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

To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Options
1…4243454748…102

Comments

  • Options
    #1322
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, let's pretend that's true.
    My explanation can't work.

    You don't have to pretend .... your explanation could work ...It only lacks the evidence

    Did he mean pull the building as to demolish it ?

    Could be ... So far (as you just demonstrated)There no definite answer, making it suspect to me


  • Options
    #1323
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    I asked you over and over to present the solid evidence that supports the office fires hypothesis, to this date you have presented nothing, nada ...So yes that is obtuse

    The final investigation report. It's widely accepted, it's findings have been incorporated and hasn't been significantly challenged by any recognised group. There are no credible counter-theories

    The conspiracy theories are a footnote
    I find it suspect ...yes, critical thinking requires that, I find dozens more things suspect regarding 9/11, many of have not been sufficiently explained.

    That's not critical thinking. That's conspiracy thinking. Basically conspiracy theorists decide something is a conspiracy and collect up all the things they find are "suspect", "fishy", "strange", etc to hint at some unspecified vague conspiracy they typically can't support with credible evidence


  • Options
    #1324
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Did he mean pull the building as to demolish it ?

    Could be ...
    But how could it be? You can't answer any of the questions this raises.

    For a start:
    Why did he confess?
    Why did claim that they only decided it to spare further loss of life?
    Why was he talking to a fire chief about it?
    Why did they only decide to demolish it on the day?

    If you don't know the answer to these questions, why then is your explanation still possible?


  • Options
    #1325
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Misrepresentation of the dishonest kind. Again.

    But Chandler proved it right ?

    How did NIST used this in their collapse sequence animation? Did they account for this at all ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Cool.
    How long would it take a ball to fall from the roof of WTC7?

    As I said Chandler did all the calculations ... do you agree or are you reverting back to silly games shouting dishonesty every other post


  • Options
    #1326
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    As I said Chandler did all the calculations ... do you agree or are you reverting back to silly games shouting dishonesty every other post
    But that's not what I asked:
    How long, in seconds, would it take for a ball to reach the ground from the same height as the roof of WTC7?
    It's a very simple question. No point going further if you can't answer it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1327
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But how could it be? You can't answer any of the questions this raises.

    For a start:
    Why did he confess?
    Why did claim that they only decided it to spare further loss of life?
    Why was he talking to a fire chief about it?
    Why did they only decide to demolish it on the day?

    If you don't know the answer to these questions, why then is your explanation still possible?

    Why did he bring it up at all ?

    As to being unable to answer these questions ? You were assuming as well, took about two pages of back and forth and claims of dishonesty and dodging questions thrown at me for you to realize this

    You find it very plausible a conspiracy occurred during 9/11 ..... this could be part of it .... who knows


  • Options
    #1328
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Why did he bring it up at all ?
    You tell us, it's your explanation.
    weisses wrote: »
    As to being unable to answer these questions ? You were assuming as well, took about two pages of back and forth and claims of dishonesty and dodging questions thrown at me for you to realize this

    You find it very plausible a conspiracy occurred during 9/11 ..... this could be part of it .... who knows
    But you've avoided the question again.

    If you can't answer the questions, or any questions about it, why do you believe it?
    Why should anyone accept it as evidence of a conspiracy?
    Why do you believe that your explanation is more plausible than mine or any other explanation?
    Why are you not as dismissive of the confession explanation as you are with mine?


  • Options
    #1329
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not what I asked:
    How long, in seconds, would it take for a ball to reach the ground from the same height as the roof of WTC7?
    It's a very simple question. No point going further if you can't answer it.

    Ohhh the classic backtracking when cornered

    Can you explain why it is relevant ? ... I do know the building only reached free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds


  • Options
    #1330
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    You tell us, it's your explanation.

    But you've avoided the question again.

    Uhh no you assumed it was planned operations that were being pulled

    You do realize that is not true yes ?


  • Options
    #1331
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Why did he bring it up at all ?

    As to being unable to answer these questions ? You were assuming as well, took about two pages of back and forth and claims of dishonesty and dodging questions thrown at me for you to realize this

    You find it very plausible a conspiracy occurred during 9/11 ..... this could be part of it .... who knows

    Wow.

    Do you believe Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 blown up?

    Do you believe that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were blown up?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1332
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I do know the building only reached free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds
    Cool.
    And how long would it take for a ball to fall from the roof of the building?

    Do you think that the building fell in 2.25 seconds?
    If not, why was it not experiencing free fall acceleration for the entire collapse?


  • Options
    #1333
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Uhh no you assumed it was planned operations that were being pulled

    You do realize that is not true yes ?
    Ok, sure, Weisses. Yes. It's impossible that firefighters on the day were planning to fight a fire. :rolleyes:

    Now answer my question please:
    If you can't answer the questions, or any questions about it, why do you believe it?
    Why should anyone accept it as evidence of a conspiracy?
    Why do you believe that your explanation is more plausible than mine or any other explanation?
    Why are you not as dismissive of the confession explanation as you are with mine?


  • Options
    #1334
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The final investigation report. It's widely accepted, it's findings have been incorporated and hasn't been significantly challenged by any recognised group. There are no credible counter-theories

    The conspiracy theories are a footnote

    A stop the BS ..If what I asked is in the final report then point me to the relevant section ... I asked you over and over and yet again you fail to provide the solid evidence you so desire in alt theories

    I know its not in there

    I know the free fall evidence is not properly incorporated in the collapse animation ... I ask you why not ?

    I know the lead investigator said free fall was impossible because of the resistance ... Why did he say that after completion of the report ? ..The report were 200 highly trained experts worked on for years ...

    Do you agree that if they had to allow their computer model to include the free fall acceleration evidence their probable collapse theory would not be supported ?

    That is critical thinking !!

    3 simple questions that should be easily answered ... even from high up the fence


  • Options
    #1335
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cool.
    And how long would it take for a ball to fall from the roof of the building?

    Do you think that the building fell in 2.25 seconds?
    If not, why was it not experiencing free fall acceleration for the entire collapse?

    The building reached free fall acceleration ... That is all that matters I do not think the building fell freefall all the way ( even controlled demolitioned buildings do not behave like that)

    I asked you over and over as to how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?


  • Options
    #1336
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    The building reached free fall acceleration ... That is all that matters I do not think the building fell freefall all the way ( even controlled demolitioned buildings do not behave like that)
    But why wouldn't it fall "freefall" all the way?
    At what point did it undergo freefall?
    The end? The beginning?


  • Options
    #1337
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Even worse there is evidence stating the opposite of what you assume
    A lie and more dodging of questions.


  • Options
    #1338
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, sure, Weisses. Yes. It's impossible that firefighters on the day were planning to fight a fire. :rolleyes:

    No ..Your assumption is impossible because it lacks the supporting evidence in regards to building 7 ... Even worse there is evidence stating the opposite of what you assume

    So no point in trying to be smart with me


  • Options
    #1339
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But why wouldn't it fall "freefall" all the way?
    At what point did it undergo freefall?
    The end? The beginning?


    I asked you over and over as to how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?


  • Options
    #1340
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I asked you over and over as to how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?
    Again, we have to establish what you are even talking about. You've been doing nothing but dodging questions.

    Why wouldn't it fall "freefall" all the way?
    At what point did it undergo freefall acceleration?


  • Options
    #1341
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    A building owner in an interview about the building he owned recalled that they made a decision to "pull it"

    Some individuals have made the extraordinary leap to interpret this as meaning to "demolish" the building - that this man was calmly admitting on national TV that he was blowing up his own building. Revealing on live TV to a huge audience including his insurers

    There is no evidence to support this man blowing up WTC 7 (or WTC7 being blown up at all), yet it demonstrates that people who are so "deep" into discrediting the established version of events will entertain anything, no matter how absurd or implausible

    That's literally all it takes for people with this type of thinking to accept a bizarre or whacky theory

    The findings of a 3 year investigation by 200 industry and scientific experts and investigators backing up other findings that a building fell due to fire - utterly impossible and implausible to them

    A man stating (and clarifying) that he called for firefighters to be withdrawn for a building - completely plausible that he had that building blown up and admitted to it on live tv

    This is why people have a tendency to dismiss 911 "truthers" and people like Alex Jones


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1342
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, we have to establish what you are even talking about. Ypu've been doing nothing but dodging questions.

    I am not dodging anything .. .I stated pages ago the building fell symmetrical and that all the outer columns completely lost all support and were removed to allow for free fall acceleration ... you disagreed without stating why ... instead you went on a mission into my knowledge about free fall

    That brings me to the question of how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why wouldn't it fall "freefall" all the way?

    Why would it ? that would make no sense... there is resistance at some point ... Usually at the start and end of a collapse


  • Options
    #1343
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A building owner in an interview recalled that they made a decision to "pull it"

    Some individuals have made the extraordinary leap to interpret this as meaning to "demolish" on the building


    Other people invented firefighters crawling through the building to make sense of the "pull it" remark

    People make up all kind of things


  • Options
    #1344
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Why would it ? that would make no sense... there is resistance at some point ... Usually at the start and end of a collapse
    Why would there be resistance at the start of the collapse?
    I thought you said that all of the support columns were taken out all at once so that the building could fall at free fall?
    .I stated pages ago the building fell symmetrical and that all the outer columns completely lost all support and were removed to allow for free fall acceleration

    What resistance was it encountering?


  • Options
    #1345
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Other people invented firefighters crawling through the building to make sense of the "pull it" remark

    People make up all kind of things

    Do you believe Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7?

    Is it one of the theories you entertain?

    I am on phone and I apologise if I've missed the answer but do you also maintain that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were blown up also?


  • Options
    #1346
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why would there be resistance at the start of the collapse?
    I thought you said that all of the support columns were taken out all at once so that the building could fall at free fall?


    I answered your question ... now answer mine

    I stated pages ago the building fell symmetrical and that all the outer columns completely lost all support and were removed to allow for free fall acceleration ... you disagreed without stating why ... instead you went on a mission into my knowledge about free fall

    That brings me to the question of how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?


  • Options
    #1347
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Do you believe Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7?

    Is it one of the theories you entertain?

    I am on phone and I apologise if I've missed the answer but do you also maintain that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were blown up also?

    No I find his remarks suspect ..as I find many things regarding 9/11 The most funny thing is that debunkers come up with all kinds of crap in regards to the pulling remark .. as is evident on this same thread

    As in regards to wtc 1 and 2 and 7
    All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.”


  • Options
    #1348
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »

    That brings me to the question of how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

    It is possible because it happened, and was observed happening. But explain why anyone should bother explaining to this someone who

    a) will dogmatically reject all explanations
    b) have no counter-explanation accept to back a bizarre theory for which they have no evidence

    What's the point?

    I find it crazy that one of the hijackers passports survived that impact and explosion - but it did. My (and your) incredulity doesn't mean anything. Likewise your inability (and determination) not to accept any explanations makes any attempt to explain pointless

    It's circular, and personally I feel it's deliberately so, some people just don't want to accept that their beliefs might be wrong

    This is why I created a thread where people could present their own theories and substantiate them. It exposes this type of faulty conspiracy thinking built on incredulity rather than evidence


  • Options
    #1349
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I answered your question ... now answer mine
    No, you didn't answer my question. You dodged it.

    Why would there be resistance at the start of the collapse?

    If all of the supports were taken out all at once, that would mean it would be experiencing free fall from the start.

    You are now saying that it didn't experience free fall at the start.
    So why was it experiencing resistance?


  • Options
    #1350
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    No I find his remarks suspect

    You believe it's plausible that he blew up his own building and admitted it on live TV. I don't need to mention how irrational this viewpoint is.
    The most funny thing is that debunkers come up with all kinds of crap in regards to the pulling remark

    You support skeptics and "debunkers" in 99% of other events and situations. Just not in this one. That tells everyone something. As I mentioned you possibly need to step back and take a long look at your beliefs.
    As in regards to wtc 1 and 2 and 7

    Translation, you find it plausible the buildings were blown up. With no evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1351
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It is possible because it happened, and was observed happening. But explain why anyone should bother explaining to this someone who

    a) will dogmatically reject all explanations
    b) have no counter-explanation accept to back a bizarre theory for which they have no evidence

    What's the point?

    How can I reject something that was not presented ..You asked for valid alt theories ..The only thing I asked in return is to apply the same critical thinking to the official narrative/ hypothesis ... All I got is dodging fence sitting ..being accused of dishonesty ... I asked you 3 simple questions in regards to the theory you believe

    Fact is the free fall evidence is not properly incorporated in the collapse animation ... I ask you why not ?

    Fact is the lead investigator said free fall was impossible because of the resistance the building encountered ... Why did he say that after completion of the report but never changed the showed collapse sequence ? ..The report were 200 highly trained experts worked on for years, and then get corrected by a physics professor who was using simple video editing tools to backup this evidence

    Fact is that if they had to allow their computer model to include the free fall acceleration evidence their probable collapse theory would not be supported, do you agree ?

    That is critical thinking !!

    And no one has provided any sensible fact/evidence based answer to counteract what I am stating


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement