Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anonymous no action 9/11
Options
-
26-08-2013 6:02am#1Ok we all have watched or heard about the 9/11 conspiracies and at this point its just blatantly obvious that the collapse of WTC 1 2 and 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming at this point. So who can we the people turn to that would have the recourses to dig really deep into this. Well maybe the hacker group anonymous, i mean these guys are world renowned for digging deep, yet we see no action from them on this matter. So if the scientologists warrant action for scamming a few suckers why the hell the lack of action on one of the worlds biggest cover ups. So I guess the question is WHY NO ACTION.Tagged:0
Comments
-
I think there are several reason for this.
First I think that the conspiracies aren't as accepted by as many people as you seem to believe they are.
Second regardless of the truth of the conspiracy it lacks the organisation that would react as Scientology would. Assuming for a moment there was a conspiracy, there is no branch of the government or distinct office specifically to troll and get a reaction out of. If the conspiracy was true, then the best course of action for the conspirators is to simply ignore Anonymous and other activists as it would create the illusion that there is no conspiracy.
So with no one to make funny, exploitable, attention grabbing responses there's no lulz to be had by announcing the "truth" about 9/11 or DDoSing the government.
A third reason is that Anonymous isn't a hive mind or even an organisation. It's basically just a guy throwing up an idea they think would be funny and others jumping onto the band wagon. There's dozens of attempted campaigns by anons. Videos declaring internet war on stuff like Israel or the NSA or capitalism. None of them get very far and never get the media attention that the Scientology thing did (which also lessens the opportunity for lulz).
Also it should be noted that Anonymous didn't actually dig deep with Scientology, they simply gathered and brought attention to the information that was all ready all over the internet (some of it having been there for years.)
A much juicier target for Anonymous would in fact be places like abovetopsecret and infowars and paranoid loudmouths like Alex Jones who would freak out and explode at that type of harassment.
I don't know why they haven't tried yet.0 -
In the real world what is actually blatantly obvious is that the CT 'science' is schoolboy howler mumbo jumbo. Cobbled together by pub 'experts' and is such a dogs dinner of half baked self delusion it actually refutes its own arguments comprehensively.0
-
cabrasnake wrote: »In the real world what is actually blatantly obvious is that the CT 'science' is schoolboy howler mumbo jumbo. Cobbled together by pub 'experts' and is such a dogs dinner of half baked self delusion it actually refutes its own arguments comprehensively.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Bloody pub experts0 -
hydro graphics ireland wrote: »Ok we all have watched or heard about the 9/11 conspiracies and at this point its just blatantly obvious that the collapse of WTC 1 2 and 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming at this point. So who can we the people turn to that would have the recourses to dig really deep into this. Well maybe the hacker group anonymous, i mean these guys are world renowned for digging deep, yet we see no action from them on this matter. So if the scientologists warrant action for scamming a few suckers why the hell the lack of action on one of the worlds biggest cover ups. So I guess the question is WHY NO ACTION.
Below says it all
Ultimately, the budget for the 9/11 Commission was increased to $12 million and they were given 18 months to complete the investigation and issue their report. In comparison, $20 million was spent on the independent Columbia Accident Investigation Board's investigation of the 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster, in which 7 astronauts were killed. This amount does not include an estimated $300 million spent on debris recovery of the space shuttle, nor tens of millions spent by NASA in support of the investigation.
source
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Even the NIST report that came out later is full of holes and lacks the transparency to call it a proper scientific report0 -
Pub experts and fruitcake cranks I forgot to add.
56% of Americans believe in alien abduction
18% believe the sun goes round the earth
6% believe in unicorns.
There's no credible science that the towers were controlled demolitions.
Except in the minds of those who want to believe it has to be true.0 -
Advertisement
-
"There's no credible science that the towers were controlled demolitions."
Really then why did all 3 buildings fall at the rate of free fall. this means that the upper levels met no resistance on the way down. hence explosives must have been used.0 -
Eh, looking at the videos concrete pieces and other debris thrown out of the tower fall faster than the tower, unless these pieces were thrown down or affected by super gravity then they were free falling, and therefore the building was falling at less than free fall acceleration.hydro graphics ireland wrote: »"There's no credible science that the towers were controlled demolitions."
