Recommend me a great 9/11 online documentary. What is the very best 9/11 documentary?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob Since you don't know basic physics. What this I think shows is NIST did not study the actual collapse mechanisms correctly.

The loud bang heard in the actual collapse video was the support beneath the Penthouse taken out first. Then the Penthouse started falling in.

It could not have happened in the way NIST says any structural distortion or movement of the Penthouse from its original position on the roof, will only occur when the support columns and floors beneath, on floors 42 to 47, have started also to collapse prior to this.

NIST for some reason has done this backwards?

You can see that here they claiming that structural integrity was lost when more of the Penthouse had left the roof and fallen in. Which is nonsensical It's when the Penthouse first started to lose its wholeness is what you actually look at first

Cheerful Spring

King Mob The Penthouse will not move from its original position and start falling away if the support floors and columns are still intact. That just basic physics that you surely can understand?

NIST as far as I am aware doesn't claim the floors from 42 to 47 lost stability. Their model is floor 13 fell, 6 floors beneath floor 13 fell in. Then floors above 13 started to come down and only then did the Penthouse started to come down.

That doesn't make sense. How did architects and engineers not notice that any movement of any kind near the Penthouse means the support floors underneath have lost integrity and are falling away? Did they not notice the floors in the NIST model are still intact when the Penthouse first showed signs of movement downwards?

I can calculate how long it takes an object to fall.
You cannot do this

Also why not email the journal?
I mean I am not taking any of your rants and childish diagrams at all seriously. No one here is.
Why not try with the journal?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I can calculate how long it takes an object to fall.
You cannot do this

Also why not email the journal?
I mean I am not taking any of your rants and childish diagrams at all seriously. No one here is.
Why not try with the journal?

You can calculate how long an object falls and what about it? What are you asking?

I using the NIST model that you support.

If your so interested in objects falling.

You tell me why need NIST model shows it took 20+ seconds when the Penthouse fell for the floors to come down completely inside the building?

You, people, call us childish and loonies, but ignore on the actual video of the collapse, this very same event took less than 5 to 6 seconds.

Will you address this or just going to not debate like you usually do? Or do prefer to engage in ad-hominems instead?

Dohnjoe

On the PC building and upgrading forum they have a questionnaire, would be nice to have one here

1. Do you have an actual credible conspiracy theory with detailed evidence?

That's it.

Of the countless JFK theorists threads I've read, I've never come across any where someone pointed out exactly who did it and how it was done. I've never read a moon hoaxer give the exact studio and dates/times when the "moon landing" was shot. As for the 911 conspiracies, a short vague paragraph or two is the best I've seen here.

The theories themselves are very thin on the ground here or any conspiracy forum, seems to be more about bare-faced denialism and attempts to discredit the facts under the guise of "I'm just asking questions", "what's wrong with questioning the official story", "oh you believe the mainstream media" and other broken-record tropes

I'm interested in it because it shows that you don't understand basic physics.

It's not an ad hominem, as your agrument relies entirely on your own claimed authority and understanding.
However if you lack a basic understanding of what free fall even is, then your authority is utterly meaningless.

You keep avoiding the very simple problem that you could do trivially if you passed a high school level physics class.
But you can't. Because you haven't and you don't understand what you are ranting about.

And I never once called anyone a loonie.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I'm interested in it because it shows that you don't understand basic physics.

It's not an ad hominem, as your agrument relies entirely on your own claimed authority and understanding.
However if you lack a basic understanding of what free fall even is, then your authority is utterly meaningless.

You keep avoiding the very simple problem that you could do trivially if you passed a high school level physics class.
But you can't. Because you haven't and you don't understand what you are ranting about.

And I never once called anyone a loonie.

Kingmob you just seem unable to comprehend what NIST is claiming. You think 3,000 engineers and Architects just signed up to AE11truth to have a party and drinks. These professionals have also noticed the flaws in the NIST study its reason they joined.

You can not ignore the actual video of the collapse as if it's not even relevant or important.

NIST is claiming 47 floors are collapsing before the west corner right started moving down. The allocated 20+ second time for this event. Don't take my word for this, you have their model count the time yourself! If they are claiming it took 20+ seconds for this to occur, then why does this then not match to what can see in the actual collapse? You have eyes this can be done yourself. Stop thinking there some unknown mystery or hidden knowledge that NIST knows that I don't. The released a computer simulation of WTC7 collapse it not up to me to correct their errors.

Lol
Do you think continuing to avoid answering the problem will make it look like you can answer it?
It kind of has the opposite effect.

But my answer to your rants is that you are just wrong because you don't understand things like basic physics.

Also you have not explained why you won't contact the journal with your "discovery".
If the paper is in error and you can show that, then they will publish a retraction.

Cheerful Spring

Truly amazing that you think these graphics by NIST match up with the actual collapse.#



Like I trying to understand how your brain works?

Go on point out where you see this distortion and deshaping on the actual collapse video?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob

That you think this looks like I truly curious why you think that?

Building 7 has collapsed about 8 stories in this image. Do you notice the right wall is straight and the roof is level?




This is NIST version of the same side you looking at in the image above.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob if you want to watch the video if you think I am lying.

Play at 2 minutes 50 seconds

Dan Rather you hear and listen to what he says about the footage.

Again the problem isn't with the NIST, its with you and your demonstrable lack of understanding of physics amoung other things.

Since you can't do something simple like calculate how long it takes for something to fall, do you not think there might be some stuff in a highly technical peer reviewed report that is a bit over your head?

And let's be frank here, Cheerful. Is English your second language? Cause from how indiscpherable some of your sentences are, I think a lot of your problems come from you not understanding some of the things you read...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again the problem isn't with the NIST, its with you and your demonstrable lack of understanding of physics amoung other things.

Since you can't do something simple like calculate how long it takes for something to fall, do you not think there might be some stuff in a highly technical peer reviewed report that is a bit over your head?

I don't honestly I have read the NIST report about WTC7 and I understand it has you?

You don't understand freefall, either did NIST till David Chandler wrote to them and pointed that out to them. So Dohnjoe can blabber on about no official studies dispute NIST findings, but he neglects to mention none of them noticed WTC7 experienced Freefall. It was a truther who noticed it a physics teacher and member of AE11truth.

But how can you understand the NIST report when you aren't an engineer and you can't do a basic physics equation...?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And let's be frank here, Cheerful. Is English your second language? Cause from how indiscpherable some of your sentences are, I think a lot of your problems come from you not understanding some of the things you read...

I understand perfectly nice try with the deflection. Having not good English does not mean you don't understand complex problems and issues. You have good English and you still, have trouble understanding what the issues are or just don't want to know?

It kind of does Cheerful as a lot of the things you are arguing rely on technical language and you seem to jump on turns of phrase and misunderstandings as proof for your rants.

You also avoided the question again.
English is not your first language.
I think this, and you poor grasp of physics have lead you to believe things that are at odds with reality.

Maybe stop ranting at people you long past trying to engage with and apply some critical thought to yourself and your beliefs.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But how can you understand the NIST report when you aren't an engineer and you can't do a basic physics equation...?[/QUOTE

3,000 engineers and architects disagree with the NIST report about WTC7, are you going to claim they don't understand the NIST report?

Yup.
You're not an engineer or able to do basic physics though.
Yet you expect people yo believe you understand it?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

It kind of does Cheerful as a lot of the things you are arguing rely on technical language and you seem to jump on turns of phrase and misunderstandings as proof for your rants.

You also avoided the question again.
English is not your first language.
I think this, and you poor grasp of physics have lead you to believe things that are at odds with reality.

Maybe stop ranting at people you long past trying to engage with and apply some critical thought to yourself and your beliefs.

You don't apply critical thinking at all and you still avoided talking about the images I showed you again. Why do the NIST images not match the actual collapse? Until you answer that I can't take you seriously at all. Your opinion about me is irrelevant, talk about the issues, not the person.

Lol I'm avoiding stuff?

My answer is that you don't understand basic physics and engineering and you don't understand the report.
I've been very clear on that.

