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

911 conspiracy theorists. What would convince you 911 WASNT a inside job

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Colgem wrote: »
    We point out another building of the same design as the WTC 7, that was on fire for nearly 6 hours, with no attempt to fight the fires, that sustained serious damage from the collapse of surrounding buildings that started fires across several floors, and that survived.

    What does the sustained damage from surrounding buildings have to do with the total collapse of building 7 ??


    Colgem wrote: »
    Who wrote that list invalids the list? Interesting.

    No i said that it would be normal for a discussion when your quoting other sources that you refer to it as being a quote ... now it makes you look more knowledgeable then you probably are


  • Options
    #93
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    weisses wrote: »
    What does the sustained damage from surrounding buildings have to do with the total collapse of building 7 ??

    Are you serious? What does the damage caused from the collapse of the WTC have to do with the collapse of WTC 7?

    [/quote]
    No i said that it would be normal for a discussion when your quoting other sources that you refer to it as being a quote ... now it makes you look more knowledgeable then you probably are



    Weisss the thread title is what would convince you 9/11 was a inside job.

    So what evidence that could plausibly exist would convince you 9/11 was a inside job?
    And I did. I posted the link in another post to a different poster. I'd suggest you get your nose in joint and respond to the actual content of the post I wrote.


  • Options
    #94
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Colgem wrote: »
    Are you serious? What does the damage caused from the collapse of the WTC have to do with the collapse of WTC 7?

    Yes I'm serious ... AFAIK the damage caused by debris has nothing to do with the collapse of wtc7

    Colgem wrote: »
    Weisss the thread title is what would convince you 9/11 was a inside job.

    No the thread title states What would convince me 9/11 wasn't an inside job

    Which i answered here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84879635&postcount=27

    We never have and we will never gonna see a building on fire collapse almost in its own footprint at partially free fall speed in roughly 15 seconds due to fire alone (thats the way it happened according to NIST) who investigated it without sharing their data with the scientific community ..... Like i said before peer reviewed seems handy in here only when it suits peoples own narrative


  • Options
    #95
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes I'm serious ... AFAIK the damage caused by debris has nothing to do with the collapse of wtc7

    The damage from the debris started the fires that lead to collapse of the WTC 7.

    If you think the damage from the debris had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC 7, may I ask this what do you think caused the collapse of WTC 7 and what evidence do you have to support your claim
    No the thread title states What would convince me 9/11 wasn't an inside job

    Which i answered here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84879635&postcount=27

    We never have and we will never gonna see a building on fire collapse almost in its own footprint at partially free fall speed in roughly 15 seconds due to fire alone (thats the way it happened according to NIST) who investigated it without sharing their data with the scientific community ..... Like i said before peer reviewed seems handy in here only when it suits peoples own narrative


    And Again.

    1) The WTC 7 did not collapse into it's own footprint.

    2) It took 18 seconds.

    3) Please provide a example of building damaged in the same way the WTC 7 was, that have it's fires blazing for nearly 6 hours unfought.

    4) The NISTs report has been embraced by architects and engineers around the world and used to redevelop plans for skycrapers the world over, are you suggesting that Architects and Engineers aren't capable of understanding the NIST report?

    5) Anyone making a FOA request can actually get the models from the NIST including the WTC 7 model, see

    http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/

    So again;

    You've requested a example of building that matches the WTC 7 collapse, in the manner of the WTC 7 collapse. I don't think thats possible because the collapse of WTC 7 is unique because of

    A) The design of the building

    B) The circumstances of it's destruction

    Essentially you're asking for the impossible. Unless Weiss could can provide a example of 47 story high rise that was hit with debris was a larger skyscraper that caused massive fires across the building that fire fighters made no attempt to fight.

    So leaving aside y'know evidence that can't be provided what evidence that could possible provided to you Weiss that would convince you 911 wasn't a inside job.


  • Options
    #96
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    We never have and we will never gonna see a building on fire collapse almost in its own footprint at partially free fall speed in roughly 15 seconds due to fire alone (thats the way it happened according to NIST) who investigated it without sharing their data with the scientific community ..... Like i said before peer reviewed seems handy in here only when it suits peoples own narrative
    Except WTC 7 did not collapse into it's own footprint as shown by these photos which are of debris from the building falling outside of it's footprint:
    http://www.debunking911.com/barclay.jpg
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg
    And even so the nature collapse is not inconsistent or implausible with the official explanation of a column failing initiating a collapse.

    Similarly it falling at free fall speed for a few seconds does not indicate there was something suspicious or inconsistent with the fire let alone that it was a demolition. Nor does this confirm the incorrect assertion by many conspiracy promoters that it fell for the entire collapse at freefall speed (which would indicate no resistance from lower floors, meaning all supports were removed once which would be by demolition.)

    The collapse likely took slightly longer than 15 seconds and again this figure does not indicate something suspicious or inconsistent with the official explanation.

    The NIST did supply the data and models they used and all of it was examined by hundreds of experts and then the report was used by hundreds more to update and improve safety features in skyscrapers. Even if this was not true no one has outlined what data they would like to review from the NIST models or explained how it might have been manipulated in such a way to invalidate the computer models or conclusions.

    The evidence you are asking for cannot actually be supplied because the building was unique in a unique situation.
    But even if it could be supplied, none of the criteria you have outlined actually indicate that there was something suspicious about the collapse at all.
    So no evidence can actually convince you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Colgem wrote: »
    The damage from the debris started the fires that lead to collapse of the WTC 7.

    If you think the damage from the debris had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC 7, may I ask this what do you think caused the collapse of WTC 7 and what evidence do you have to support your claim
    Weisses is referring to the conclusion made by the NIST report that the structural damage done to the building (such as the missing corner of the building) did not factor in as the cause of the collapse.
    Had the fires not started or been put out right away, the building would have remained standing (though would probably be ruled unsafe and demolished for real).
    This is different from the initial preliminary conclusions of the investigators that both the fires and the damage played a role.


  • Options
    #98
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Colgem wrote: »
    The damage from the debris started the fires that lead to collapse of the WTC 7.

    If you think the damage from the debris had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC 7, may I ask this what do you think caused the collapse of WTC 7 and what evidence do you have to support your claim

    It is not what i think that's important ... its in the report that you all hold so dear



    Colgem wrote: »
    And Again.

    1) The WTC 7 did not collapse into it's own footprint.

    2) It took 18 seconds.

    3) Please provide a example of building damaged in the same way the WTC 7 was, that have it's fires blazing for nearly 6 hours unfought.

    WTC 7 collapsed almost in its own footprint (imploded) some debris was scattered around but for a 47 story skyscraper i can safely say it collapsed into its own footprint yeah ... if people want to be pedantic over it fine by me

    18 seconds also fine still impressive at partial freefall speed isn't it ... hard to explain that one ... how a building can fall down with ZERO resistance due to office fires
    Colgem wrote: »
    4) The NISTs report has been embraced by architects and engineers around the world and used to redevelop plans for skycrapers the world over, are you suggesting that Architects and Engineers aren't capable of understanding the NIST report?

    5) Anyone making a FOA request can actually get the models from the NIST including the WTC 7 model, see

    http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/

    That is not reffering to WTC 7 and the data used to make that computer model afaik

    So again;
    Colgem wrote: »
    You've requested a example of building that matches the WTC 7 collapse, in the manner of the WTC 7 collapse. I don't think thats possible because the collapse of WTC 7 is unique because of

    A) The design of the building

    B) The circumstances of it's destruction

    Essentially you're asking for the impossible. Unless Weiss could can provide a example of 47 story high rise that was hit with debris was a larger skyscraper that caused massive fires across the building that fire fighters made no attempt to fight.

    When i am asking the impossible how can you support the official story that apparently explains "the impossible"


  • Options
    #99
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Similarly it falling at free fall speed for a few seconds does not indicate there was something suspicious or inconsistent with the fire let alone that it was a demolition. Nor does this confirm the incorrect assertion by many conspiracy promoters that it fell for the entire collapse at freefall speed (which would indicate no resistance from lower floors, meaning all supports were removed once which would be by demolition.)

    The building fell at partial free-fall speed that means no resistance from lower floors .. otherwise you couldn't reach free-fall speed in any stage
    King Mob wrote: »
    The NIST did supply the data and models they used and all of it was examined by hundreds of experts and then the report was used by hundreds more to update and improve safety features in skyscrapers. Even if this was not true no one has outlined what data they would like to review from the NIST models or explained how it might have been manipulated in such a way to invalidate the computer models or conclusions.

    Could you give me a link to the data/parameters they published regarding the computer model used in the wtc7 collapse?
    King Mob wrote: »
    The evidence you are asking for cannot actually be supplied because the building was unique in a unique situation.

    How convenient
    King Mob wrote: »
    But even if it could be supplied, none of the criteria you have outlined actually indicate that there was something suspicious about the collapse at all.

    How can you reach that conclusion without having evidence to support it ?

    The building wasn't unique ... office fires aren't unique it wasn't a raging inferno ... offices fires on the north side did extinguish by themselves (as is shown in many videos)
    King Mob wrote: »
    So no evidence can actually convince you.
    How did you reach that conclusion ?


  • Options
    #100
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    weisses wrote: »



    WTC 7 collapsed almost in its own footprint (imploded) some debris was scattered around but for a 47 story skyscraper i can safely say it collapsed into its own footprint yeah ... if people want to be pedantic over it fine by me

    Not "some" debris

    barclay.jpg


    Barclay Street isn't a alley.

    The building did not "almost" collapse into it's own footprint. It did not collapse into it's own footprin.
    18 seconds also fine still impressive at partial freefall speed isn't it ... hard to explain that one ... how a building can fall down with ZERO resistance due to office fires

    If it did not collapse at freefall speed it did not fall down with "ZERO resistance".
    That is not reffering to WTC 7 and the data used to make that computer model afaik



    So again;

    No it is.
    When i am asking the impossible how can you support the official story that apparently explains "the impossible"

    Sigh. You are asking for another building that collapsed in the same manner as the WTC 7, I'm saying that no building in history has the same structure as the WTC 7 AND suffered the same damage as WTC 7.


  • Options
    #101
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    18 seconds also fine still impressive at partial freefall speed isn't it ... hard to explain that one ... how a building can fall down with ZERO resistance due to office fires
    It didn't fall down with zero resistance.
    This is easy to see for yourself if we do a basic calculation to figure out how long it would take for it to fall without resistance.
    The building was 190 meters tall.
    If it met no resistance from anything it would fall at the normal acceleration due to gravity 9.8 m/s^2.
    The time it takes for something to fall is equal to the square root of 2 times the distance divided by the acceleration.
    This means that the building should have fallen in 6.22 seconds if it wasn't being slowed down.
    (This is the same figure reached by some conspiracy theorists and hence why we have the edited versions of the videos of the collapse that make it seem like it falls in 7 seconds.)

    However the building took upwards of 16 seconds to fall. Something slowed it down.
    weisses wrote: »
    The building fell at partial free-fall speed that means no resistance from lower floors .. otherwise you couldn't reach free-fall speed in any stage
    This is not what the exact same paragraph from the NIST report you like to quote says.
    The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

    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

    This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
    If the building did not encounter resistance why were there slower rates of acceleration before and after the few seconds of free fall?

    Further, how do you know that there would never be any free fall during a collapse of this kind? And for that matter, how do you know that 15-18 seconds of collapse is out of the ordinary?
    How long should the collapse have taken and what are you basing this on?
    weisses wrote: »
    Could you give me a link to the data/parameters they published regarding the computer model used in the wtc7 collapse?
    What parameters would you want to look at and how would they be manipulated to affect the model or conclusions?
    There's little to no point digging them up if they are not relevant to you point
    weisses wrote: »
    How convenient

    How can you reach that conclusion without having evidence to support it ?

    The building wasn't unique ... office fires aren't unique it wasn't a raging inferno ... offices fires on the north side did extinguish by themselves (as is shown in many videos)
    It is unique because no other building shares it's blueprints. If this is not the case, please point to the building/s you are referring to?
    weisses wrote: »
    How did you reach that conclusion ?
    As I said: because the criteria you are using do not actually outline anything suspicious. They all assume that the building experiencing freefall or the collapse time were unusual or impossible, something you've not been able to show.
    And because the evidence you ask for cannot actually exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    RGDATA! wrote: »
    Convenient as it sounds, I had drinks with a muslim friend tonight (Identifies as muslim, certainly not an athiest, though obviously isn't strictly observant.) Anyway, while I understand that alcohol is prohibited, I didn't think it was controversial to believe that some muslims sometimes drink. In fact, I understood that in Egypt alcohol is fairly widely sold and consumed by some, obviously not strictly observant, muslims.

    More to the point, even if the 9/11 story was complete fiction, I would still find Atta a plausible character just as someone who was motivated and inspired by his beliefs towards a goal, yet privately fell short of the most basic of those beliefs. Typical flawed human behaviour.
    Maybe he faltered under the weight of his goal, maybe he figured he was entitled to a sample of what was coming to him, that he'd purify himself before the day and be saved anyway.

    Plenty of zealots and revolutionaries everywhere guilty of the most basic private failings and contradictions, while still being motivated by and certain in their beliefs

    Everything you've said is perfectly sensible. However, there is no worthwhile comparison to be made between an unobservant/casual Muslim and a supposed Islamic terrorist driven by their warped fundamentalist ideology which contains a strict moral code which prevents them from becoming the infidels they supposedly want to kill. We are supposed to believe that on the one hand that they are prepared to die for the ideology while on the other that they couldn't care less about their ideology. Simply doesn't work.


  • Options
    #103
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    What parameters would you want to look at and how would they be manipulated to affect the model or conclusions?
    There's little to no point digging them up if they are not relevant to you point

    The parameters and data used to make the computer model of the collapse of building 7

    You cannot present them because they are not made public AFAIK .. I can perfectly judge for myself if they are relevant to my point SO do you have a link to that data... as you claimed yes or no ???


  • Options
    #104
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    The parameters and data used to make the computer model of the collapse of building 7

    You cannot present them because they are not made public AFAIK .. I can perfectly judge for myself if they are relevant to my point SO do you have a link to that data... as you claimed yes or no ???

    They are detailed here in chapters 9 to 12:
    http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861611
    But since you cannot explain which parameters you are referring to I cannot point to the specific ones you are asking for.

    Can you clarify which parameters and data you believe could have been manipulated to alter the conclusions of the report?

    Could you please address the rest of my points?


  • Options
    #105
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    They are detailed here in chapters 9 to 12:
    http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861611
    But since you cannot explain which parameters you are referring to I cannot point to the specific ones you are asking for.

    No i read that part before and nowhere can you find the raw data that they put into that computer model so its not verifiable and cannot be recreated ... They themselves said quote "performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence."
    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you clarify which parameters and data you believe could have been manipulated to alter the conclusions of the report?

    I would love to but i cannot find them and when you read through the chapters there are a lot of could have's and maybe's
    King Mob wrote: »
    Could you please address the rest of my points?

    If you don't mind i let the video do the explaining .... Its only 10 minutes and it reflects my view on building 7 for 100%

    If you disagree with it or think its BS let me know



  • Options
    #106
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No i read that part before and nowhere can you find the raw data that they put into that computer model so its not verifiable and cannot be recreated ... They themselves said quote "performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence."
    That paper does have the raw data they used. It details how the models where built using the presets from the program they used, which would be known to people who use this program. It details the variables they use and explains why they picked them. It outlines the various scenarios they model and explains why the one they conclude is the most likely.

    You are in fact looking for the actual files of the computer model? Because they would be several GB and require an expensive industry program to run.
    weisses wrote: »
    I would love to but i cannot find them
    So then what exactly would you like to see and how would you actually know whether or not it actually confirms a conspiracy.
    Because it seems there is nothing I can provide that would satisfy what you are asking for.
    weisses wrote: »
    and when you read through the chapters there are a lot of could have's and maybe's
    This is because it is a scientific paper.
    It proposes the most likely explanation for how the building might have collapsed.

    At the same time however you seem to have no issues with the "could have's and maybe's" with the conspiracy theory.
    weisses wrote: »
    If you don't mind i let the video do the explaining .... Its only 10 minutes and it reflects my view on building 7 for 100%

    If you disagree with it or think its BS let me know

    First point where it claims that the guy is saying free fall collapse is impossible.
    He is very clearly referring to the idea that the building fell from the start to the finish at free fall speed, ie fell in less than 7 seconds.
    He said that the building encountered resistance which is in line with what the report says.
    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
    So again, why did the building fall at decreased rates of acceleration before and after the section of free fall?

    How do you know that this section of free fall speed would not be possible in the type of collapse they are proposing?

    Why, if such a thing was impossible, would they put it in the report? And then why would this guy supposedly contradict even that?

    Again if the building fell with zero resistance it would have fallen in less than 7 seconds. You agree it took longer. How is this possible?

    Also the video doesn't show the start of the collapse, making his analysis misleading.


  • Options
    #107
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    That paper does have the raw data they used. It details how the models where built using the presets from the program they used, which would be known to people who use this program. It details the variables they use and explains why they picked them. It outlines the various scenarios they model and explains why the one they conclude is the most likely.

    Where and what data was used or did they need to make that computer model ?? be specific please
    King Mob wrote: »
    You are in fact looking for the actual files of the computer model? Because they would be several GB and require an expensive industry program to run.

    No the raw data used that they put into the model ... as explained in the video
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then what exactly would you like to see and how would you actually know whether or not it actually confirms a conspiracy.
    Because it seems there is nothing I can provide that would satisfy what you are asking for.

    You do know that the outcome of the behavior of the model depends on the data that you put into it .... That data is not made available so its not verifiable .. agree? ... and if not why not
    King Mob wrote: »
    This is because it is a scientific paper.
    It proposes the most likely explanation for how the building might have collapsed.

    At the same time however you seem to have no issues with the "could have's and maybe's" with the conspiracy theory.

    So you agree that they made their conclusions on possibility's and maybe'/ probability's ? ..

    I think what is explained in that video is very plausible ... Would be helpful if NIST shared their data to be reviewed by other scientists

    King Mob wrote: »
    First point where it claims that the guy is saying free fall collapse is impossible.
    He is very clearly referring to the idea that the building fell from the start to the finish at free fall speed, ie fell in less than 7 seconds.
    He said that the building encountered resistance which is in line with what the report says.

    What guy says what ??
    King Mob wrote: »
    So again, why did the building fall at decreased rates of acceleration before and after the section of free fall?

    I would guess that the closer you get to the ground the more resistence you would get ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    How do you know that this section of free fall speed would not be possible in the type of collapse they are proposing?

    From 3:15 to 4:15 in the video ... and who is They ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again if the building fell with zero resistance it would have fallen in less than 7 seconds. You agree it took longer. How is this possible?

    Where does the author say wtc7 fell free fall over the entire period ?
    It fell free fall for over 2 seconds .. can you debunk the part in the video starting roughly at 3:15
    King Mob wrote: »
    Also the video doesn't show the start of the collapse, making his analysis misleading.

    It shows the entire collapse at 8:55 and again at 9.56 and here a pdf on how he measured it

    http://www.911speakout.org/WTC7-Measurement-FAQ.pdf


  • Options
    #108
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Where and what data was used or did they need to make that computer model ?? be specific please

    No the raw data used that they put into the model ... as explained in the video
    This data is in the report I posted.
    The detail what preset materials they used from the program, the temperature of the fires and other such variables.

    They are extensive and technical so I don't know which of these you are requesting and since you have not explained which ones you want, how they are relevant to your points or how you can use them to show that the model they used was invalid, I see little point in looking
    weisses wrote: »
    You do know that the outcome of the behavior of the model depends on the data that you put into it .... That data is not made available so its not verifiable .. agree? ... and if not why not
    The relevant data has been made available and verifiable so that their models can be replicated and their conclusions verified. This is to the satisfaction of most experts and to the people who used the report to improve building safety codes.
    The only people who seem to not be satisfied are the people who do not have the expertise or access to the programs required to run the data anyway.
    weisses wrote: »
    So you agree that they made their conclusions on possibility's and maybe'/ probability's ? ..
    Because this is how science works. They also back these possibilities up with evidence and reasoning and show they are the most likely possibilities.
    Meanwhile the video you presents declares things definitely impossible and back it up with apparently "this guy said so".
    weisses wrote: »
    I would guess that the closer you get to the ground the more resistence you would get ...
    But you said that the building encountered zero resistance.
    And this does not explain the lower acceleration before the section of free fall.

    And if it encountered zero resistance, why did it take 16+ seconds to fall rather than the 7 seconds it would take at free fall speeds? What was slowing it down?
    weisses wrote: »
    From 3:15 to 4:15 in the video ... and who is They ?

    Where does the author say wtc7 fell free fall over the entire period ?
    It fell free fall for over 2 seconds ..

    can you debunk the part in the video starting roughly at 3:15
    This section does not explain how it would be impossible for a short period of free fall speed to occur.
    Also it says that the roof fell all at once while he seems to be neglecting the fact that a part of the roof collapsed out of view several seconds earlier than the rest, followed by the rest of the roof, then after a delay the outside shell of the building, which he uses to make his calculation.
    So he is in fact saying that the shell of the building collapsed for a time at free fall speed after the internal structure collapsed and brought the outside shell with it.

    I do not see (and he did not explain) how this indicates that the models and conclusions of the NIST are incorrect or impossible or unlikely.


  • Options
    #109
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    This data is in the report I posted.
    The detail what preset materials they used from the program, the temperature of the fires and other such variables.

    They are extensive and technical so I don't know which of these you are requesting and since you have not explained which ones you want, how they are relevant to your points or how you can use them to show that the model they used was invalid, I see little point in looking

    So you know its in the report ... yet you don't know what they used and how they used it in the model ... i can understand now why you see little point in looking ..
    King Mob wrote: »
    The relevant data has been made available and verifiable so that their models can be replicated and their conclusions verified. This is to the satisfaction of most experts and to the people who used the report to improve building safety codes.
    The only people who seem to not be satisfied are the people who do not have the expertise or access to the programs required to run the data anyway.

    So again what data is made available and where is the data used in the model made verifiable ?? You seem to know it but for some reason cannot point out the specific data

    I think there are plenty people outside NIST who would have the means and knowledge to run that simulation
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because this is how science works. They also back these possibilities up with evidence and reasoning and show they are the most likely possibilities.
    Meanwhile the video you presents declares things definitely impossible and back it up with apparently "this guy said so".

    I thought they backed up their problems with the NIST report with facts and figures .... there are plenty examples in the links i gave you
    King Mob wrote: »
    But you said that the building encountered zero resistance.
    And this does not explain the lower acceleration before the section of free fall.

    It did for 2.8 seconds .. They calculated it and explained how ... you don't agree ? fine then be specific
    King Mob wrote: »
    And if it encountered zero resistance, why did it take 16+ seconds to fall rather than the 7 seconds it would take at free fall speeds? What was slowing it down?

    It didn't encountered zero resistance for the whole collapse ... Please point out where that is claimed !!
    King Mob wrote: »
    This section does not explain how it would be impossible for a short period of free fall speed to occur.
    Also it says that the roof fell all at once while he seems to be neglecting the fact that a part of the roof collapsed out of view several seconds earlier than the rest, followed by the rest of the roof, then after a delay the outside shell of the building, which he uses to make his calculation.
    So he is in fact saying that the shell of the building collapsed for a time at free fall speed after the internal structure collapsed and brought the outside shell with it.

    First of all no one knows how far the inner section of the building collapsed. the penthouse could have dropped 3 or 4 floors for all whe know

    Second to calculate the free fall you need a point from where you can calculate it and they had that( even NIST used the edge of the building for their calculation)
    King Mob wrote: »
    I do not see (and he did not explain) how this indicates that the models and conclusions of the NIST are incorrect or impossible or unlikely.

    You cannot say this because NIST refuses to release the exact data they used to reach their conclusion .... so its not verifiable and reproducible .... some science aye


  • Options
    #110
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,357 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Both of you are to calm it down now or this thread will be locked.


  • Options
    #111
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    First of all no one knows how far the inner section of the building collapsed. the penthouse could have dropped 3 or 4 floors for all whe know
    Answering you other points would just be me repeating myself so there's no point continuing.

    However can you suggest a reason for why the penthouse might have spontaneously collapsed only 3 or 4 floors even though there was no fires or damage to that area that would allow for this?
    What about the rest of the roof which collapsed before the outer shell of the building, do you believe that this also is only a short drop or part of the "real " collapse?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Answering you other points would just be me repeating myself so there's no point continuing.

    Repeating your points is fine but when they are not addressing the points i am making i can see your point in not making them again indeed ... we keep going in circles
    King Mob wrote: »
    However can you suggest a reason for why the penthouse might have spontaneously collapsed only 3 or 4 floors even though there was no fires or damage to that area that would allow for this?
    What about the rest of the roof which collapsed before the outer shell of the building, do you believe that this also is only a short drop or part of the "real " collapse?

    No i am not stating anything as fact i am saying its a probability ... Not even NIST can proof how far the penthouse collapsed before the rest of the building went


  • Options
    #113
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Penn wrote: »
    Both of you are to calm it down now or this thread will be locked.

    You can close it ... OP has no interest in discussing in his own thread anyway


  • Options
    #114
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No i am not stating anything as fact i am saying its a probability ... Not even NIST can proof how far the penthouse collapsed before the rest of the building went
    But NIST could suggest how the penthouse collapsed.
    There's no good reason to think that the penthouse might collapse only a few floors, but there is a good reason to think that it is a sign of a collapse further down in the building as that's were the fire was.

    Suggesting that the penthouse just decided to fall over on it's own and with no effect is not reasonable.


  • Options
    #115
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Suggesting that the penthouse just decided to fall over on it's own and with no effect is not reasonable.

    No one is suggesting that. According to youself wtc 7 was fully engulfed in flames.... maybe there was a collapse 4 stories from the top due to fires.... fact is we don't know, NIST made their report based on probabilities .... That alone is dodgy as far as im concerned but when asked how they made their model (input data, parameters .. etc ) they refused to release that data, that in itself is not scientific. NIST could be bang on but no one knows for sure because whole sections of the report were not made public (including the data used for their computer model)


  • Options
    #116
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No one is suggesting that. According to youself wtc 7 was fully engulfed in flames.... maybe there was a collapse 4 stories from the top due to fires....
    So how would the fires have caused this collapse? Because again, the NIST present a mechanism for this as part of the overall collapse, there is no such mechanism for how fires would cause it to drop only a few floors.
    They provide a viable possibility while no coherent similar supported alternative exists.


  • Options
    #117
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So how would the fires have caused this collapse? Because again, the NIST present a mechanism for this as part of the overall collapse,

    Fires did cause the penthouse to collapse ... where is the evidence the column at ground level gave away ... apart from the NIST explanation wich cannot be verified by other scientists
    King Mob wrote: »
    there is no such mechanism for how fires would cause it to drop only a few floors.

    So why is it impossible for the same mechanism used by NIST to have occured 5 stories from the top ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    They provide a viable possibility while no coherent similar supported alternative exists.

    In your opinion yes


  • Options
    #118
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Fires did cause the penthouse to collapse ... where is the evidence the column at ground level gave away
    Because the collapse of the penthouse was followed by the collapse of the rest of the building. This suggests that it was the start of the collapse and the only way this can occur is if the collapse started further down.
    weisses wrote: »
    So why is it impossible for the same mechanism used by NIST to have occured 5 stories from the top ?
    Because the mechanism requires a lot of expansion of a column, the loss of lateral support across multiple floors and a large amount of weight above it.
    If the penthouse collapsed only a few floors it cannot be because of the same mechanism. It must be a different one and you have not been able to present any possibility for how it collapse that way.

    However if you have no problem with the structure failing in one place, I don't see why you would have a problem with it happening lower down.
    weisses wrote: »
    In your opinion yes
    No it's not opinion, it's a clear fact. No one has been able to present a viable alternative that is as supported as the official explanation.
    No one has even been able to present a coherent theory.


  • Options
    #119
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    However if you have no problem with the structure failing in one place, I don't see why you would have a problem with it happening lower down.

    I have no problem at all NIST can say it probably happened at given location and if no one can say otherwise we use it as fact ... which is not the case
    King Mob wrote: »
    No it's not opinion, it's a clear fact. No one has been able to present a viable alternative that is as supported as the official explanation.
    No one has even been able to present a coherent theory.

    Please enlighten me as to how anyone could have the access and the funding to conduct an investigation ?

    All we have is NIST and they are not willing to share data and methods used as to how they reach their conclusion .... Fact


  • Options
    #120
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I have no problem at all NIST can say it probably happened at given location and if no one can say otherwise we use it as fact ... which is not the case
    So then you believe that the NIST's scenario is plausible and likely and you are simply rejecting it purely because you believe that they haven't shared information?
    weisses wrote: »
    Please enlighten me as to how anyone could have the access and the funding to conduct an investigation ?
    I did not say anything about an investigation, I was referring to a coherent theory. This does not require any funding to put together.
    However since none exist and no one has shown any wrong or impossible about the NIST's scenario I believe it is true and the most likely explanation.
    And since it adequately explains the collapse I don't think your reasons for believing there was a conspiracy around it are not valid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then you believe that the NIST's scenario is plausible and likely and you are simply rejecting it purely because you believe that they haven't shared information?

    It could be plausible yes ... but their investigations/conclusions/parameters used/data used ... etc are not verifiable not because i believe they haven't shared it .... It is a fact they are withholding portions of the report and they refuse to release the data what was used in their computer model
    King Mob wrote: »
    I did not say anything about an investigation, I was referring to a coherent theory. This does not require any funding to put together.
    However since none exist and no one has shown any wrong or impossible about the NIST's scenario I believe it is true and the most likely explanation.
    And since it adequately explains the collapse

    I believe the Architects and engineers video is pretty coherent but to proof that somehow a controlled demolition was done is nearly impossible at this stage i think
    King Mob wrote: »
    I don't think your reasons for believing there was a conspiracy around it are not valid.

    So i am right ?? must be typo

    The fact NIST is not sharing their science used to reach their conclusions is reason to be very concerned yes ... I honestly cannot understand that you brush this fact aside so easily specially with your view on proper science you defend so vigorously on Boards.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement