Anonymous no action 9/11

weisses

weisses wrote: »

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

Nowhere in the section you quote does it explain where the theory is impossible or implausible.
And your personal incredulity does not carry much weight given your poor grasp of physics.

And most importantly, it does not explain at all why the building fell with reduced acceleration.

weisses wrote: »

I also tried answering your questions here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86250813&postcount=18

So you are sticking to the explanation that for the first few second it was "building up momentum" even though I've just explained why that's based on a poor understanding physics?:rolleyes:

Momentum and acceleration are not the same thing. Building up momentum does not result in increased acceleration.
If the collapse had not met any resistance at the start, it would have experienced gravitational acceleration from the start. It does not require time to get up to an acceleration of 9.8 metres per second squared unless there is a force acting against gravity, such as resistance from a building.

weisses wrote: »

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 questions

First, no one claims that's what happened. It's a strawman that has been corrected to you dozens of times.
Fire caused one column to fail, this started a partial collapse which spread the load of the building to the other supports which were unable to take it and subsequently failed at different times over a few seconds.

The only way you can propose this as the official story is because you either don't know what the official story actually says or you are being deliberately disingenuous.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Momentum and acceleration are not the same thing. Building up momentum does not result in increased acceleration.
If the collapse had not met any resistance at the start, it would have experienced gravitational acceleration from the start. It does not require time to get up to an acceleration of 9.8 metres per second squared unless there is a force acting against gravity, such as resistance from a building.

First, no one claims that's what happened. It's a strawman that has been corrected to you dozens of times.
Fire caused one column to fail, this started a partial collapse which spread the load of the building to the other supports which were unable to take it and subsequently failed at different times over a few seconds.

The only way you can propose this as the official story is because you either don't know what the official story actually says or you are being deliberately disingenuous.

No The whole building fell instantly .. Not at different times over a few seconds

That still leaves my question open ... On every video you can see the whole building falling/failing at once ... not in stages (except for the penthouse)

What mechanism caused the whole building to collapse instantly ?

All the (at least) outer columns from north/south east/west gave way within a fraction of a second as i seen on every video (almost symmetrical fall of the building)

Its difficult to answer i know ... even NIST had to fabricate a computer model to show its version

weisses

weisses wrote: »

No The whole building fell instantly .. Not at different times over a few seconds

That still leaves my question open ... On every video you can see the whole building falling/failing at once ... not in stages (except for the penthouse)

What mechanism caused the whole building to collapse instantly ?

All the (at least) outer columns from north/south east/west gave way within a fraction of a second as i seen on every video (almost symmetrical fall of the building)

Its difficult to answer i know ... even NIST had to fabricate a computer model to show its version

Again, you are insisting on strawmen that I've already addressed.

First the building didn't start falling instantly. It fell at a reduced acceleration due to it overcoming the resistance below it (again this is the only explanation available and your alternative is based on a poor understanding of basic physics terms). This is what the figures you constantly repeat state.

It didn't fall all at once. Even if we artificially exclude the fact that penthouse collapsed first (again which you cannot provide an alternative explanation for) we can see in the pictures and videos that it buckles in the middle and tilts backwards, this can be only caused by asymmetric failures.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you are insisting on strawmen that I've already addressed.

So you cannot answer my simple question ...

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

And as is shown below .. the building did fell instantly and not in a progressive fashion lasting several seconds

King Mob wrote: »

First the building didn't start falling instantly. It fell at a reduced acceleration due to it overcoming the resistance below it (again this is the only explanation available and your alternative is based on a poor understanding of basic physics terms). This is what the figures you constantly repeat state.

So where did the resistance go after the first two seconds .. just to brush me up on my poor understanding of physics as you are repeatedly stating

King Mob wrote: »

It didn't fall all at once. Even if we artificially exclude the fact that penthouse collapsed first (again which you cannot provide an alternative explanation for) we can see in the pictures and videos that it buckles in the middle and tilts backwards, this can be only caused by asymmetric failures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

Its gonna be your 10000 post ........ make it one to remember :-)

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So you cannot answer my simple question ...

I didn't answer your question because I explained how it was a strawman. I don't particularly feel the need to explain why 70 columns could collapse all at once because that's not what I or the NIST are arguing happened.

weisses wrote: »

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

Because, again, the first section of the collapse where the building is falling at a lesser acceleration is it overcoming the supports and resistance of the lower portion of the building so it can fall at free fall acceleration.

It didn't just disappear, it just was no longer supporting that section of the building after it failed, then once it all started to hit the ground it caused something of a pile up resulting in the second stage of resistance.

weisses wrote: »

And as is shown below .. the building did fell instantly and not in a progressive fashion lasting several seconds

Sure, if we exclude the penthouse collapsing. And the various distortions and tilts of the building. And the figures that your continually quote that state that the building did not fall at free fall acceleration for a few seconds.

weisses wrote: »

So where did the resistance go after the first two seconds .. just to brush me up on my poor understanding of physics as you are repeatedly stating

The resistance was from the over stressed supports and columns bending and breaking, then eventually failing entirely which left them unable to offer resistance.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I didn't answer your question because I explained how it was a strawman. I don't particularly feel the need to explain why 70 columns could collapse all at once because that's not what I or the NIST are arguing happened.

I argue and showing it happened ... So you cannot form your own opinion without the NIST report beside you for guidance ? ...

King Mob wrote: »

Because, again, the first section of the collapse where the building is falling at a lesser acceleration is it overcoming the supports and resistance of the lower portion of the building so it can fall at free fall acceleration.

Okay ... Is it normal when a building collapses that there is zero nil nada resistance from the 47 stories below ?

King Mob wrote: »

It didn't just disappear, it just was no longer supporting that section of the building after it failed, then once it all started to hit the ground it caused something of a pile up resulting in the second stage of resistance.

So "not supporting" equals free fall speed now ?

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, if we exclude the penthouse collapsing. And the various distortions and tilts of the building. And the figures that your continually quote that state that the building did not fall at free fall acceleration for a few seconds.

You don't have to exclude anything ... the videos speak for themselves

But it did reach free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds ... how is that possible with 47 stories of concrete and steel giving resistance ??

King Mob wrote: »

The resistance was from the over stressed supports and columns bending and breaking, then eventually failing entirely which left them unable to offer resistance.

So they magically disappeared and allowed for the building to reach free fall acceleration ??

Stubborn little office fires

Even NIST stated first that free fall acceleration wasn't possible but had to back pedal when confronted with facts

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I argue and showing it happened ... So you cannot form your own opinion without the NIST report beside you for guidance ? ...

Okay ... Is it normal when a building collapses that there is zero nil nada resistance from the 47 stories below ?

So "not supporting" equals free fall speed now ?

You don't have to exclude anything ... the videos speak for themselves

But it did reach free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds ... how is that possible with 47 stories of concrete and steel giving resistance ??

So they magically disappeared and allowed for the building to reach free fall acceleration ??

Stubborn little office fires

Even NIST stated first that free fall acceleration wasn't possible but had to back pedal when confronted with facts

Weisses I've answered this points several times now. You are not going to listen if I restate them.

So why not move on.
What are the alternative explanations for all of these things?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Weisses I've answered this points several times now. You are not going to listen if I restate them.

No you said

I didn't answer your question because I explained how it was a strawman. I don't particularly feel the need to explain why 70 columns could collapse all at once because that's not what I or the NIST are arguing happened.

I asked How a 47 story skyscraper can collapse due to office fires with ZERO resistance reaching gravitational acceleration.

You are not answering any questions ... fine by me but at least say you don't know how the physics involved in a building falling like that actually work .... I don't understand it either, but i don't pretend to know it

And how was it a strawman ?

King Mob wrote: »

So why not move on.
What are the alternative explanations for all of these things?

You/NIST cannot even give a proper explanation for the official story Lets address these things first , before we move on to alternative explanations

weisses

weisses wrote: »

You/NIST cannot even give a proper explanation for the official story Lets address these things first , before we move on to alternative explanations

Trying to address those things just goes around in circles.

So I would like to discuss alternative explanations, or more specifically the lack of alternative explanations.

Do you believe that the explanation that the building was demolished purposefully is more plausible than the official story?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Trying to address those things just goes around in circles.

You need a begin for a circle ... Again show me the physics involved in how a 47 story skyscraper can collapse due to office fires with ZERO resistance reaching gravitational acceleration.

I go in circles asking you this but so far don't get an answer ? .. Why these games ?? as you seem to know it

I looked at ct websites .. the debunk er websites and cannot find an answer to that question

King Mob wrote: »

So I would like to discuss alternative explanations, or more specifically the lack of alternative explanations.

I like to continue the discussion about the original explanation because its full of holes Me nor you are able to explain so far

King Mob wrote: »

Do you believe that the explanation that the building was demolished purposefully is more plausible than the official story?

Even the official story is rightfully challenged by different people

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

The fact there is no alternative explanation at hand so far doesn't mean we have to take the official story as gospel

weisses

weisses wrote: »

The fact there is no alternative explanation at hand so far doesn't mean we have to take the official story as gospel

It doesn't. But there is no alternative explanation that indicates a conspiracy. Yet there are many people here and on site like the above who allege a conspiracy.
I do not understand why you reject the official story because of the flaws you think exist but you do not object to the conspiracy theories and alternate explanations given that they are even more flawed and lacking than you believe the official story is.

Do you believe that the people who claim the towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition are just as mistaken as I am?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It doesn't. But there is no alternative explanation that indicates a conspiracy. Yet there are many people here and on site like the above who allege a conspiracy.

There are many ... many resources online that indicate a conspiracy

King Mob wrote: »

I do not understand why you reject the official story because of the flaws you think exist but you do not object to the conspiracy theories and alternate explanations given that they are even more flawed and lacking than you believe the official story is.

Because imo the official story/investigation lacks the scientific approach to believe everything it states

The fact many parts of the NIST report are not verifiable by peers .. something that is accepted here as a minimum for it to have any validity

I am not even saying the NIST report is wrong in everything ... but there is no transparency and valid questions are raised regarding methods used

King Mob wrote: »

Do you believe that the people who claim the towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition are just as mistaken as I am?

I always distanced myself from the twin towers because there were 2 planes flown into it ..

I am not saying you nor those people are mistaken.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

There are many ... many resources online that indicate a conspiracy

Because imo the official story/investigation lacks the scientific approach to believe everything it states

The fact many parts of the NIST report are not verifiable by peers .. something that is accepted here as a minimum for it to have any validity

I am not even saying the NIST report is wrong in everything ... but there is no transparency and valid questions are raised regarding methods used

And all of the conspiracy theories actually are unverifiable and rely on incredibly shoddy science when someone attempts to offer an explanation.

So you should hold all of the conspiracy theories with the same level of skepticism as you do with the official story, correct?

weisses wrote: »

I always distanced myself from the twin towers because there were 2 planes flown into it ..

I am not saying you nor those people are mistaken.

So what about building seven?
Do you think that the theory that it was brought down by a controlled demolition is more, less or just as plausible as the official story?

3DataModem

I believe there's some pretty solid math here;

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And all of the conspiracy theories actually are unverifiable and rely on incredibly shoddy science when someone attempts to offer an explanation.

That is incorrect .. i asked you in other threads what was wrong with some of the points raised by other people ... you couldn't answer what they did wrong

And its a bit strange saying CT ers use shoddy science when you have to agree according to your own standards the NIST report is unscientific and is full with shoddy science itself

King Mob wrote: »

So you should hold all of the conspiracy theories with the same level of skepticism as you do with the official story, correct?

I certainly do with most of them ... I think you cannot find many threads where i defend this/them

King Mob wrote: »

So what about building seven?
Do you think that the theory that it was brought down by a controlled demolition is more, less or just as plausible as the official story?

As i said before .. I don't know ...What i do believe is that the NIST report is not a scientific report and is full of inconsistencies which are regularly challenged . And as a person who is in favor of peer reviewed reports/studies/investigations i honestly thought you would do too

weisses

3DataModem wrote: »

I believe there's some pretty solid math here;

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

That is not regarding building 7

We talk about the free fall acceleration building 7 experienced when it collapsed

weisses

weisses wrote: »

That is incorrect .. i asked you in other threads what was wrong with some of the points raised by other people ... you couldn't answer what they did wrong

And its a bit strange saying CT ers use shoddy science when you have to agree according to your own standards the NIST report is unscientific and is full with shoddy science itself

But you agree that there is no viable, supported alternate explanation for any of the inconsistencies you think exist in the official story.

weisses wrote: »

I certainly do with most of them ... I think you cannot find many threads where i defend this/them

And my point is that I cannot think of any threads were you attack those theories as much as you do with the official story.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But you agree that there is no viable, supported alternate explanation for any of the inconsistencies you think exist in the official story.

No i never said that ... don't claim things i never said in the first place ...

The NIST report lacks all the markers to be called scientific, if i were you i should focus more on that point then looking for a "supported alternate explanation"

King Mob wrote: »

And my point is that I cannot think of any threads were you attack those theories as much as you do with the official story.

The official story is full of holes ... I honestly don't see any point in going after all the CT stuff out there

And does it require for me to challenge them ?

I don't feel the need to "attack" Most CT stuff ... its to easy and not worth my time

I did challenge RTDH though on some threads ... he couldn't care to respond

A Primal Nut

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.

How do you know Anonymous haven't tried? Off the top of my head I know they hacked into the CIA website, not sure if they got any further.

Wikileaks tried their best to prove the 9/11 conspiracy theory and so far failed miserably. Not a single bit of evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy in all the documents that it leaked.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

No i never said that ... don't claim things i never said in the first place ...

Can you provide some examples of alternative explanations for inconsistencies in the official story that hold up to scrutiny?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Can you provide some examples of alternative explanations for inconsistencies in the official story that hold up to scrutiny?

Don't you need an official story that is up for scrutiny to do that ?

Why compare something with the NIST report ? what in itself is an unscientific fabricated report ?

weisses

A Primal Nut wrote: »

How do you know Anonymous haven't tried? Off the top of my head I know they hacked into the CIA website, not sure if they got any further.

So the data regarding an alleged conspiracy in any form could still be there at Langley ?!

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Wikileaks tried their best to prove the 9/11 conspiracy theory and so far failed miserably. Not a single bit of evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy in all the documents that it leaked.

Same goes here the fact they couldn't find it doesn't mean its not there

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Don't you need an official story that is up for scrutiny to do that ?

Why compare something with the NIST report ? what in itself is an unscientific fabricated report ?

No you don't. I am not asking you to compare anything to anything.

You disagreed with my statement that you did not believe there was no viable, supported alternate explanation for any of the inconsistencies you think exist in the official story.

So can you please provide an example of a viable, supported alternate explanation for any of the inconsistencies you think exist in the official story?

Brown Bomber

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Wikileaks tried their best to prove the 9/11 conspiracy theory .

Can you support this claim?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

and so far failed miserably. Not a single bit of evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy in all the documents that it leaked.

What evidence would you expect to find?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No you don't. I am not asking you to compare anything to anything.

So your basically saying that the official story can be 1000 pages of BS but if there is no alternative explanation for this BS the official story is correct and accurate ?

King Mob wrote: »

So can you please provide an example of a viable, supported alternate explanation for any of the inconsistencies you think exist in the official story?

Okay what do you consider viable?

And secondly the biggest possibly inconsistencies are in the official story/report itself because its unverifiable, documents are withheld and parameters/methods used to reach the official story are also not available for a possible peer review

I think the A&E documentary has plenty of concern and provide alternate explanations ... If you want we can go over them 1 at a time so you can debunk them.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So your basically saying that the official story can be 1000 pages of BS but if there is no alternative explanation for this BS the official story is correct and accurate ?

No that's not what I'm saying at all.
If the offical story was 1000 pages of bull**** and there was no alternative explanation then that just means there's no reason to believe there was a conspiracy.

I'm just asking for examples of alternative explanations that hold up to the scrutiny that you level at the official story because you objected to me stating that there was none.

weisses wrote: »

Okay what do you consider viable?

Theories that are consistent, make sense, don't have any glaring plot holes and don't rely on flights of fancy such as space lasers.

weisses wrote: »

I think the A&E documentary has plenty of concern and provide alternate explanations ... If you want we can go over them 1 at a time so you can debunk them.

Please outline one of these explanations that you think is more likely or more supported than the official explanation.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No that's not what I'm saying at all.
If the offical story was 1000 pages of bull**** and there was no alternative explanation then that just means there's no reason to believe there was a conspiracy

But still the fact remains that there are 1000 pages of BS passing on as an official story ( hypothetically ) which is reason enough for a conspiracy

King Mob wrote: »

I'm just asking for examples of alternative explanations that hold up to the scrutiny that you level at the official story because you objected to me stating that there was none.

Lets give the A&E crowd the same recourses and funding as NIST ..that would be fair ... kinda peer reviewed

NIST claiming initially free fall accelaration wasn't possible is one.

King Mob wrote: »

Theories that are consistent, make sense, don't have any glaring plot holes and don't rely on flights of fancy such as space lasers.

Not Even the NIST report holds up to that standard and that's an Official document

They are changing their own report on an ongoing basis

Quote
Nonetheless, the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001, and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

So all this unverified unscientific "research" with state of the art rigorous computer models leads to a probable collapse sequence .... terrific

http://www.libertariannews.org/2013/01/18/architects-and-engineers-question-the-official-911-story/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk

A few alternative views

Wiesses please pick one specific inconsistency in the official story then show how it is covered with an alternate explanation that indicates that there is a conspiracy.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Wiesses please pick one specific inconsistency in the official story then show how it is covered with an alternate explanation that indicates that there is a conspiracy.

Ill gave you even more

You answered this below when i asked you what you considered Viable.

Theories that are consistent, make sense, don't have any glaring plot holes and don't rely on flights of fancy such as space lasers.

I believe the links i posted are to a great extend dealing with that issue

These links will take you more then an hour to go through because it contains imo a lot of viable explanations ( what you asked for)

Yet somehow you manage to reply back within 8 minutes and ask me to address what is described in the video.

I also replied to more of your points ... care to respond to them as well .. They probably made sense.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I believe the links i posted are to a great extend dealing with that issue

These links will take you more then an hour to go through because it contains imo a lot of viable explanations ( what you asked for)

Yet somehow you manage to reply back within 8 minutes and ask me to address what is described in the video.

Can you outline in your own words what alternate theories are presented in the video?