Again how long would it take for an object to fall from the roof of WTC7?
If you can't answer this basic question why should anyone take you seriously?

I'm done responding until you answer it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yup.
You're not an engineer or able to do basic physics though.
Yet you expect people yo believe you understand it?

I Have good enough intelligence to understand what the complaints are. Maybe you should worry more about your own intelligence? That you seem unable to comprehend what happening maybe your just not that bright as you think you are?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol I'm avoiding stuff?

My answer is that you don't understand basic physics and engineering and you don't understand the report.
I've been very clear on that.

Again how long would it take for an object to fall from the roof of WTC7?
If you can't answer this basic question why should anyone take you seriously?

I'm done responding until you answer it.

That would have to be measured obviously it is a 47-floor building. Their empty space ( air resistance) when you let an object fall off the roof to the ground.

Is this a serious question?

Cheerful Spring

Next answer my question?

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That would have to be measured obviously it is a 47-floor building. Their empty space ( air resistance) when you let an object fall off the roof to the ground.

Is this a serious question?

Lol yes, it's a serious question.
Let's assume a vacuum and a point mass as the numbers don't have to be too precise, and we should make it easier for you.

Please show your math and give an answer in seconds.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol yes, it's a serious question.
Let's assume a vacuum and a point mass as the numbers don't have to be too precise, and we should make it easier for you.

Please show your math and give an answer in seconds.

Kingmob avoids answering my question again. It very depressing that you can even answer one question.

Why you here, what do you hope to gain? You don't want to debate the issues just be honest?

The only thing affecting an object is air resistance if there is any. Lighter or heavy objects will fall at the same rate that how gravity works on planet Earth.

I don't understand what you even demanding to know here? You talk about my English, but you waffle here asking for a vacuum and point of mass? What has this to go to with freefall occurring inside the interior of WTC7?

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob avoids answering my question again. It very depressing that you can even answer one question.

Lol. :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The only thing affecting an object is air resistance if there is any. Lighter or heavy will fall at the same rate that how gravity works on planet Earth.

Yes. Correct.

So how long would it take an object to fall from the top of WTC7?

but you waffle here asking for a vacuum and point of mass? What has this to go to with freefall occurring inside the interior of WTC7

Vacuum and point mass are physics terms. People generally assume that things are in a vaccum and that the objects in question are just points when they are doing high school level problems.
Again, you claim to understand high level engineering, so I wrongly assumed that you would understand these terms. I will simplify for you.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. :rolleyes:

Yes. Correct.

So how long would it take an object to fall from the top of WTC7?

I don't know why you have lol this is your second post now and third overall and you have not talked yet about what I posted.

The principle is different there are floors stacked on floors inside WTC7. An object can't just fall through if their structural resistance underneath.

Will you answer my question now or we going to continue playing silly games?

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The principle is different there are floors stacked on floors inside WTC7. An object can't just fall through if their structural resistance underneath.

We're not discussing the particulars of the event, we are trying to establish that you can do high school level physics.
It seems that answer to that right now is: No, you cannot.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Will you answer my question now or we going to continue playing silly games?

I am not going to engage until you provide an answer to the simple physics problem i've been asking for pages.

Otherwise you can admit you cannot do it.

How many seconds would it take an object dropped from the roof of WTC7 to hit the ground?

Dohnjoe

I think I'm gonna go read that report on the Lockerbie disaster, and if there is anything that I don't understand, or I don't get then I will be 100% convinced that it wasn't a terrorist attack. I don't give a **** what happened, it just definitely isn't what the report says it is. Why reach out to them for answers to my questions or go to relevant forums? I'll just go to conspiracy theory forums, those are a bastion of skeptical thinking, solid science, reason and rationale

I mean I'm not an expert, but these individuals who actually investigated the attack, who have examined the evidence, who've worked in their fields for decades, who have reached consensus with the other experienced investigators working on the case, as well as corroborating other sources of intelligence and information.. what do they know? my layman's "hunch" is as good as theirs

Anyway I've seen a few out of context conspiracy videos on the internet by people I don't know - I value their opinion more. One of those people even has a PhD, so they must know what they are talking about

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

We're not discussing the particulars of the event, we are trying to establish that you can do high school level physics.
It seems that answer to that right now is: No, you cannot.

I am not going to engage until you provide an answer to the simple physics problem i've been asking for pages.

Otherwise you can admit you cannot do it.

I don't care what your trying to establish your debating style is rubbish. I hope people are seeing how this guy, i assume is a guy debates 9/11.

Three times now I have answered you.

You asking me to calculate an object rate of speed when its thrown off the roof at WTC7? And What you think this will even show explain yourself? Why do you think this is important and has any bearing on freefall having happened inside WTC7?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob There three stages occurring in WTC7 collapse.

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Kingmob this what you have to calculate
At this rate, the object that was thrown from the roof is travelling at the same rate as the collapse!

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity



You just want to ignore this and talk about something that shows absolutely nothing. The calculation will only be the speed an object falling off the roof and meeting no resistance but air. That did not happen in WTC7

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Three times now I have answered you.

Where? You have not once provided a figure for an answer to the problem.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You asking me to calculate an object rate of speed when its thrown off the roof at WTC7? And What you think this will even show explain yourself? Why do you think this is important and has any bearing on freefall having happened inside WTC7?

It's relevant because it's showing that you don't know thing one about physics.

You are unable to do a simple equation.

As for why the answer itself is relevant, there's not much point getting into it, as it requires you to understand the level of physics this problem requires.

Give us a number, in seconds and show how you worked it out, then we can move on.
Otherwise, you can come clean and admit that you are unable to do the problem.

Beyond that, there's no point in engaging your points, and you are just making a show of yourself by whinging and avoiding a problem you could have easily googled at this stage...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Where? You have not once provided a figure for an answer to the problem.

It's relevant because it's showing that you don't know thing one about physics.

You are unable to do a simple equation.

As for why the answer itself is relevant, there's not much point getting into it, as it requires you to understand the level of physics this problem requires.

Give us a number, in seconds and show how you worked it out, then we can move on.
Otherwise, you can come clean and admit that you are unable to do the problem.

Beyond that, there's no point in engaging your points, and you are just making a show of yourself by whinging and avoiding a problem you could have easily googled at this stage...

You asking me to solve a problem that doesn't even need to be addressed. What don't you understand? Do you not understand gravity acts differently when there resistance in place? Outside the building is just air resistance it's empty space. Inside a building, you got floor resistance, steel columns, office furniture and so on. An object just can't fall down and keep going if there something in the way do you not get that?

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you not understand gravity acts differently when there resistance in place?

Lol, that's not how gravity works at all.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob. Since your so clever should have noticed that.

NIST said
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Which means your object that fell off the roof was travelling faster than stage 1 and 2 of the collapse. Gravity doesn't slow down objects it accelerates objects. So WTC7 was travelling 3 seconds slower than gravity (freefall)

Can you answer my question are you going to keep on with these silly games?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, that's not how gravity works at all.

Are you trying to annoy me? It how gravity works in a building with structural resistance.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob. Since your so clever should Gravity doesn't slow down objects it accelerates objects. So your object was travelling 3 seconds slower than gravity (freefall)

Can you answer my question are you going to keep on with these silly games?

You can't "travel slower than gravity" that literally makes no sense.
Again, that's not how gravity works.

This question is not silly games, it's a simple question that shows how utterly ignorant you are of physics.
Now, in your attempts to sound clever while avoiding a high school problem, you are revealing even more ignorance and it's really, really funny.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You can't "travel slower than gravity" that literally makes no sense.
Again, that's not how gravity works.

This question is not silly games, it's a simple question that shows how utterly ignorant you are of physics.
Now, in your attempts to sound clever while avoiding a high school problem, you are revealing even more ignorance and it's really, really funny.

Oh my god in a building gravity works differently. Outside it just air and emptiness there nothing stopping the object from coming straight down to the ground.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Are you trying to annoy me? It how gravity works in a building with structural resistance.

Gravity does not "behave differently".

This may be because English is not your first language, but saying this thing is abject nonsense that is not at all how you can describe something in physics.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Oh my god in a building gravity works differently.

Yup. Point proven...

You do not understand physics.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yup. Point proven...

You do not understand physics.

I have a headache trying to explain this to you.

Just concentrate on what NIST is saying occurred ok

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

You notice they said for 1.75 seconds the collapse was slower than freefall ( which is slower than that of gravity? Do you not understand that means for 1.75 seconds your object outside was not travelling at the same speed, it was travelling faster?

It's the same principle as stage 2

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Cheerful Spring

King Mob please now answer my question and stop trying to deflect.


You have to implant in your head mate resistance affects the acceleration of gravity. Gravity does not itself change but when an object hits something gravity can not accelerate the object any longer.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob please now answer my question and stop trying to deflect.

Ok, it's simple.
You don't understand physics or engineering or the report, and you don't actually understand the problems you are finding and creating them from you lack of understanding.

That's my answer to pretty much every point you've made.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, it's simple.
You don't understand physics or engineering or the report, and you don't actually understand the problems you are finding and creating them from you lack of understanding.

That's my answer to pretty much every point you've made.

Whatever makes you sleep at night. I have answered your question.

Please have the decency to answer mine?


If you don't just leave the thread and let others debate the subject in peace or make your own thread

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Whatever makes you sleep at night. I have answered your question.

Please have the decency to answer mine?


If you don't just leave the thread and let others debate the subject in peace or make your own thread

But I did answer your question. I've given my answer several times directly.
My answer is: You just don't understand physics or engineering or the NIST report.

You have not once answered the question set to you. The only answer you could have provided was a number in seconds. But you can't do this because you don't understand high school physics. You embarassed yourself further by showing how little about physics you actually understand as you don't seem to know how gravity works.
You are too dishonest to man up and admit that.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, it's simple.
You don't understand physics or engineering or the report, and you don't actually understand the problems you are finding and creating them from you lack of understanding.

That's my answer to pretty much every point you've made.

"I selectively don't understand something therefore the whole thing is a conspiracy"

In my opinion there have been several signs that this isn't a simple misunderstanding, it's all very deliberate

What an incredibly dishonest type of thinking to engage in.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"I selectively don't understand something therefore the whole thing is a conspiracy"

In my opinion there have been several signs that this isn't a simple misunderstanding, it's all very deliberate

What an incredibly dishonest type of thinking to engage in.

It's also the reason that none of them want to actually put forward an alternative. They know their positive beliefs wouldn't hold up to basic questions, never mind the level of nitpicking they level at the real explanation.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But I did answer your question. I've given my answer several times directly.
My answer is: You just don't understand physics or engineering or the NIST report.

You have not once answered the question set to you. The only answer you could have provided was a number in seconds. But you can't do this because you don't understand high school physics. You embarassed yourself further by showing how little about physics you actually understand as you don't seem to know how gravity works.
You are too dishonest to man up and admit that.

Only person embarrassing himself is you. You don't know the NIST study even though you support it. You don't understand how motion and gravity are affected by resistance in buildings.

The object would have travelled 2.4 seconds at the same speed as the collapse under freefall conditions.

The building fell in 5.4 seconds. So 3 seconds was less than gravity. So the object
your so interested in would have likely fallen in 6 to 7 seconds under freefall conditions

How long would it take for an object thrown from a 47 roof to fall if we wanted to be more accurate?

You have to measure the distance travelled, the speed, and the time it took. There is a math equation for that to be done accurately. Are you really asking me to do the math?

Please answer my question.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

It's also the reason that none of them want to actually put forward an alternative. They know their positive beliefs wouldn't hold up to basic questions, never mind the level of nitpicking they level at the real explanation.

I swear I live on a different planet. Are you stuck in the twilight zone?

How can you think that the first image in any way resembles the actual collapse video?. Do you think NBC news was broadcasting a false image of WTC7 collapse on 9/11?




Can you not see the place position of the right wall and the roof here as it's falling?