Note: I am aware of the fact that there was a previous tread that was started and is still open here on this topic. However, it got little play and it has been dormant since shortly after it was started in September of this year. In addition, while there are photos- some of which appear to be from the film that I am posting now, I have no way of knowing if they are. In any case, the narrative with the technical information that you are about to see is missing. Here is the old thread if interested viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5842 -Vinnie
This is an amazing, and eye opening film that may well change everything that you thought you knew or that you believed about what happened on 9.11.01.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physic ... emolition/
It is long. Over an hour. But if you just watch the first 10 or 15 minutes, you will certainly get the idea.
Now let me be clear, I was never a conspiracy theorists. I did not consider myself a 9-11 truther and I’m yet 100% convinced that we have been lied to. However, I am leaning in that direction.
The basic premise of the film is that the two planes alone did not bring the three building, WTC 1,2, and 7 down – that the collapses were caused, at least aided, by “controlled demolitions. Indeed, no plane had hit WTC 7! It is alleged that there was deliberate destruction of evidence, explosions not caused by the planes, and a symmetrical collapse of all three buildings consistent with a controlled demolition.
The film is narrated by Richard Gaga of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of 2,300 professionals who are demanding an independent investigation, and features a long succession of architects, engineers, various other scientists all of whom are quite credible. It also features eye witnesses who saw and heard things that are not explained and can’t be explained by the official version of what happened.
There is no dirt to be found on this organization. They are credible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect ... 9/11_Truth
Here is the official site: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-sect ... d-pt1.html
It is interesting to note that while it’s alleged that the plot was much wider than the hijackers, the report specifically avoids pointing any fingers or speculating on motive so as not to distract from the forensic evidence.
The film that you are about to see was published in the Free Thought Project
You will see that while the stories that they publish are provocative and under-reported in the main stream media, it is not “fake news” or conspiracy theories from the fringes of reality
Now to be fair, I am not without my doubts. We know that planes actually did hit the towers and that they were controlled by terrorists. But were there additional terrorists on the ground who planted explosives in all three building? Would that have even been possible? And, if they were expert enough to plant the bombs so strategically as to bring the buildings down, why did they bother to hijack planes?
Another possibility that some entity other than the terrorists- such as the Bush Administration- planted the bombs. Did they know about the plot ( as some have previously alleged ) and, rather than stopping it, planted to explosives to make certain of the outcome. Farfetched? I don’t know.
That brings me to the authors and publishers of the study and documentary. As I said Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, appear to be highly credible. However, the chief author of the study is not without his critics and doubters. Here is a site that says that it is all bunk. You can decide for yourself.
Now not being a scientist, I will not attempt to argue the conflicting scientific theories (although I do find the evidence for a controlled demolition very compelling) . However, they also attack the credibility and credentials of the chief author of the study Professor Steven E. Jones:
To be clear, let me restate the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. As an example, The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a well respected scientific journal. The peer review process is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is another which Jones can submit his papers. There are many well respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submitted his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been criticized in the past for passing "gibberish".
One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review. It seems the reviewers are told of the paper AFTER they are passed! Amazing!
Though Jones may have found the perfect home for his latest attempt at peer-review, it is far from a respected scientific journal. Will Jones ever publish in a "respected scientific journal"? Do they want legitimacy or a talking points?
So where does that leave us? Deep into more uncertainty. Jones was published in Europhysics News which appears to be highly credible and widely respected:
https://billlawrenceonline.com/europhys ... rutherism/
Europhysics News Trutherism — Trutherism, the belief that Al-Qaeda terrorists were not entirely behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, received a boost, Aug. 24, in the latest issue of Europhysics News which carries an article claiming that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition.
The magazine is published by the prestigious European Physical Society.
The authors of the piece are Steven Jones, a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada; Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer; and Ted Walter, who holds master of public policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.
The authors cite, among other things, the lack of heat to melt, or adequately weaken, the girders to cause the collapse.
Melted girders was widely reported as a reason immediately after the attack. This was quickly understood to be impossible, however. In fact, it was even being noted that things didn’t get hot enough to cause enough loss of structural strength.
This paper from the December 2001 issue of JOM, — the member journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , — is in full agreement with the Jones group on this point.
However, even here there is dissention:
The authors Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, however, don’t feel the need to deny what was before everyone’s eyes. Their article points out that temperature along the 18-meter long joists was certainly not uniform and that given the thermal expansion of steel, a 300 F temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses hence causing distortions resulting in buckling failures
Jones et al makes the point that fire never collapsed a skyscraper before 9/11 and has yet to bring one down since.
The rebuttal to this is that jet aircraft have never been flown into skyscrapers before or since. Further, a fire, while not collapsing a skyscraper, did make One Meridan Plaza in Philadelphia unstable enough to cause its demolition.
Again, I’m not going to attempt to evaluate the science. I am just presenting what has been said. I’m not trying to sell anything here. My intention is to stimulate discussion, elicit opinions, and to get a sense of how people, in general are leaning.
Finally, there is https://www.gspellchecker.com/2016/09/d ... #more-4482
This is apparently an Atheistic leaning site and as such, I, an atheist give a certain amount of credibility to. They support the “conventional or main stream explanation for 9-11 and reject the conspiracy- controlled demolition theory and provide a link to the aforementioned . http://www.debunking911.com/index.html. I'm confused
That’s it folks! Have at it .Don’t troll me bro. I’m just the messenger!