Spike Lee re-edits 9-11 documentary featuring conspiracy theorists

Building 7.

Don't cancel at all. Watch snd decide if another media icon is unhinged.

"Lee devotes 30 minutes near the very end of his series to relitigating arguments that have been debunked a thousand times," wrote Jeremy Stahl in Slate Magazine.

Next thing you know they will be denying the bombing of the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Iraqi WMDs. When will they ever learn.

Anyone who saw the symmetrical (with obvious roof dipping in line with controlled demolition) collapse of WTC7 into its own footprint at freefall speed, and who doesn't think something is amiss is either willfully ignorant or lacking basic high-school physics knowledge. I would love to know how it was all planned and executed; of course we'll never know.

Anyone who saw the symmetrical (with obvious roof dipping in line with controlled demolition) collapse of WTC7 into its own footprint at freefall speed, and who doesn't think something is amiss is either willfully ignorant or lacking basic high-school physics knowledge. I would love to know how it was all planned and executed; of course we'll never know.

Cool, another conspiracy theorist that JT is willing to give a platform to.

Anyone who saw the symmetrical (with obvious roof dipping in line with controlled demolition) collapse of WTC7 into its own footprint at freefall speed, and who doesn't think something is amiss is either willfully ignorant or lacking basic high-school physics knowledge. I would love to know how it was all planned and executed; of course we'll never know

Not this again. Perdue university did a 7 year study of how the buildings collapsed, hate to say it, but the main cause was physics, when two giant planes filled with jet fuel hit two large towers at a very high velocity, jet fuel spilling all over the place and the intense heat, steel will melt. It’s the law of physics, not a conspiracy theory and reality helps in this overly debunked tragedy. No mystery at all.

Cool, another conspiracy theorist that JT is willing to give a platform to.

Best to get it out in the open.

Let them express their opinions. Given how their brains are wired, they get even more febrile and think those ‘silencing’ them are in on the plot.

Anyone who saw the symmetrical (with obvious roof dipping in line with controlled demolition) collapse of WTC7 into its own footprint at freefall speed, and who doesn't think something is amiss is either willfully ignorant or lacking basic high-school physics knowledge.

I have a BSc. in phsyics, and I don't think that. Nor am I ignorant.

And if you ask me to explain it, I'll point out that there are explanations out there already that explain it way better than I ever could. I'm not going to waste time re-hashing this one for conspiracy theorists.

I just commented to point out that your assertion above fell apart.

Aluminum wings cut through cement and 18 inches of steel like a knife through butter. Hmmmm...

Aluminum wings cut through cement and 18 inches of steel like a knife through butter. Hmmmm...

Oh, you must not have studied physics: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/momentum/u4l1a.cfm

p = m x v

And smart to boot.

and who doesn't think something is amiss is either willfully ignorant or lacking basic high-school physics knowledge

I studied Physics at high school and University. Did your high school physics class teach how buildings collapse in these situations?

Sounds like you stepped into the field of structural engineering in high school physics class.

Impressive stuff.

Spike Lee is being leaned on here by people who have a vested interest in lies. The people who appeared in the interview are professional architects and ENGINEERS who BUILD steel frame buildings of which none have EVER collapsed solely due to fire.

Mr Gage is an architect and designer of steel frame buildings. He is spokesman for a large group of other architects, ENGINEERS, and designers of STEEL FRAME BUILDINGS. At its hottest, jet fuel burns at an open air temperature of ~1800°F (~1000°C) but the BLACK smoke indicates an Oxygen starved fire burning at ~950°F (~500°C) well below ANY possibility of melting the MASSIVE web of thick steel girders even on one floor, much less allowing a steel frame building to collapse as if it had no steel in it at all. Nanothermite (found in ALL dust samples examined), installed during the weeks long unobserved 'electrical rewiring' of the buildings interiors prior to the event, will do exactly this.

The various so-called analyses done as quoted by these 'physicists' prattling here were done ONLY with the distorted and highly edited data provided by NIST. BUILDING SEVEN did not have the sad 'justification' of burning jet fuel for its collapse and, I suspect, our 'expert resident physicists' would answer "Building Seven?". There is way TOO much excluded evidence to provide here and certainly too much detail for the kinds of minds we see commenting on this matter from only what the media has told them. There is also the matter of a total lack of aircraft parts at the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania field.

The list of data excluded from 'official analyses' is five times longer than what was included. But, so many who deny believing, trusting, what the government tells them, believe exactly what the government tells them. That is your average American. If one is truly interested, study the overwhelming data. If not, please shut up. This issue is too important for lazy, mindless people to weigh in with 'official' BS. Steel frame buildings do not FREEFALL. They do not leave rivers of molten metal in subbasements that is still molten weeks later. Understand 'heat' and how easily calculable the relationship between heat in and heat required to do what we saw happen.

And, perhaps, start with Building Seven and the video of the building owner (Silverstein) who doubled the insurance JUST before the demolition saying quite clearly that he ordered it 'pulled'. Or, if'n a 'business' junky, the massive PUTS against American and United airlines entered just prior to the attacks. Or...or...or.... But, please, don't stack high school physics against the people who design and BUILD these types of buildings.

And for those whose minds do not snap shut like blast doors against truth when the controlled media shouts "Conspiracy Theory", look up "Architects and Engineers for 9/11", ya might learn somethin'...and while you're at it, you might check out the actual details of "The Maine", "The RMS Lusitania", "Pearl Harbor", and "The Gulf of Tonkin incident" to see the same trick pulled on us now five times and counting.

Let's cool down and look at some of the facts-

1) Building 7, not hit by an airplane, fell exactly like the twin towers

2) Jet fuel burns at approx. 900 degrees F... Steel melts at approximately 1000-1100 degrees, if the heat is sustained. For those buildings to fall in 7 seconds, the massive solid steel foundational beams would have had to melt, i.e. those beams at the buildings' base. Everyone knows the airplanes hit the upper floors of the twin towers (and of course that no plane hit building 7).

3) As the buildings collapsed, concrete was seen to explode and become reduced to dust.

4) Thermite explosive residue was found in the rubble of the collapse buildings and continued to burn long after the collapse of the buildings.

People can individually make of these facts and others what they like, but to condemn people for asking questions isn't very helpful for understanding what occurred.

Other important relevant issues are what occurred AFTER 9-11, i.e. the invasion of Iraq (no WMD), the Patriot Act, which allowed for the US government to increase surveillance on normal citizens (i.e. checking everyone's email, tracing everyone by their phone, observing them through their laptop camera, etc.

A group of architects and engineers decided to form a group to examine the evidence, and their site can be found here- http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2011153035/

@Legrande, indeed. You can't argue with the blind though. They have an inability to believe their own eyes.

@Legrande, indeed. You can't argue with the blind though. They have an inability to believe their own eyes.

Do tell us more about your high school physics class.

I’m intrigued.

Of course it was a conspiracy. Nobody doubts that. The question is WHOSE conspiracy it was.

One of the few times I find myself agreeing with Bass for Funk. The number of people writing here in support of conspiracy theories should be an indicator as to agendas of the readership in relation other topics. Time to get rid of the comments? Definitely. They serve no purpose...

The real issue here isn’t the credibility of alternative theories, it’s that fascists are censoring Lee’s production. It’s a dangerous precedent.

Let them express their opinions. Given how their brains are wired, they get even more febrile and think those ‘silencing’ them are in on the plot.

This particular poster famously fell for the "Fine People on Both Sides" and "Drink Bleach" hoaxes.

Bldg 7

There, I said it.

Now come the disparaging remarks from the super duper intelligentsia.

My experience is the same people who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy also believe in the Fake Moon Landing conspiracy.

Let them speak. Like the loons who believe in the "good people on both sides" and "drink bleach" hoaxes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

I choose this source simply as it was the first of many that met my search parameters...

Yes, we all know the value of accepting the first thing we find on the internet which agrees with our view. I've looked at PM long ago and it is to 'science' (see e.g.: metallurgy) what Winnie the Poo is to literature. Whatever satisfies your 'parameters' is what you're stuck with unless one investigates without limiting oneself to preprogrammed 'parameters'. Yours seems to have been "What agrees with my own opinion". And, Voila!

@Bjornson

Thank you for finding the exact melting temperature for metals, actually higher than I thought.

@ David Brent

Yes, indeed.

@bob

My experience is the same people who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy also believe in the Fake Moon Landing conspiracy.

Um...a bit confusing here, bob. "...believe in the Fake Moon Landing conspiracy" means the 'conspiracy' is 'fake' or the "Moon Landing" is fake or 'conspiracy' the word is fake or...? How about Mars, bob? Fake? Rovers were so cool that China has joined the conspiracy? Mars is a bit further than the Moon, bob. You realize that, had we not chosen to sacrifice 50,000 people like you in Vietnam, or 250,000 maimed plus all of the resulting post return suicides and lost wealth rather than continue our momentum, we would have permanent observatories and other facilities on our satellite (the Moon, bob) NOW. And, bob, a 'conspiracy' is just two or more Humans working together to commit a 'crime' or are ALL of the people who American 'justice' imprison for 'Conspiracy' every year Not Guilty by reason of 'theory'. Like teaching a card trick to a dog, bob...(see: "Endeavour"). The biggest Human 'conspiracy' of all, bob, is 'Human Reality' and probably the most fake...

Anyone who saw the symmetrical (with obvious roof dipping in line with controlled demolition) collapse of WTC7 into its own footprint at freefall speed, and who doesn't think something is amiss is either willfully ignorant or lacking basic high-school physics knowledge. 

Why would any building collapse at "freefall speed"?

Oops, a typo?

@Legrande

Just a slight adjustment in your m.p.'s:

https://www.onlinemetals.com/en/melting-points

Bob MacaroniToday 08:29 pm JST

One of the few times I find myself agreeing with Bass for Funk. The number of people writing here in support of conspiracy theories should be an indicator as to agendas of the readership in relation other topics. Time to get rid of the comments? Definitely. They serve no purpose...

Who is YOUR boss, Bob? And your comment is self-contradicting, dontcha think? Presumably YOU find "purpose" in commenting here. And no one is defending "conspiracy theories", Bob, just deciding that perhaps we can decide for ourselves WHAT exactly a 'conspiracy theory' is and what is a PERP's attempts at quashing evidence. And if you care to notice, BoF seems unaware that there were THREE buildings demolished that day so 'agendas' is the least of what you might be looking at and 'awareness' of those with whom you agree (and therefore your own) more of a concern. No?

As our only worthy POTUS is reported to have observed, “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” But, of course, that was when 'Marketing' was an 'art' and before it became the 'science' it is today. 'PR', 'marketing', professional liars Boob but, clearly, they know what they are doing, so which are you, 'marketer' or 'mark'? Do go on...

but I just want to say how much I’m enjoying the rebuttals of yet another conspiracy theorist by those who do know something about it.

How trusting. I think you mean, “by those who say they know something about it. “

Big talk is very cheap.

Then there was that BBC reporter on the scene on 9/11 reporting in real time that Building 7 had also collapsed, while Building 7 stood behind him in full view of the camera, perfectly intact. Timing a little off.

How trusting. I think you mean, “by those who say they know something about it. “

Ohh, you may have uncovered a(nother) conspiracy!

Then there was that BBC reporter on the scene on 9/11 reporting in real time that Building 7 had also collapsed, while Building 7 stood behind him in full view of the camera, perfectly intact. Timing a little off.

You've found the smoking gun! Why have you kept this a secret until now?

You've found the smoking gun! Why have you kept this a secret until now?

Its not a secret. I would have thought someone who “knows all about it” would be aware of that. I guess your multiple “degrees” dont stretch that far.

Right. Because on the spot reporting is always 100% accurate. That’s why in, for example, mass casualty events the first reported number of casualties and injuries is never revised up or down. Hint: It almost always is.

But there werent mass building collapses. There were only three. And the reporter reported the collapse of the third one before it actually happened and before anyone realized the building was even “in danger”.

If there were buildings falling down everywhere that day Id give what youre saying some credence. But in the actual circumstances your statement doesnt add up.

Then there was that BBC reporter on the scene on 9/11 reporting in real time that Building 7 had also collapsed, while Building 7 stood behind him in full view of the camera, perfectly intact. Timing a little off.

That's not my recollection. BBC studio reporters said Building 7 had collapsed while a video showing the building standing was playing behind them. But the video was a recording from a short time earlier. (I'll admit my memory isn't perfect, so if you can point me to video of an on-the-spot reporter saying the building had collapsed while it was shown still standing in the same view, please do.)

 jet fuel spilling all over the place and the intense heat, steel will melt. It’s the law of physics

I don't think burning jet fuel is hot enough to melt steel. But the high temperature will weaken the steel and also large variations in temperature at different parts will cause it to distort. I understand the weakening and distortion are considered the main causes of the collapse. (But I'm no expert.)

Actually, no. The BBC were responding to American networks such as CNN which had earlier reported "Building Seven is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing." 

Building Seven is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing." 

Setting aside for the moment your claim about CNN ( it needs verification) I dont understand why Building Seven was expected to collapse. It wasnt hit by a plane ( though note: the twin towers were designed to survive being hit by airliners, but thats a separate issue). Can you name a modern building remotely similar to building seven that collapsed as a result of a fire?

Its not a secret.

Then it's not a smoking gun is it. Just a conspiracy theory.

Setting aside for the moment your claim about CNN ( it needs verification) I dont understand why Building Seven was expected to collapse.

I put the odds at 100 to 1, that this video you're claiming contains the key to it all doesn't actually exist.