then why, on my last count at least, did that movement have less than 2,000 members and less than 50 structural engineers, as well as many engineering disciplines that have little or nothing to do with building design?

Posted by A & E 9/11 Truth?

Oh really? If it's so obvious, then why, on my last count at least, did that movement have barely 1,000 members and less than 50 structural engineers, as well as many engineering disciplines that have little or nothing to do with building design?

jetpower3

Posted by A & E 9/11 Truth?

Oh really? If it's so obvious, then why, on my last count at least, did that movement have barely 1,000 members and less than 50 structural engineers, as well as many engineering disciplines that have little or nothing to do with building design?

jetpower3

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Posted by A & E 9/11 Truth?

Oh really? If it's so obvious, then why, on my last count at least, did that movement have barely 1,000 members and less than 50 structural engineers, as well as many engineering disciplines that have little or nothing to do with building design?

PernicioEnigma

I don't need to watch any more propaganda from this group, and unless you're an engineer or architect (or someone who understands building design in sufficient detail), I recommend that you don't either. There are plenty of resources that counter this kind of information, and quite honestly, these are mostly the same old arguments and witch hunts I've seen for a long time. Check your facts.

But regardless of the science, you've really got to ask yourself: why is it a valid question? Why would anyone demolish a tower if it's going to be hit by an airplane ahead of time? The carnage from that alone would be more than enough to justify whatever happens afterward in terms of geopolitical politics and movements. Apparently people don't realize just how rare successful mass casualty terrorist attacks are in the U.S. And how presumptuous do you think it is that you think this organization can speak for the 1.5 million+ engineers in the U.S. alone? Even people with status have risked a lot more than just that throughout history. I think they are not ill equipped to act somehow on a mass scale without overtly harming their status.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Posted by A & E 9/11 Truth?

Oh really? If it's so obvious, then why, on my last count at least, did that movement have barely 1,000 members and less than 50 structural engineers, as well as many engineering disciplines that have little or nothing to do with building design?

PernicioEnigma

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"][QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Posted by A & E 9/11 Truth?

Oh really? If it's so obvious, then why, on my last count at least, did that movement have barely 1,000 members and less than 50 structural engineers, as well as many engineering disciplines that have little or nothing to do with building design?

jetpower3

I don't need to watch any more propaganda from this group, and unless you're an engineer or architect (or someone who understands building design in sufficient detail), I recommend that you don't either. There are plenty of resources that counter this kind of information, and quite honestly, these are mostly the same old arguments and witch hunts I've seen for a long time. Check your facts.

But regardless of the science, you've really got to ask yourself: why is it a valid question? Why would anyone demolish a tower if it's going to be hit by an airplane ahead of time? The carnage from that alone would be more than enough to justify whatever happens afterward in terms of geopolitical politics and movements. Apparently people don't realize just how rare successful mass casualty terrorist attacks are in the U.S. And how presumptuous do you think it is that you think this organization can speak for the 1.5 million+ engineers in the U.S. alone? Even people with status have risked a lot more than just that throughout history. I think they are not ill equipped to act somehow on a mass scale without overtly harming their status.

It's a common misconception that you need to be an architect or a structural engineer to see the flaws in the official reports findings. Not only do they break fundamental laws of physics, they also go against what anyone can see with their own eyes when watching videos of the towers collapsing.

We can speculate all day as to why, say, the US government would've wanted the buildings to come down, but that isn't why I created this thread. I wanted to discuss the documentary and avoid exactly the kind of replies you're making. Maybe a question I should ask you is why would over 1,000 architects and engineers be spreading "propaganda"? Funnily enough, if anyone is spreading propaganda, it's the NIST report which, as I stated in my OP, purposely omits evidence to support their view. Don't you think it's odd that even though all three buildings collapsed in exactly the same fashion as a controlled demolition (among other evidence to support this hypothesis) they didn't even look for evidence of explosives? That's not scientific, what they're doing is conducting an investigation based on a pre-conceived conclusion.

It's no surprise they don't release the data for their computer models of the collapse, in fact, they denied this information when a group of structural engineers requested it because, apparently, it was a "threat to public safety". How is giving out information that can help engineers design safer buildings threaten the public? Remember, before 9/11 no modern steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire, and if you look around on the net you'll find many examples of much older steel structured buildings burning out of control for almost days at a time, and yet the steel frame of the building remains intact, while the rest of the building is completely destroyed.

I have checked my facts by the way, and while some of the questions raised in the documentary have been around awhile, none of them have been explained to any satisfactory degree, and trust me, I've looked. Maybe if you were kind enough you could watch the documentary and find me these counter arguments? One things for sure, NIST aren't coming up with them...

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"][QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Posted by A & E 9/11 Truth?

Oh really? If it's so obvious, then why, on my last count at least, did that movement have barely 1,000 members and less than 50 structural engineers, as well as many engineering disciplines that have little or nothing to do with building design?

Tylendal

Yes, I agree that in a situation such as this, there're always going to be aspects that remain a mystery. But the thing is the official story is more of a mystery and raises more questions than the controlled demolition theory. The NIST report itself claims they can't fully explain the complete collapse of the WTCs. Do you think something as fundamental as the collapsing of three modern buildings should remain an enigma?

Edit: I just looked up what Occam's Razor meant, and honestly, I laughed a little to myself. The World Trade Centres have been attacked by terrorist using bombs in the past, but never before in the past has a steel structured building collapsed due to fire. Tell me, considering THREE steel structured buildings would have had to have fallen due to fires in the fire hypothesis, which is more plausible - fire (world first, and three times), or explosives?

Someone needs to post that pic of the guy from Ancient Aliens.

******* Aliens!

Documentaries are merely one person sifting through evidence/talking with so called experts to arrive at an edited version that backs up his stance. Now why should I watch that?LJS9502_basic

Someone needs to post that pic of the guy from Ancient Aliens.

******* Aliens!

Mikey132

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"][QUOTE="Tylendal"] Destroy your social status? What? And no, if a valid question is asked, it doesn't need to be answered. Almost everything has valid questions that muddy the issue. They're called enigmas, stuff happens. What's important is the weight of evidence, with a good dose of Occam's Razor.Tylendal

It's certainly not impossible, you can access the steel frame from the elevator shaft, and for all we know it could have been in planning for years, giving workers lots of time to plant the explosives needed to take down the building, but again, I'm speculating and you're dodging my questions. This thread seems destined to become a complete failure because so far no one seems willing to even watch the video.

What makes you think rigging the building with explosives would leave a room in disarray? The explosive compound found at ground zero has been identified as an advanced form of thermite that is small and can be rigged around support beams easily. This isn't something terrorists could get their hands on, and it's certainly not something that could form from reactions during and after the planes hit. This stuff has been engineers on a tiny scale and isn't something that just naturally occurs.

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Someone needs to post that pic of the guy from Ancient Aliens.

******* Aliens!

PernicioEnigma

No, that's not what I meant.

Just seem like nowadays everything is a conspiracy or Aliens. Nothing ever just happens anymore.

If you want my honest opinion. The U.S already had tons of reasons to go out terrorist hunting before 9/11. The Idea that someone needed to go to these extremes is simply........ lol?

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"][QUOTE="Tylendal"] Raises more questions? Here's a question for you. How did they set up a controlled demolition of an occupied building with no one noticing? It's like trying to explain that the reason that a room is in disarray is because someone stampeded a herd of elephants through it. I think people would have noticed. Occam's Razor.Tylendal

No the video isn't loose chance. Nice you made the effort to open the link...

One of the questions I posed to you was why over 1,000 architects and engineers would promote propaganda? What's in it for them? what would their motives be? I never asked you to "explain why these people are wrong", getting anything out of you is hard enough without asking such a vague question. Another question I brought up was to do with "Occam's Razor". I simply said - if the WTC has been attacked by terrorist with bombs in the past, then why was the idea of explosives being used during 9/11 so preposterous from the get go? Conversely, the idea that, for the first time in history, not one, not two, but THREE steel structured buildings collapsing due to fire is adopted as the only possible explanation for their collapse. None of it makes sense, and it's not just me making an enigma of this - those fragments of thermite aren't in my imagination!

Edit: If you found my scenario funny, I can't even begin to imagine the kick you must get out of the number of miraculous coincidences that all but guided the planes into their targets (with the exception of one, of course) on 9/11.

Edit2:The terrorists passport conveniently found in the rubble of the WTC has got to me my favourite. It's amazing how a piece of laminated paper was able to survive all that don't you think?

Why even bother flying planes into the buildings and sacraficing more lives if the plan was to blow them up? That makes no sense.

There a lot of questions that remain unanswered about 9/11. Let me usesome greatconspiracy theorist pseudo logic and make my points:

1.) Why did the towers fall down and not up? The sun is up in the sky and has higher mass than the earth. So why didn't the towers fall into the sun?

2.) The debris pattern was also consistent with that produced by a small tactical nuke. Why hasn't anyone discussed that option? Because the govt. covered it up.

3.) Why didnt the planes just bounce off the buildings? Where is the debris of the planes? Hitting a building square on at full speed would most likely result in very little damage to the plane.

4.) Why only a few videos of the incident. NYC has millions of people living there. We should have millions of videos of the event. Yet we have only a few. Conspiracy.

5.) Metal does not burn. Sure it fatigues and can fail, but no it cant. Screw you scientists and your "facts".

6.) If you do believe that things fall down with this "gravity", then why didn't the towers tip over as opposed to drop straight down? Explain that one you architects, engineers, and other scientists. I prefer to get my explanations from people with no science background because their minds have not been polluted with your state engineered "facts".

Why even bother flying planes into the buildings and sacraficing more lives if the plan was to blow them up? That makes no sense.

Mikey132

Why even bother flying planes into the buildings and sacraficing more lives if the plan was to blow them up? That makes no sense.

Mikey132

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Why even bother flying planes into the buildings and sacraficing more lives if the plan was to blow them up? That makes no sense.

kuraimen

Neither would I. Though the WTC was bombed before, so they already had an excuse that it could happen again.

And would it have not been easier to just hunt Bin Laden covertly instead of publicly telling him he's being hunted so he can hide for 10 years?

There a lot of questions that remain unanswered about 9/11. Let me usesome greatconspiracy theorist pseudo logic and make my points:

1.) Why did the towers fall down and not up? The sun is up in the sky and has higher mass than the earth. So why didn't the towers fall into the sun?

2.) The debris pattern was also consistent with that produced by a small tactical nuke. Why hasn't anyone discussed that option? Because the govt. covered it up.

3.) Why didnt the planes just bounce off the buildings? Where is the debris of the planes? Hitting a building square on at full speed would most likely result in very little damage to the plane.

4.) Why only a few videos of the incident. NYC has millions of people living there. We should have millions of videos of the event. Yet we have only a few. Conspiracy.

5.) Metal does not burn. Sure it fatigues and can fail, but no it cant. Screw you scientists and your "facts".

6.) If you do believe that things fall down with this "gravity", then why didn't the towers tip over as opposed to drop straight down? Explain that one you architects, engineers, and other scientists. I prefer to get my explanations from people with no science background because their minds have not been polluted with your state engineered "facts".

sonicare

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Why even bother flying planes into the buildings and sacraficing more lives if the plan was to blow them up? That makes no sense.

Mikey132

Neither would I. Though the WTC was bombed before, so they already had an excuse that it could happen again.

And would it have not been easier to just hunt Bin Laden covertly instead of publicly telling him he's being hunted so he can hide for 10 years?

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Because the planes are easier to excuse? Either way I don't necessarily believe these conspiracy theories but I definitely wouldn't put the US government as the most trustworthy party.PernicioEnigma

Neither would I. Though the WTC was bombed before, so they already had an excuse that it could happen again.

And would it have not been easier to just hunt Bin Laden covertly instead of publicly telling him he's being hunted so he can hide for 10 years?

And on top of that, the Pentagon? That's just going too far to create a conspiracy. The WTC would have been enough.

I just can't picture someone saying, "These iconic towers and 3000 lives won't be enough to make people think we were attacked, we need to destroy another one of our most beloved buildings!"

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Documentaries are merely one person sifting through evidence/talking with so called experts to arrive at an edited version that backs up his stance. Now why should I watch that?PernicioEnigma

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Why even bother flying planes into the buildings and sacraficing more lives if the plan was to blow them up? That makes no sense.

Mikey132

Neither would I. Though the WTC was bombed before, so they already had an excuse that it could happen again.

And would it have not been easier to just hunt Bin Laden covertly instead of publicly telling him he's being hunted so he can hide for 10 years?

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Documentaries are merely one person sifting through evidence/talking with so called experts to arrive at an edited version that backs up his stance. Now why should I watch that?LJS9502_basic

IT WASN'T A TERRORIST ATTACK.

AND DEAL WITH IT!!

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Because the planes are easier to excuse? Either way I don't necessarily believe these conspiracy theories but I definitely wouldn't put the US government as the most trustworthy party.kuraimen

Neither would I. Though the WTC was bombed before, so they already had an excuse that it could happen again.

And would it have not been easier to just hunt Bin Laden covertly instead of publicly telling him he's being hunted so he can hide for 10 years?

Did Bush really need Afganistan to go into Iraq? He could have preached WMD's like he did without 9/11 ever happening.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Neither would I. Though the WTC was bombed before, so they already had an excuse that it could happen again.

And would it have not been easier to just hunt Bin Laden covertly instead of publicly telling him he's being hunted so he can hide for 10 years?

Mikey132

Did Bush really need Afganistan to go into Iraq? He could have preached WMD's like he did without 9/11 ever happening.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Neither would I. Though the WTC was bombed before, so they already had an excuse that it could happen again.

And would it have not been easier to just hunt Bin Laden covertly instead of publicly telling him he's being hunted so he can hide for 10 years?

Mikey132

Did Bush really need Afganistan to go into Iraq? He could have preached WMD's like he did without 9/11 ever happening.

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I'm pretty sure the whole ordeal was not because of OBL, I'm pretty sure they were more interested in controlling Iraq and Afghanistan for strategic and oil purposes. Notice how OBL quickly became irrelevant for Bush and he basically focused on Iraq. OBL was never the main target IMO.kuraimen

Did Bush really need Afganistan to go into Iraq? He could have preached WMD's like he did without 9/11 ever happening.

Didn't the U.S just bring a bunch or most of the troops home though? I'm Canadian and our Army just came home from Afghanistan over Christmas.

There's no doubt that being in Afganistan and Iraq must have had Iran crapping themselves, how much more strategic can you get if Iran was the ultimate goal?

I just see the whole mess a a series of events that can be interpreted anyway we choose. They're all connected, unconnected, take your pick, anyone could really come up with many different plausible theories.

I think it's a shame will never know the truth, damn shame.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"] Watch the video for yourself. This kind of comment is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I don't care if it's one engineer or 1 million speaking out against the official story, if a valid question is asked it needs to be answered. I don't really want to get into why the movement has barely 1,000 members, but, at least in America, speaking out against the official story can destroy your social status. Many people aren't willing to risk that.PernicioEnigma

I don't need to watch any more propaganda from this group, and unless you're an engineer or architect (or someone who understands building design in sufficient detail), I recommend that you don't either. There are plenty of resources that counter this kind of information, and quite honestly, these are mostly the same old arguments and witch hunts I've seen for a long time. Check your facts.

But regardless of the science, you've really got to ask yourself: why is it a valid question? Why would anyone demolish a tower if it's going to be hit by an airplane ahead of time? The carnage from that alone would be more than enough to justify whatever happens afterward in terms of geopolitical politics and movements. Apparently people don't realize just how rare successful mass casualty terrorist attacks are in the U.S. And how presumptuous do you think it is that you think this organization can speak for the 1.5 million+ engineers in the U.S. alone? Even people with status have risked a lot more than just that throughout history. I think they are not ill equipped to act somehow on a mass scale without overtly harming their status.

It's a common misconception that you need to be an architect or a structural engineer to see the flaws in the official reports findings. Not only do they break fundamental laws of physics, they also go against what anyone can see with their own eyes when watching videos of the towers collapsing.

We can speculate all day as to why, say, the US government would've wanted the buildings to come down, but that isn't why I created this thread. I wanted to discuss the documentary and avoid exactly the kind of replies you're making. Maybe a question I should ask you is why would over 1,000 architects and engineers be spreading "propaganda"? Funnily enough, if anyone is spreading propaganda, it's the NIST report which, as I stated in my OP, purposely omits evidence to support their view. Don't you think it's odd that even though all three buildings collapsed in exactly the same fashion as a controlled demolition (among other evidence to support this hypothesis) they didn't even look for evidence of explosives? That's not scientific, what they're doing is conducting an investigation based on a pre-conceived conclusion.

It's no surprise they don't release the data for their computer models of the collapse, in fact, they denied this information when a group of structural engineers requested it because, apparently, it was a "threat to public safety". How is giving out information that can help engineers design safer buildings threaten the public? Remember, before 9/11 no modern steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire, and if you look around on the net you'll find many examples of much older steel structured buildings burning out of control for almost days at a time, and yet the steel frame of the building remains intact, while the rest of the building is completely destroyed.

I have checked my facts by the way, and while some of the questions raised in the documentary have been around awhile, none of them have been explained to any satisfactory degree, and trust me, I've looked. Maybe if you were kind enough you could watch the documentary and find me these counter arguments? One things for sure, NIST aren't coming up with them...

1. If the specific mode of collapse breaks the laws of physics, please tell me how the buildings should have collapsed, given both the circumstances and WTC 1, 2, & 7's structural design.

2. If anything, it's the A&E 9/11 Truth that has a preconceived conclusion, and they just continually mold what evidence supports their conclusion while ignoring the bigger (and more logical) evidence that doesn't.

3. A lot of flat earthers were around for awhile. Doesn't mean anything as to what their still small numbers are. You also can't prove that there is a silent majority worried about damage to their social status.

4. I'm also pretty sure no building was hit by a commercial airliner used deliberately as a missile and loaded with fuel.

Sometimes when a demolition company demo's a building it sits down and dosen't do what they thought it was going to do.

So any argument saying "This is how it would have come down due to physics" can't be proven :)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"] And what, The news you watch on TV is somehow different? Not distorted in any way?

PernicioEnigma

its a good video. Just straight scientific possibilities. You should watch it instead of making blind judgements about the video.

How many people here have worked construction? How many people here have worked in demolition? How many have worked on or around aircraft? Not to many as this forum is mostly young kids and young adults, many who have never worked due to being in school.

What are airplanes made of predominately? Aluminum. What is a component of thermite? Aluminum. What else? Metal oxide powder. Rust is an oxide. Mix the two and you would have thermite as the steel beams in the WTC would have some surface oxidation.

Now, has anyone ever looked up at the ceiling of a Wal-Mart or Home Depot? Notice all those small beams with the angled 1/2" wire rod in them? Those are supports to help strengthen the building. Those style of beams have been in used for ages (and wooden versions are being used in houses, at least for the floors). They are an intregal part of building design and strength. Sever 10-15 floors worth of them and you lose plenty of structural integrity. Add intense heat to that and other beams as well as unprotected columns (that have lost their fireproof asbestos coating) will soften, again losing structural integrity.

Demolition of a building, especially ones the height of WTC 1 and 2 would take years. That would push it back to either Clinton or even Bush 1 being in office. We all know Clinton was a wuss who was afraid of wasting lives (and was afraid of going after bin Laden after attacks by al-Qaeda were made then or pushing back against Hussein) so why would he OK anything that had to do with setting up an attack on the US. It is ludicrous to think that a President would set up other US citizens for death under the next President. What would Bush 1 or Clinton gain from setting up such a scenario?

All of the conspiracy theories all forget one thing, human nature. With all the numbers needed to complete the attacks, someone sure would have spoken up and talked to someone and the press would have heard of it, long before it happened. We humans are shltty at keeping secrets (and that is a different story all together). Someone would have talked plain and simple.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Did Bush really need Afganistan to go into Iraq? He could have preached WMD's like he did without 9/11 ever happening.

Mikey132

Didn't the U.S just bring a bunch or most of the troops home though? I'm Canadian and our Army just came home from Afghanistan over Christmas.

There's no doubt that being in Afganistan and Iraq must have had Iran crapping themselves, how much more strategic can you get if Iran was the ultimate goal?

I just see the whole mess a a series of events that can be interpreted anyway we choose. They're all connected, unconnected, take your pick, anyone could really come up with many different plausible theories.

I think it's a shame will never know the truth, damn shame.

If its the same documentary I have seen, its interesting and raises interesting questions...i beliee they even had an arguement that the planes were equipped with something on the underside. Theres also the fact they dont show the plane actually hitting the pentagon, either way I love cospiracys; it makes for intersting myterires, however I dont know if the U.S. would realy attck itself, there would be a better way to start war in the middle east then bombing ourselves.

How many people here have worked construction? How many people here have worked in demolition?.

WhiteKnight77

Raises hand. I've been in the International Union of Operating Engineers for 11 years. I've seen everything from Sewer/Watermain, Road building. Building the pads for building foundations to be built on. I've had the pleasure of using a excavater to knock down 2 small buildings. And the last big project I worked on was the Niagra Falls Hydro Tunnel on the Canadian side. It's 50 feet in diameter and 10.1 km long. I mostly worked on the surface but was in the tunnel a few times.

.

.

bleehum

There it is. Took you long enough :)

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Because the planes are easier to excuse? Either way I don't necessarily believe these conspiracy theories but I definitely wouldn't put the US government as the most trustworthy party.kuraimen

Neither would I. Though the WTC was bombed before, so they already had an excuse that it could happen again.

And would it have not been easier to just hunt Bin Laden covertly instead of publicly telling him he's being hunted so he can hide for 10 years?

Yeah, totally. Afghanistan is definitely the most oil rich country in the world.:roll:\

Can I ask you a question? Why wouldn't the US government just blaim this on a terrorist group in Iraq or the Iraqi government if Iraqi oil was the main goal?

Oh, I forgot, you lack critical thinking skills.

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I'm pretty sure the whole ordeal was not because of OBL, I'm pretty sure they were more interested in controlling Iraq and Afghanistan for strategic and oil purposes. Notice how OBL quickly became irrelevant for Bush and he basically focused on Iraq. OBL was never the main target IMO.kuraimen

Did Bush really need Afganistan to go into Iraq? He could have preached WMD's like he did without 9/11 ever happening.

Yeah, we're about to attack Iran with those 200 non-combat troops deployed in Iraq right now.:roll:

You're delusional.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Neither would I. Though the WTC was bombed before, so they already had an excuse that it could happen again.

And would it have not been easier to just hunt Bin Laden covertly instead of publicly telling him he's being hunted so he can hide for 10 years?

SpartanMSU

Yeah, totally. Afghanistan is definitely the most oil rich country in the world.:roll:\

Can I ask you a question? Why wouldn't the US government just blaim this on a terrorist group in Iraq or the Iraqi government if Iraqi oil was the main goal?

Oh, I forgot, you lack critical thinking skills.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Did Bush really need Afganistan to go into Iraq? He could have preached WMD's like he did without 9/11 ever happening.

SpartanMSU

Yeah, we're about to attack Iran with those 200 non-combat troops deployed in Iraq right now.:roll:

You're delusional.

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

I don't need to watch any more propaganda from this group, and unless you're an engineer or architect (or someone who understands building design in sufficient detail), I recommend that you don't either. There are plenty of resources that counter this kind of information, and quite honestly, these are mostly the same old arguments and witch hunts I've seen for a long time. Check your facts.

But regardless of the science, you've really got to ask yourself: why is it a valid question? Why would anyone demolish a tower if it's going to be hit by an airplane ahead of time? The carnage from that alone would be more than enough to justify whatever happens afterward in terms of geopolitical politics and movements. Apparently people don't realize just how rare successful mass casualty terrorist attacks are in the U.S. And how presumptuous do you think it is that you think this organization can speak for the 1.5 million+ engineers in the U.S. alone? Even people with status have risked a lot more than just that throughout history. I think they are not ill equipped to act somehow on a mass scale without overtly harming their status.

jetpower3

It's a common misconception that you need to be an architect or a structural engineer to see the flaws in the official reports findings. Not only do they break fundamental laws of physics, they also go against what anyone can see with their own eyes when watching videos of the towers collapsing.

We can speculate all day as to why, say, the US government would've wanted the buildings to come down, but that isn't why I created this thread. I wanted to discuss the documentary and avoid exactly the kind of replies you're making. Maybe a question I should ask you is why would over 1,000 architects and engineers be spreading "propaganda"? Funnily enough, if anyone is spreading propaganda, it's the NIST report which, as I stated in my OP, purposely omits evidence to support their view. Don't you think it's odd that even though all three buildings collapsed in exactly the same fashion as a controlled demolition (among other evidence to support this hypothesis) they didn't even look for evidence of explosives? That's not scientific, what they're doing is conducting an investigation based on a pre-conceived conclusion.

It's no surprise they don't release the data for their computer models of the collapse, in fact, they denied this information when a group of structural engineers requested it because, apparently, it was a "threat to public safety". How is giving out information that can help engineers design safer buildings threaten the public? Remember, before 9/11 no modern steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire, and if you look around on the net you'll find many examples of much older steel structured buildings burning out of control for almost days at a time, and yet the steel frame of the building remains intact, while the rest of the building is completely destroyed.

I have checked my facts by the way, and while some of the questions raised in the documentary have been around awhile, none of them have been explained to any satisfactory degree, and trust me, I've looked. Maybe if you were kind enough you could watch the documentary and find me these counter arguments? One things for sure, NIST aren't coming up with them...

1. If the specific mode of collapse breaks the laws of physics, please tell me how the buildings should have collapsed, given both the circumstances and WTC 1, 2, & 7's structural design.

2. If anything, it's the A&E 9/11 Truth that has a preconceived conclusion, and they just continually mold what evidence supports their conclusion while ignoring the bigger (and more logical) evidence that doesn't.

3. A lot of flat earthers were around for awhile. Doesn't mean anything as to what their still small numbers are. You also can't prove that there is a silent majority worried about damage to their social status.

4. I'm also pretty sure no building was hit by a commercial airliner used deliberately as a missile and loaded with fuel.