The 2006 9/11 Documentary

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Merkava_4, Jun 15, 2013.

  1. Merkava_4, Jun 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2013

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #1

    Video starts at 01:30

    I just found out about this documentary last night as while browsing YouTube. I have always wondered why the World Trade Center Towers collapsed in such a fluid fashion. The video says one of the towers collapsed in 8 seconds and the other tower in 10 seconds. I knew they came down fast, but I had no idea they came down that fast. One of the points the video makes is that a bowling ball thrown off the roof of one of the World Trade Center Towers would take 9.27 seconds to reach the street. A heavy steel structured building collapsing in on itself from just the heat of a fire would take considerably longer than that. After watching the video in its entirety twice, I have to say their version makes a heck of a lot more sense than the official version.
     
  2. macrumors 68030

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #2
    To paraphrase something I say in every one of these kinds of threads, "sense" often has little to do with how things actually work.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    You obviously haven't watched the video and like most people, are afraid of the truth.
     
  4. macrumors 68030

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #4
    I have watched that video and plenty others like it. On the surface they seem to make sense, and yet if you look into the actual science you would realize that in reality they have more holes than the Pope's private Swiss cheese collection.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    I thought the video explained the science very well and that being that the twin towers could not have fallen as fast as they did without the help of some very powerful explosions. They even show you the explosive squibs shooting out the side of the building well ahead of the collapsed portion above.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #6
    That collapsed portion above did come down quite fast and as a result you had both a much faster shockwawes running down the that building and air being compressed quite violently.

    For one reason or another the windows on that level failed much earlier as the ones above (or below) and cloud of dust "explodes" out of them.

    What all these "truthers" videos fail to explain is the motive.

    Sure there might have been the owners screwing the insurance and maybe even some warhawks wanting any excuse to go after .... whom exactly ? Bin Laden family was a close Bush-allie ...

    BUT, all these people would have been able to create a much better lie without all the fuss.


    On the other side, there is the fact that the construction of the WTC was such that a total collapse was unavoidable once a great portion of that central core had been knocked out (for which one fully fulled plane is more than enough).
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    I'll tell you what the motive is: Saddam Hussein was getting ready to sell his oil for Euros; that's a big no-no with the U.S. Government. What do you suppose would've happened if other OPEC countries followed suit? The world would've no longer needed the dollar; they could use currencies that have way more value. As a result, the dollar would've collapsed and consequently, the U.S. society would've collapsed.
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #8
    Well this thread is an amazing load of crazy.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    It's only crazy because you don't want to believe it. Watch the video, it'll enlighten you.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #10
    Erm..... yeah.... so what ?

    So in order to whack Saddam DoubleDumm decided to demolish the WTC implicating on obscure terror-group in Afghanistan ?

    Doesn't add up ......

    If they had a plan to attack Iraq (which I'm sure they had for various reasons) the would have gone about it much smarter.

    You know, setting him up to send a Scud rocket to Kuwait or Israel for example, or propping up kurdish rebells and then rushing to their aid for "humanitaren reasons".
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #11
    Yes and the owner Larry Silverstein couldn't be happier. He was looking at a billion dollars to remove asbestos from the twin towers. By having the twin towers completely obliterated, his insurance payout was 7 billion dollars. He just so happened to upgrade his insurance to cover terror attacks one week before 9/11.
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    latergator116

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    #12
    So the government can orchestrate a massive conspiracy like 9/11 but they can't stop people from posting grainy youtube videos exposing this conspiracy?
     
  13. macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
  14. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #14
    Wow, a 9/11 truther thread 12 years later. Boggles the mind how anyone can believe this tripe.
     
  15. macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #15
    I love how they say "the building shouldn't have collapsed like that!" as if we have multiple examples of a 757 filled with enough fuel for a cross country flight crashing into skyscrapers to compare it to :rolleyes:
     
  16. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #16


    Wake Up, Sheeple!!!1!!!





    ;)

    p.s. Who killed caps-lock? No fun.
     
  17. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #17
    Thank you for enlightening me. I live in this silly world of real science...but total naiveté. It is lucky we have folks to show us the TRUTH of the world of conspiracy.
     

    Attached Files:

  18. macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
  19. macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
  20. macrumors 68020

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #20
    Melting steel, squibs, etc etc:

    All debunked years ago.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center
     
  21. zioxide, Jun 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2013

    macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #21
    You might want to read up on Newton's second law.. you know the whole Force = Mass X Acceleration thing.

    The towers were also designed much different than many other skyscrapers in respect that the outer skeleton actually carried much more of the load of the structure than most normal building designs.

    So, when the 20,000 gallons of jet fuel each of the planes were carrying was ignited, the fires quite easily could get hot enough to weaken steel. As soon as the steel weakened enough, the top of the building started to collapse. So you have all that mass (M) falling down onto the floors below at an increasing acceleration (A), it's pretty damn obvious that the force (F) is going to be massive. That's what caused the pancake collapse.

    If you say a bowling ball takes ~9 seconds to fall that distance, then the towers should take about the same amount of time, not "considerably longer" like you try to claim. That just shows you lack a basic understanding of physics. g (gravitational acceleration) is constant, so it doesn't matter whether you're dropping a 5 pound bowling ball or a 1000 ton skyscraper, they're both going to fall the same distance in the same time. Resistance from the air is pretty much negligible with the bowling ball, and with the building the force is so astronomical the air resistance wouldn't have much effect either. The force of all that concrete and steel collapsing on itself could actually push the air out below it (from in between the floors) at near explosive force anyways.

    The difference in time of the collapses of the two towers is due to the planes hitting at different heights. So the tower that was hit higher up would take a little bit longer to collapse.. but not much. 1-2 seconds is plausible. If the failure point is lower, the distance to fall is lower and the mass is greater (and therefore by definition of F=MA the force is also greater) which both contribute to that building falling faster.

    Not even going to waste my time watching wingnut conspiracy videos, but I could draw in most of the crap they claim as evidence in Adobe After Effects.

    Only 12 years? Don't you know by now that the moon landings were filmed in the desert at Area 51?? :p:p;) Nevermind the fact that the astronauts placed radio reflectors on the moon that we can send a signal to and have it bounce back to us.

    I can't believe I even wasted 5 minutes of my life writing this post...
     
  22. macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Heh. I get the feeling this thread is gonna get good.
     
  23. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #23
    And it doesn't even have to melt the steel..... All it had to do was weaken the remaining structure where it couldn't support the weight of the floors above that section. And we have to remember the Twin Towers were different in construction compared to more traditional buildings. Most of the Twin Towers support structure was external to maximize internal space.

    And a decent chunk of the exterior was wiped out when the planes crashed into the towers....... So the remaining structure had to support the weight of the remaining floors above the impact site while being considerably weakened from the jet fuel, paper, anything that can burn fueled fire.

    Pretty much what zioxide said^^^ :p
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #24
    I must protect my loved ones....
     

    Attached Files:

  25. macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #25
    Popular mechanics has already been mentioned, but they do have a nice book about all this stuff. Read it through before telling us that all of us are afraid of The Truth.

    Also, these threads tend to take the same path, so let me summarize/speed it up for everyone.

    Check this out

    Read this

    This too

    Science

    Yup

    Yeah

    P-Worm
     

Share This Page