Really then why did all 3 buildings fall at the rate of free fall. this means that the upper levels met no resistance on the way down. hence explosives must have been used.0 -
Useless to reason with so called truthers. Or Liarists as I call them.
Controlled demolition thoroughy debunked in many normal studies.
Schoolby howler 'science' of truthists is risible.
Actually makes them look like deluded eejits.
Mod: Banned0 -
The debri you see in the videos are projectiles from the explosives used. You can clearly see in the videos projectiles traveling horizontally which have been measured to be traveling between 50 and 70 miles per hour and some of these projectiles weighed upwards of 4 tones. Does this not defy newton's law of gravity. You also see a Pyroclastic flow which these phenomenon are typically visible only during volcanic eruptions and controlled demolition of buildings.
Also why was there nano thermite found in the rubble. This is a metastable intermolecular composite, Why was this found somewhere it should have never been.0 -
This is not true.hydro graphics ireland wrote: »Really then why did all 3 buildings fall at the rate of free fall. this means that the upper levels met no resistance on the way down. hence explosives must have been used.
The twin towers and WTC7 all took longer to fall than they would have under free fall.
For example it is often claimed that WTC7 fell in 7 seconds, which is about as long as it takes for something dropped from the roof to hit the ground, thus indicating that it didn't meet any resistance.
However if you look at the unedited video, it's apparent that the building takes upwards of 14 seconds to fall out of view (there is no video footage of it hitting the ground, so the collapse was in total a few seconds more.)
The fact the first "undeniable" piece of evidence you provide is completely untrue and based on something that is essential a lie should tell you the main reason why people aren't as convinced as you are.0 -
Advertisement
-
The free fall argument does not entirely suggest that there was no resistance from the lower floors of course the upper levels came across some resistance but not nearly enough to qualify as a natural collapse. WTC 1 and 2 fell in around 10 seconds when the a natural collapse should of took 40 seconds or more, that is a very big difference. So in actually fact while it was not quite free fall WTC 1 and 2 fell in around 10 seconds this should lead you to believe that there was little to no resistance.0
-
What are you basing these numbers on exactly?hydro graphics ireland wrote: »The free fall argument does not entirely suggest that there was no resistance from the lower floors of course the upper levels came across some resistance but not nearly enough to qualify as a natural collapse. WTC 1 and 2 fell in around 10 seconds when the a natural collapse should of took 40 seconds or more, that is a very big difference. So in actually fact while it was not quite free fall WTC 1 and 2 fell in around 10 seconds this should lead you to believe that there was little to no resistance.
How do you know that the buildings collapsed in 10 seconds?
Why do you think that it should have taken 40 seconds?
What about this video that shows that the tower didn't collapse anyway near 10 seconds?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAYXdafNl6E
And what about the claim about WTC7 falling in 7 seconds? Do you agree with that?0 -
They all just happened to be fired downwards did they?hydro graphics ireland wrote: »The debri you see in the videos are projectiles from the explosives used. You can clearly see in the videos projectiles traveling horizontally which have been measured to be traveling between 50 and 70 miles per hour and some of these projectiles weighed upwards of 4 tones.0 -
huh?0
-
However if you look at the unedited video, it's apparent that the building takes upwards of 14 seconds to fall out of view (there is no video footage of it hitting the ground, so the collapse was in total a few seconds more.)
There is also no video footage of the penthouse collapsing all the way down to ground level ... The most important thing from these videos is that they can determine building 7 reaching partial free fall speed, measured when the visible parts of the building starts falling ... and they calculated that there was free fall speed for a couple of seconds. To achieve that there can be NO resistance .. All the 58 perimeter columns (minus 7 according to NIST) and 25 core columns had to give way simultaneously
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)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
It doesn't matter when the penthouse Disappeared in calculating how long it took for building 7 to come down ... The only evidence is what was visible ... the rest is based on a computer model that couldn't be verified to be accurate0 -
Any chance you're able to explain why the penthouse collapsed suddenly?There is also no video footage of the penthouse collapsing all the way down to ground level ... The most important thing from these videos is that they can determine building 7 reaching partial free fall speed, measured when the visible parts of the building starts falling ... and they calculated that there was free fall speed for a couple of seconds. To achieve that there can be NO resistance .. All the 58 perimeter columns (minus 7 according to NIST) and 25 core columns had to give way simultaneously
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)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
It doesn't matter when the penthouse Disappeared in calculating how long it took for building 7 to come down ... The only evidence is what was visible ... the rest is based on a computer model that couldn't be verified to be accurate
Or explain why the building was falling at less than free fall speeds for the other two stages? What was happening there to slow the building down?
Otherwise your point is you simply going around in circles again and there's no sense in wasting effort watching you chase your tail.0 -
Any chance you're able to explain why the penthouse collapsed suddenly?
It did collapse .. But as i said before there is no evidence as in how far it fellOr explain why the building was falling at less than free fall speeds for the other two stages? What was happening there to slow the building down?
I think you should be worried/question the building reaching free fall speed in the first place
But i can think of an explanation ... In fase one the building is getting its momentum fase two is free fall and fase 3 is the building encountering resistance
If you can explain to me as in how all those 70 or so columns gave way instantly due to office fires alone that would be niceOtherwise your point is you simply going around in circles again and there's no sense in wasting effort watching you chase your tail.
Stick to the points raised ... No interest in petty personal digs0 -
Except that an internal collapse under that point is the only plausible explanation on offer. I have asked you several times to suggest another one, but you are incapable of providing one.It did collapse .. But as i said before there is no evidence as in how far it fell
To suggest that the collapse of the penthouse is totally unconnected to the collapse of the rest of the building means that there must be some other reason for it to have spontaneously collapsed and fall only a few floors.
Until you can provide a plausible reason for this, then the collapse of the penthouse being the start of the collapse is the best explanation and the one I'm going to stick to.
Why? You've yet to explain why this is inconsistent with the official story or model or how it confirms the claims of conspiracy theorists who falsely state the building collapsed completely under free fall speed.I think you should be worried/question the building reaching free fall speed in the first place
And why do you think that being unable to offer an explanation would be an issue for my position? There are dozens of unanswered questions about conflicting ideas in yours, yet you don't seem worried that you are unable to answer these questions.
And thus we see that you don't under stand what acceleration and free fall is.But i can think of an explanation ... In fase one the building is getting its momentum fase two is free fall and fase 3 is the building encountering resistance
You don't build up acceleration. You are either falling at free fall acceleration from the moment your are able to fall or you are falling at less acceleration. (unless you have another force acting downwards on you besides gravity.)
If the building was not falling at free fall speeds in the first section, then it is encountering resistance.
What might cause this resistance?
Making some columns give way perhaps?0 -
Except that an internal collapse under that point is the only plausible explanation on offer. I have asked you several times to suggest another one, but you are incapable of providing one.
To suggest that the collapse of the penthouse is totally unconnected to the collapse of the rest of the building means that there must be some other reason for it to have spontaneously collapsed and fall only a few floors.
Until you can provide a plausible reason for this, then the collapse of the penthouse being the start of the collapse is the best explanation and the one I'm going to stick to.
You are giving what you think is plausible ( not fact)
I am saying there is no evidence in how far the penthouse collapses
I am as much incapable in proving the penthouse only collapsed lets say 3 floors as you are in proving the penthouse dragged the whole building with itWhy? You've yet to explain why this is inconsistent with the official story or model or how it confirms the claims of conspiracy theorists who falsely state the building collapsed completely under free fall speed.
And why do you think that being unable to offer an explanation would be an issue for my position? There are dozens of unanswered questions about conflicting ideas in yours, yet you don't seem worried that you are unable to answer these questions.
Funny you could have said ... I cannot find an answer for this strange fact
but instead of doing your best in answering it you cloud the discussion with even more nonsenseAnd thus we see that you don't under stand what acceleration and free fall is.
You don't build up acceleration. You are either falling at free fall acceleration from the moment your are able to fall or you are falling at less acceleration. (unless you have another force acting downwards on you besides gravity.)
No you reach free fall speed .. When someone jumps from a plane he is not instantly at free fall speed
If not please explain how you think reaching free fall speed works and more important , how can mass reach free fall speed instantlyIf the building was not falling at free fall speeds in the first section, then it is encountering resistance.
What might cause this resistance?
Making some columns give way perhaps?
Again i ask you how can you explain how a building affected by office fires suddenly collapses reaching free fall speed for nearly 2.25 seconds (meaning no resistance at all ) neither from floors nor the 70 plus columns that where supporting the building0 -
It's rather telling of how good your position is when you don't understand the difference between acceleration and speed.Y
No you reach free fall speed .. When someone jumps from a plane he is not instantly at free fall speed
If not please explain how you think reaching free fall speed works and more important , how can mass reach free fall speed instantly
You don't start at free fall speeds.
You start at free fall acceleration, or more technically, acceleration due to gravity. That acceleration brings you up to free fall speed.
Acceleration does not build up unless something is pushing the object down. Acceleration is not momentum.
The section you like to quote specifically states acceleration, not speed.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)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
If the building was accelerating less than acceleration due to gravity then it is encountering resistance.
This first lot of resistance is it breaking all of the supports under it's own weight, then it falls unimpeded for a short time before it encounters the piling up debris and encounters resistance again.
if this is not the case, why was the building experiencing less acceleration?
It did encounter resistance from it's supports.Again i ask you how can you explain how a building affected by office fires suddenly collapses reaching free fall speed for nearly 2.25 seconds (meaning no resistance at all ) neither from floors nor the 70 plus columns that where supporting the building
That resistance accounts for the acceleration less than that of gravity.
So unless you can provide an alternate explanation...0 -
Advertisement
-
It's rather pointless to have this conversation when you don't understand the difference between acceleration and speed.
You don't start at free fall speeds.
You start at free fall acceleration, or more technically, acceleration due to gravity. That acceleration brings you up to free fall speed.
Acceleration does not build up unless something is pushing the object down. Acceleration is not momentum.
The section you like to quote specifically states acceleration, not speed.
If the building was accelerating less than acceleration due to gravity then it is encountering resistance.
This first lot of resistance is it breaking all of the supports under it's own weight, then it falls unimpeded for a short time before it encounters the piling up debris and encounters resistance again.
if this is not the case, why was the building experiencing less acceleration?
It did encounter resistance from it's supports.
That resistance accounts for the acceleration less than that of gravity.
So unless you can provide an alternate explanation...
Those first 1.75 seconds the building was accelerating to free fall speed (without resistance) because if the building would have encountered resistance in those first two seconds it couldn't have reached the eventual free fall speed it experienced for 2.25 seconds.. correct ? because my knowledge is that in order to reach free fall speed the only thing creating resistance is air and not floors and columns buckling
If that is an impossible conclusion please show me where my conclusion is flawed0 -
Your conclusion is flawed because again you are confusing acceleration and speed.Those first 1.75 seconds the building was accelerating to free fall speed (without resistance) because if the building would have encountered resistance in those first two seconds it couldn't have reached the eventual free fall speed it experienced for 2.25 seconds.. correct ? because my knowledge is that in order to reach free fall speed the only thing creating resistance is air and not floors and columns buckling
If that is an impossible conclusion please show me where my conclusion is flawed
The section of the NIST report you like to repeat does not mention speed at all.
It specifically refers to the acceleration in each section.
The building didn't experience free fall speeds for 2.25 seconds it experienced free fall acceleration, or acceleration due to gravity for 2.25 seconds.
Before that it was falling at less than gravitational acceleration. This means that that section of the building was not accelerating towards the ground as much as it would be if it was simply dropped over empty air.
Which means there was something acting in the opposite direction to reduce the acceleration.
The only plausible explanation for this is resistance from the columns as they buckled and broke before finally failing entirely and allowing the building to fall at gravitational acceleration.0 -
The section of the NIST report you like to repeat does not mention speed at all.
Correct they stated "gravitational acceleration" which equals 9.8 m/s2 which equals free fall speed ... correct ?The building didn't experience free fall speeds for 2.25 seconds it experienced free fall acceleration, or acceleration due to gravity for 2.25 seconds.
It experienced gravitational acceleration in other words it was falling at free fall speed for 2.25 secondsBefore that it was falling at less than gravitational acceleration. This means that that section of the building was not accelerating towards the ground as much as it would be if it was simply dropped over empty air.
Which means there was something acting in the opposite direction to reduce the acceleration.
Mass doesn't reach gravitational acceleration instantly ... but in order to reach gravitational acceleration it cannot be slowed down other then air friction ... so your point is muteThe only plausible explanation for this is resistance from the columns as they buckled and broke before finally failing entirely and allowing the building to fall at gravitational acceleration.
physics are disagreeing with you0 -
No 9.8 m/s^2 is not free fall speed. It's not even a speed.Correct they stated "gravitational acceleration" which equals 9.8 m/s2 which equals free fall speed ... correct ?
It is acceleration due to gravity.
It specifically means that your speed is increasing 9.8 metres a second every second.
Speed is not acceleration. This is junior cert physics.
Yes. After experiencing lesser acceleration.It experienced gravitational acceleration in other words it was falling at free fall speed for 2.25 seconds
Again confusing speed and acceleration.Mass doesn't reach gravitational acceleration instantly ... but in order to reach gravitational acceleration it cannot be slowed down other then air friction ... so your point is mute
You are experiencing gravitational acceleration right now. If you stepped off a height you would still experience free acceleration.
Lol...physics are disagreeing with you0 -
No 9.8 m/s^2 is not free fall speed. It's not even a speed.
It is acceleration due to gravity.
It specifically means that your speed is increasing 9.8 metres a second every second.
Which means ........free fallAgain confusing speed and acceleration.
You are experiencing gravitational acceleration right now. If you stepped off a height you would still experience free acceleration.
How would this be possible with a collapsing building full of steal and concrete and other stuff that creates resistance ?
Nice you added that junior cert remark in it ... you couldn't resist could you0 -
Yes. But before that, the building experienced acceleration less than that due to gravity. As in it gained less than 9.8 metres per second of speed every second.Which means ........free fall
The only explanation for this is it encountering resistance from the failing structure.
Your alternative explanation is based on complete lack of understanding about basic physics.
How would what be possible? For it to experience free fall after the structure failed entirely and was no longer able to offer resistance?How would this be possible with a collapsing building full of steal and concrete and other stuff that creates resistance ?
Um... Gravity?
Because you are showing that you do not understand physics terms and concepts that are taught at the junior cert level then claiming a great many things based on this abject ignorance including suggesting that I am getting the physics wrong.Nice you added that junior cert remark in it ... you couldn't resist could you0 -
Because you are showing that you do not understand physics terms and concepts that are taught at the junior cert level then claiming a great many things based on this abject ignorance including suggesting that I am getting the physics wrong.
I do understand this much that when a building collapses there is more resistance then gravity ... The fact you don't address this point says it all i think ... Its also physics
http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/NIST%20WTC%207%20FAQ%20alterations%20revealed.pdf
Starting at page 12
quote
NIST’s response to this is the ‘hollow shell’ hypothesis: there is no structural resistance because there is no resisting structure
Sadly, we have no way of verifying the key
assertions of NIST’s ‘best estimate’ simulation, because its key characteristics, a completely collapsed core and a façade buckling between floors 7 and 14, are almost all hidden from view. Neither does NIST, to the best of my knowledge, cite any witness statements in support of this proposed external column buckling in this region.
Last but certainly not least, there was no physical evidence whatsoever used by NIST to reality check their largely simulation-based hypothesis. As stated in NCSTAR 1A:0 -
No no weisses, you don't get to whinge about me supposedly not answering points then try to change the subject.I do understand this much that when a building collapses there is more resistance then gravity ... The fact you don't address this point says it all i think ... Its also physics
According the to NIST section you repeatedly quote and cling to like the gospel truth states that the section of the building it measured fell at less acceleration than it would have under gravity.
What caused this reduced acceleration?0 -
No no weisses, you don't get to whinge about me supposedly not answering points then try to change the subject.
According the to NIST section you repeatedly quote and cling to like the gospel truth states that the section of the building it measured fell at less acceleration than it would have under gravity.
What caused this reduced acceleration?
I am not changing the subject ...
I asked you from early on ... How can you explain how its possible for a building falling at gravitational acceleration when there should be so much building preventing gravitational acceleration ... It cannot all just disappear
That's why i added the link with the "hollow shell" theory
I also tried answering your questions here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86250813&postcount=18
But in that post i also asked about If you can explain to me as in how all those 70 or so columns gave way instantly due to office fires alone (happened in the first two seconds)
So don't preach to me about not answering questions0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement