9/11 in the Academic Community

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,053
FULL FILM

- A Recent Canadian-produced Study/Documentary;

Examinations of 9/11 study in academia publications from University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, University of Guelph, McMaster University, Trent University, Ryerson, among others.

Here is the website for the project, with links to academic papers and more:
9/11 in the Academic Community « Academia's Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11 – Documentary

This is NOT about how the towers fell, inside jobs, or WTC building 7. - It is specifically an examination of the nature of attention (or lack of attention) that 9/11 as a large-scale world-changing event has received within academic groups, and the trends that seem to exist regarding any sort of academic discussion critical of the Official 9/11 Commission report.

A critique not necessarily on the official story, but rather a critique of western academia. Quite fascinating and relevant imo, regardless of one's views on the event itself:

 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
I've watched a ton of 9/11 conspiracy movies and continue to come to the same conclusion -- the planes crashed. The towers were not demolished with controlled charges. Was this allowed? Was it security failures? I dunno. But it wasn't a manufactured false flag.

With that said, coming from someone that has a diametrically opposite conclusion from Masato Toys @Masato Toys , I can't help but agree here. Thought, and controversial thought, should be at the core of Academia. We should all be forced to stand under scrutiny in these environments.
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,053
Yeah, academics in Political Science, Media Studies, Architecture, Engineering, etc etc should have ALL been looking at the many aspects of that event, writing, debating, critiquing, etc. But no one says shit. And the few who did got reprimanded.

Utter silence.

Same in mainstream media. 15 years and people still won't fuckin touch it in these circles of industry.
 

lookoutawhale

Mammal of the Sea
Jan 20, 2015
4,402
7,298
Masato Toys @Masato Toys have you read Debunking 9/11 Myths by any chance?

It was a compilation created by the website: Popular Mechanics.

I'm wondering if it answers any of the big conspiracy questions people have.


 

Sweets

All Around Dumbass
Feb 9, 2015
8,794
10,053
Masato Toys @Masato Toys have you read Debunking 9/11 Myths by any chance?

It was a compilation created by the website: Popular Mechanics.

I'm wondering if it answers any of the big conspiracy questions people have.


This film fairly well destroys the popular mechanics debunking. In a balanced reasonable manner none of that crazy stuff, just pointing out holes in the narrative and asking questions. It's the TMMAC of 9/11 conspiracy films well worth a watch it's broken into manageable episopdes the 5 hours is just that link..


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
 

lookoutawhale

Mammal of the Sea
Jan 20, 2015
4,402
7,298
This film fairly well destroys the popular mechanics debunking. In a balanced reasonable manner none of that crazy stuff, just pointing out holes in the narrative and asking questions. It's the TMMAC of 9/11 conspiracy films well worth a watch it's broken into manageable episopdes the 5 hours is just that link..


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
does it reference the points in the book?

Have you read it by any chance? If so, what did you think of it.
 

Sweets

All Around Dumbass
Feb 9, 2015
8,794
10,053
does it reference the points in the book?

Have you read it by any chance? If so, what did you think of it.
The film is basically a response to the debunking lobby generally they focus a lot of attention on contentions made by debunkers. Popular mechanics is a prominent one.

For instance they contend that since large multi ton sections of the upper floor were exploded away from the building by many yards, there should not have been energy left to cause the pancake collapse, but it happened. They have academics on there saying that both things happening breaks two laws of Newtonian physics. It's fairly damning.

I haven't read the book though.
 

lookoutawhale

Mammal of the Sea
Jan 20, 2015
4,402
7,298
The film is basically a response to the debunking lobby generally they focus a lot of attention on contentions made by debunkers. Popular mechanics is a prominent one.

For instance they contend that since large multi ton sections of the upper floor were exploded away from the building by many yards, there should not have been energy left to cause the pancake collapse, but it happened. They have academics on there saying that both things happening breaks two laws of Newtonian physics. It's fairly damning.

I haven't read the book though.
There was a bunch of experts on the National Institute of Standards and Technology that looked into the collapse for 3 years and didn't agree with the pancake theory.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

September 19, 2011


8. Why didn’t NIST consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis?

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.









Diagram of the Composite WTC Floor System Credit: NIST


NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

  • the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
  • the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

9. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.
 

lookoutawhale

Mammal of the Sea
Jan 20, 2015
4,402
7,298
cool thanks for the vid.

Personally for me I don't find it believable that Americans wilfully destroyed the towers.

I think its a debate for engineers when it gets down to physics of that degree.

The terrorists also attempted to bring down the world trade centre in 1993, so I believe if there were some bomb blasts it would have been on their part. Maybe there were some terrorist in the towers waiting for the plane to hit and then detonated on other floors.

But I just don't think anyone could keep a secret this heavy. It would be tough to recruit people willing to kill thousands of their own innocent people as some larger patriotic act. And then to keep their mouths shut afterwards when they saw the aftermath. Someone on the inside would feel remorse and talk in some way.
 
Last edited:

FeeO

You're all on steroids.
May 14, 2015
1,289
3,034
The reports actually published that the film covers in the latter half are fascinating
Academic examination of 9/11 interests me in cultural studies, arts etc. I'm curious how that will shape and reshape attitudes, deepen perspectives. That's probably only really starting to happen now, but I've been out of academia for a while.
 

Lord Vutulaki

Banned
Jan 16, 2015
16,651
5,935
Hahaha I like how the "controlled charges " crowd get excited about the towers collapsing in on themselves.

The official story is plausible. What's not so plausible is who the mastermind was behind it. I can only imagine that it was either Mossad, ISI or Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah. That shit needed government backing. My momey is on Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah

Al-Qaeda plotter claims Saudi royals helped fund 9/11 attacks | intelNews.org
 

sparkuri

Pulse on the finger of The Cimmunity
First 100
Jan 16, 2015
38,885
51,256
Best doc I've seen on it.
After a strong stance against conspiracies from JFK to 9/11, I have done a 180 with a lot of apologies.
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,053
LOL @ how fast this thread turned into an argument about collapse physics :D

There is so much more than just that to consider.

Did you guys ever hear of the Toronto Hearings? 4 DAYS of expert testimony before a panel of distinguished judges or whatever. (I think Press4Truth made a HL vid of it that is only an hour or 2 long)

The Commission report doesn't even officially lay the case for who actually was behind the event, that was never proven or even charged properly, yet all of mainstream media and academia just accepted it as History without a blink. The official story ITSELF is by nature its own 'conspiracy theory', with WAY less real evidence for it than the inside job/Mossad theories. Yet the official story bafflingly stands as the absolute benchmark of acceptable reality at Universities and Curriculums all over the world.

This thread is about the CULTURAL STIGMA of 9/11... the fear to discuss it, the various knee-jerk reactions people give when confronted with the issue, the obvious blackouts and censorship of certain ideas in the media, the ridicule and consequences people have had as a result of saying the wrong thing, etc etc etc.

In all rights those of us who were alive and aware during 9/11 are all trauma victims to some degree, the event changed not only our lives but our whole realities, and the collective world. Yet the idea of questioning the official story, which was basically hashed out in a few hours of the event, is still totally taboo.

Why?
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,053
Even Chomsky STFU about it, that fucking traitor

Pre-9/11 Chomsky would have ripped the absolute shit out of the way the mainstream media handled 9/11 and the subsequent WMD invasion of Iraq etc
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,053
Pre-9/11 Chomsky rules. That man was an ass-kicker.

Post 9/11 Chomsky is a stark contrast imo. Somehow he has been silenced, imo not he's a limited hangout/intellectual gatekeeper. None of his sparse and bizarre comments/dismissals of 9/11 match the pattern of his previous works.

Very sad, I used to cheer for him a lot.
 
Jan 21, 2015
3,255
6,053
This is about as far as he got. Case closed, nothing to see here. No reason to expose media war-propaganda and CIA influence like he'd been doing for decades before, etc.

Great work, Noam lol


 

Lord Vutulaki

Banned
Jan 16, 2015
16,651
5,935
LOL @ how fast this thread turned into an argument about collapse physics :D

There is so much more than just that to consider.

Did you guys ever hear of the Toronto Hearings? 4 DAYS of expert testimony before a panel of distinguished judges or whatever. (I think Press4Truth made a HL vid of it that is only an hour or 2 long)

The Commission report doesn't even officially lay the case for who actually was behind the event, that was never proven or even charged properly, yet all of mainstream media and academia just accepted it as History without a blink. The official story ITSELF is by nature its own 'conspiracy theory', with WAY less real evidence for it than the inside job/Mossad theories. Yet the official story bafflingly stands as the absolute benchmark of acceptable reality at Universities and Curriculums all over the world.

This thread is about the CULTURAL STIGMA of 9/11... the fear to discuss it, the various knee-jerk reactions people give when confronted with the issue, the obvious blackouts and censorship of certain ideas in the media, the ridicule and consequences people have had as a result of saying the wrong thing, etc etc etc.

In all rights those of us who were alive and aware during 9/11 are all trauma victims to some degree, the event changed not only our lives but our whole realities, and the collective world. Yet the idea of questioning the official story, which was basically hashed out in a few hours of the event, is still totally taboo.

Why?

It happened a long time ago. People are over it. Most people I've spoken to IRL about it reckon that there is more to it than the official story.

Its more fun making fun of the armchair expert CTers who point to shit like the small explosions and say they it is proof of a controlled demolition when there are other perfectly reasonable explanations like the small explosions being gas lines setting off under the heat of jet fuel buring.

Is it really a taboo subject or does John Citizen no longer give a fuck? IDK
 

BJTT-Geronimo_De_Gato

MEOW
Amateur Fighter
Aug 17, 2015
169
211
Honestly, I think Noam just got old, and lost some of his vigor.
it cant be easy being a counter culture guy at his age. Its takes a lot of energy to suffer the pundits and scrutiny.
 

Sweets

All Around Dumbass
Feb 9, 2015
8,794
10,053
I think its a debate for engineers when it gets down to physics of that degree.
It's actually a fairly simple concept and the pancake theory simply doesn't explain what happened.

The terrorists also attempted to bring down the world trade centre in 1993, so I believe if there were some bomb blasts it would have been on their part. Maybe there were some terrorist in the towers waiting for the plane to hit and then detonated on other floors.

But I just don't think anyone could keep a secret this heavy. It would be tough to recruit people willing to kill thousands of their own innocent people as some larger patriotic act. And then to keep their mouths shut afterwards when they saw the aftermath. Someone on the inside would fe
It's a mad world.
 

Ryann Von Doom

The Man
Jan 28, 2015
5,975
6,901
I've watched a ton of 9/11 conspiracy movies and continue to come to the same conclusion -- the planes crashed. The towers were not demolished with controlled charges. Was this allowed? Was it security failures? I dunno. But it wasn't a manufactured false flag.

With that said, coming from someone that has a diametrically opposite conclusion from Masato Toys @Masato Toys , I can't help but agree here. Thought, and controversial thought, should be at the core of Academia. We should all be forced to stand under scrutiny in these environments.
Building 7 was controlled demo.. and the other two had thermite painted on the beams the week prior.