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

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

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

No they do no such thing. They simply state that various things about the collapse are impossible without showing how or why and offer nothing by way of an alternative explanation at all.

Again I'm not asking for proof, just a coherent theory that explains the facts. But most conspiracy theorist like AE911 are too busy trying to poke holes than to figure out all of the holes they have with their alternative.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No they do no such thing. They simply state that various things about the collapse are impossible without showing how or why and offer nothing by way of an alternative explanation at all.

Again I'm not asking for proof, just a coherent theory that explains the facts. But most conspiracy theorist like AE911 are too busy trying to poke holes than to figure out all of the holes they have with their alternative.

I thought AE911 used proper science to reach their conclusions ... Most of them are reputable people who have little to gain by spouting nonsense .. they use science ..explain why things are impossible as explained in official reports... But to do more proper scientific research they need the data NIST used to reach their conclusions and NIST refuses access to that data

Again Calling an official report that refuses access to methodes/data used proper science is beyond believe

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I thought AE911 used proper science to reach their conclusions ... Most of them are reputable people who have little to gain by spouting nonsense .. they use science ..explain why things are impossible as explained in official reports...

If they do, they do not do so in the video you posted.
They say the official collapse is impossible based on faulty and probably dishonest observations and declare such a thing impossible while never actually explaining why, then fail to elaborate at all on how such things are explained by an explosive demolition or any other alternative.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

If they do, they do not do so in the video you posted.
They say the official collapse is impossible based on faulty and probably dishonest observations and declare such a thing impossible while never actually explaining why, then fail to elaborate at all on how such things are explained by an explosive demolition or any other alternative.

And they love to verify the NIST report as to how they reached their conclusions but are refused access to methodes/parameters/data used

Is that scientific ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

And they love to verify the NIST report as to how they reached their conclusions but are refused access to methodes/parameters/data used

Is that scientific ?

The NIST have released this information. You however are unwilling to accept this or explain why you are not satisfied so there's no point in my restating and reposting what I already have.

However even if what you claim is true and the NIST were not releasing the relevant information, this would not stop the AE9/11 from forming a coherent alternative explanation or supporting the claims of impossibilities in their videos.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

The NIST have released this information. You however are unwilling to accept this or explain why you are not satisfied so there's no point in my restating and reposting what I already have.

There is a difference in what is in the report and what they used form that report to make their computer model ... Again the data/parameters used to make that computer model behave the way it did are not made public ... even after asking to release the data it still remains classified ... that's a fact ... So that computer model could be reliable but is worth nothing if its not veriviable

King Mob wrote: »

However even if what you claim is true and the NIST were not releasing the relevant information, this would not stop the AE9/11 from forming a coherent alternative explanation or supporting the claims of impossibilities in their videos.

"My" claim can be verified via a lot of sources so its more fact then just a claim

AE911 are poking holes in the official story most of them backed up by science and math

And what are impossibilities in their videos?

Again How is the NIST report a scientific report when it cannot be verified on crucial points by other scientists ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

There is a difference in what is in the report and what they used form that report to make their computer model ... Again the data/parameters used to make that computer model behave the way it did are not made public ... even after asking to release the data it still remains classified ... that's a fact ... So that computer model could be reliable but is worth nothing if its not veriviable

So even though you've been provided with the information you're asking for, the data needed to replicate their models and conclusions, you are rejecting it because you think they must have faked it with no evidence of this at all.

If this is the case, then there's no reason why they couldn't just fake and release the data you keep asking about.

There's nothing more I can say or provide that will get you to budge from this point.
I believe they have released the relevant data which can be verified by scientists, so I believe that the report is scientific.

weisses wrote: »

AE911 are poking holes in the official story most of them backed up by science and math

This is very suspect. However not the point I am making. Poking holes, even if they were valid and supported does not make an alternative.

weisses wrote: »

And what are impossibilities in their videos?

As I have pointed out they state that it is impossible for the building to experience some free fall. They did not explain why this is impossible.

faustino1

King Mob, I'm sure it's been pointed out on many occasions false flag attacks are part of instigating war over the centuries, 9/11 is no different, it was just much more sophisticated.

Patrick Clawson, an Israeli Lobbyist stated in September last year.

I frankly think that crises initiation is really tough.
And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran.

Which leads me to conclude that if, in fact, compromise is not company... that the traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.

Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into WWII; you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor.

Some people might think that Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into WWI; you may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode.

Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam; you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode.

We didn’t go to war with Spain until the [U.S.S.] Maine exploded.
And, may I point out, that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the Federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked — which is why he order the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians said would cause an attack.

So, if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.

The video follows

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk

What has been revealed is that Pearl Harbour was known about in advance and Gulf Of Tonkin was a false flag to get US into war in Vietnam.

USS Liberty was attacked by Israel in order to draw US into war with Arab countries during the Arab-Israeli war of 1967.

Now, Clawson mentions neither 9/11 or USS Liberty in his statements as a reason for invading Iraq, bombing Libya and the destruction of Syria but that's where we are now as a result of 9/11

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So even though you've been provided with the information you're asking for, the data needed to replicate their models and conclusions, you are rejecting it because you think they must have faked it with no evidence of this at all.

No your missing the point Im afraid
The specific data/parameters used to make the computer model is not made public

Just to get this out of the way because you insist the data is provided

Please point out in what chapter/page NIST explains what data they used to make that computer model

King Mob wrote: »

There's nothing more I can say or provide that will get you to budge from this point.
I believe they have released the relevant data which can be verified by scientists, so I believe that the report is scientific.

It has nothing to do with what you or i believe ... Were talking facts and figures

King Mob wrote: »

This is very suspect. However not the point I am making. Poking holes, even if they were valid and supported does not make an alternative.

No it questions the official story and with good reason

King Mob wrote: »

As I have pointed out they state that it is impossible for the building to experience some free fall. They did not explain why this is impossible.

Where do they say that it is impossible for the building to experience some free fall ... they confronted NIST with the fact the building experienced freefall

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Where do they say that it is impossible for the building to experience some free fall ... they confronted NIST with the fact the building experienced freefall

So then if it is not impossible for the building to experience free fall in the official explanation then their point is rather moot.
If it is possible for the building to experience free fall in the official version why then are they pointing out this free fall as if it calls the official story into question?
What exactly about these moments of free fall cast doubt on the official story?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So then if it is not impossible for the building to experience free fall in the official explanation then their point is rather moot.
If it is possible for the building to experience free fall in the official version why then are they pointing out this free fall as if it calls the official story into question?
What exactly about these moments of free fall cast doubt on the official story?

I asked you to point out where they claimed the building could not experience freefall ? Sounds strange because it was them who confronted NIST with the FACT the building reached partial free fall speed

And maybe you could answer my simple question below, maybe you missed it in the previous post so we get the confusion out of the way of what is and what is not released by NIST

Please point out in what chapter/page NIST explains what data they used to make that computer model

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I asked you to point out where they claimed the building could not experience freefall ?

Ok. If they didn't say that the building couldn't experience freefall, why are they bringing it up?
Does the fact that the building experienced free fall indicate that there was something suspicious about the the collapse or inconsistent with the official story? If so, why?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. If they didn't say that the building couldn't experience freefall, why are they bringing it up?

Where do they claim the building couldn't experience free fall ?

King Mob wrote: »

Does the fact that the building experienced free fall indicate that there was something suspicious about the the collapse or inconsistent with the official story? If so, why?

It is for instance not consistent with the NIST model AFAIK

But why not answer my questions regarding the data NIST released you claimed is in the report but no one can seem to find it then we take it from there ok ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Where do they claim the building couldn't experience free fall ?

It is for instance not consistent with the NIST model AFAIK

How is it not consistent with the NIST model?

If they are saying that it is not consistent with the NIST model, then they are saying that it is impossible for the building to experience free fall if it fell according to the official story.

I have already pointed out where the information they released is and I have explained why it's pointless to repeat myself on a point you're not going to accept or address.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

How is it not consistent with the NIST model?
If they are saying that it is not consistent with the NIST model, then they are saying that it is impossible for the building to experience free fall if it fell according to the official story.

Where do they claim that it was impossible for the building to experience free fall as you are saying ... easy question easy answer ... i looked over the video again and cannot find it

King Mob wrote: »

I have already pointed out where the information they released is and I have explained why it's pointless to repeat myself on a point you're not going to accept or address.

No you have not !

You provided the NIST report yes

I asked where in the NIST report they showed what specific data/parameters they used to make the computer model

I have looked for it .. I cannot find it ... You claim it is there ..So why are you not saying what page it is

You are indeed repeating yourself over and over but by doing so your not answering the simple questions that are asked I'm afraid

If your claiming certain specific data exists then at least point out where it can be found

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Where do they claim that it was impossible for the building to experience free fall as you are saying ... easy question easy answer ... i looked over the video again and cannot find it

Ok, lets say that they don't say that.
So why then are they pointing out the free fall as if it disproved the official theory?
Why is this inconsistent with the official theory?

If they are saying that the fact the building experiencing free fall shows that the official model is wrong, then this is the same as them saying that free fall is impossible in the official story.
If they are not saying free fall is impossible in the official story then pointing out free fall does not disprove the official story.

I point out where the information they used to make their models was here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84924304&postcount=104

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, lets say that they don't say that.
So why then are they pointing out the free fall as if it disproved the official theory?
Why is this inconsistent with the official theory?

So now it goes from they claim it to "lets say they don't claim that"

Partial free fall is showed i believe i dont think the "NIST computer model" allows for free fall I think even NIST had to backtrack when they were showed partial free fall occured

So that's why its important the data used in their famous computer model is made public

They refuse to do that you claim its in the NIST report but are not able to point out where



And in circles we keep going

Again

I asked where in the NIST report they showed what specific data/parameters they used to make the computer model

I have looked for it .. I cannot find it ... You claim it is there ..So why are you not saying what page it is

If your claiming certain specific data exists then at least point out where it can be found

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861611

Fine ... That is the NIST report ... we all know that

Where in that report do they show how and what data/parameters are used to make their model ??

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Partial free fall is showed i believe i dont think the "NIST computer model" allows for free fall I think even NIST had to backtrack when they were showed partial free fall occured

Why do you think that the NIST model does not allow for any free fall?

weisses wrote: »

Where in that report do they show how and what data/parameters are used to make their model ??

As I pointed out, chapters 9 to 12.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you think that the NIST model does not allow for any free fall?

Because the model imo is not consistent with different videos posted about the collapse but that is just my observation

for instance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

when you stop the video at 5:15 the building in the model is v shaped ... that is something that is not showing on any other video out there ....

King Mob wrote: »

As I pointed out, chapters 9 to 12.

No that is the section describing the collapse of wtc7 in general

What i am asking over and over is the specific data they used to make their computer model.. specific data which you say is there

But okay ... where in chapter 9-12 do they explain how they made their computer model and what particular data they used to make the model behave the way it did.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Because the model imo is not consistent with different videos posted about the collapse but that is just my observation

What was inconsistent and how does it indicate that the official model does not allow for free fall?

weisses wrote: »

when you stop the video at 5:15 the building in the model is v shaped ... that is something that is not showing on any other video out there ....

This is because the simulation being shown only shows the internal structure, not the outer facade as seen in the videos. However the V shape you are pointing out is indicated by how the roof is shown to collapse down into the facade.
Also:
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/4972/wtc7kink7xa.jpg
http://d3e11nsse60sj1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/wtc-collapse.jpg
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3233/wtc7northwesttogether1o.jpg

weisses wrote: »

But okay ... where in chapter 9-12 do they explain how they made their computer model and what particular data they used to make the model behave the way it did.

Chapters 9-12 all describe how they made their models and the various scenarios they ran them through as well as the parameters they used.
Chapter 9 refers to the fire simulations. Chapter 10 refers to how the fires would have effected the materials in the building. Chapter 11 refers to the building model itself. Chapter 12 refers to the simulation of the collapse.
All of the details are there in those chapters and it takes those chapters to outline how they made the models and to outline the data.

I can't be more specific.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

What was inconsistent and how does it indicate that the official model does not allow for free fall?

Where does the computer model allow for partial free fall ... ? starting 8:17 in video ... if he's talking nonsense please explain why.

King Mob wrote: »

This is because the simulation being shown only shows the internal structure, not the outer facade as seen in the videos. However the V shape you are pointing out is indicated by how the roof is shown to collapse down into the facade.
Also:
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/4972/wtc7kink7xa.jpg
http://d3e11nsse60sj1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/wtc-collapse.jpg
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3233/wtc7northwesttogether1o.jpg

The model shows the V shape about 10 stories deep ... which is not at all visible on any video and picture .... how do they know this happened ?

King Mob wrote: »

Chapters 9-12 all describe how they made their models and the various scenarios they ran them through as well as the parameters they used.
Chapter 9 refers to the fire simulations. Chapter 10 refers to how the fires would have effected the materials in the building. Chapter 11 refers to the building model itself. Chapter 12 refers to the simulation of the collapse.
All of the details are there in those chapters and it takes those chapters to outline how they made the models and to outline the data.

So what you are saying is that it is impossible to know what data was used making their computer model .... unless they release the specific info ?

Just look at the part starting at 6:35 in the video ... if you think he is talking rubbish please explain why

King Mob wrote: »

I can't be more specific.

But you still manage to be specific about a computer model that is not verified by outside sources as being accurate/plausible .. and when people ask what data is used NIST refuses to give the specific data ... yet you claim its there but cannot point out where. in fact no one apart from the people who fabricated the model at NIST can tell us that ... agreed ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Where does the computer model allow for partial free fall ... ? starting 8:17 in video ... if he's talking nonsense please explain why.

Are you now suggesting that the officials presented this model that doesn't show or allow free fall, but then said that there was free fall?

Why would they do this?

weisses wrote: »

So what you are saying is that it is impossible to know what data was used making their computer model .... unless they release the specific info ?

No that is not what I am saying.
All of the data they used to make the computer model is in those chapters. Some one with the correct computer program, schematics and know how would be able to use the information in those chapters to create the same computer model and be able to see any differences with the released simulation as well as see anything that would be physically impossible.

What is impossible is to know what data I can point to that would satisfy you.
This is because you don't even know what data you want or is relevant.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Are you now suggesting that the officials presented this model that doesn't show or allow free fall, but then said that there was free fall?

Why would they do this?

Can you answer my question about the video ? starting at 8:17 is he talking nonsense if so why ?

King Mob wrote: »

No that is not what I am saying.
All of the data they used to make the computer model is in those chapters. Some one with the correct computer program, schematics and know how would be able to use the information in those chapters to create the same computer model and be able to see any differences with the released simulation as well as see anything that would be physically impossible.

What is impossible is to know what data I can point to that would satisfy you.
This is because you don't even know what data you want or is relevant.

Can you answer my question regarding the video starting at 6:35 ? it tackles your concerns raised .... is he talking rubbish?? ...if so why

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Can you answer my question about the video ? starting at 8:17 is he talking nonsense if so why ?



Can you answer my question regarding the video starting at 6:35 ? it tackles your concerns raised .... is he talking rubbish?? ...if so why

I've no intention of answering questions weisses when you've spent the entire thread ignoring my questions and points. Answering them would be a waste of time as you will simply ignore the answers.

Especially when I've already addressed the points in the video.

It was rather pointless of you to dig this thread up only to immediately shut down discussion.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I've no intention of answering questions weisses when you've spent the entire thread ignoring my questions and points. Answering them would be a waste of time as you will simply ignore the answers.

Especially when I've already addressed the points in the video.

It was rather pointless of you to dig this thread up only to immediately shut down discussion.

What i did was asking you simple questions regarding the video why are you not able to answer them ???

The fact you are not able to answer them has more to do with the validity of the concerns raised then my view on the matter

You have not answered the points in the video and indeed its difficult discussing topics when a question asked is replied upon with a question rather then an answer

I don't shut down discussion .. i encourage it by asking your view about specific sections of that video ? instead of giving an answer you try to draw attention away from these simple questions by blaming me of all kind of things.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

What i did was asking you simple questions regarding the video why are you not able to answer them ???

The fact you are not able to answer them has more to do with the validity of the concerns raised then my view on the matter

You have not answered the points in the video and indeed its difficult discussing topics when a question asked is replied upon with a question rather then an answer

I don't shut down discussion .. i encourage it by asking your view about specific sections of that video ? instead of giving an answer you try to draw attention away from these simple questions by blaming me of all kind of things.

Again I have answered these questions several times.

First, all the the data he is referring to is in the report I have supplied in the chapters I specified. If there was something inconsistant with this data, the simulations provided by the NIST and real life the information in that report can be used to spot. It has all of the data about the materials, the conditions, the parameters and the tweaks they used as well as the details of why they used what they used.
I asked you to specific what data would satisfy your demand, but you don't know yourself what would.

Second I point out that he does not actually show how or why the computer model does not allow for free fall. He just states that it doesn't. (Based seemingly on the wireframe model he shows which does not include the facade of the building, the part which the official explanation says experiences free fall.)
I asked you to outline this how and why, but you ignored the question.

The last three or four posts I made specifically make these points. I cannot make them any clearer and repeating your same questions will just yield the same answers unless you can point out why they are insufficient.

Penn

If you've both come to an impasse, move on. Thread will be locked if this becomes any more circular.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again I have answered these questions several times.

No you have not ... you have said that specific info they used is in the report but that is not what i asked and what NIST refuses to release ... i asked for the specific data used to make that computer model, there are many figures and numbers mentioned in the report but no one beside nist know which where used to fabricate their model

King Mob wrote: »

I asked you to specific what data would satisfy your demand, but you don't know yourself what would.

No one knows ...besides NIST ... how scientific

King Mob wrote: »

Second I point out that he does not actually show how or why the computer model does not allow for free fall. He just states that it doesn't. (Based seemingly on the wireframe model he shows which does not include the facade of the building, the part which the official explanation says experiences free fall.)
I asked you to outline this how and why, but you ignored the question.

The whole building experienced free fall

And how did NIST reached their conclusion that only the facade reached free fall

And how does the model allow for free fall ... i don't see it

King Mob wrote: »

The last three or four posts I made specifically make these points. I cannot make them any clearer and repeating your same questions will just yield the same answers unless you can point out why they are insufficient.

i asked you to be specific about the issues/problems raised in sections of the video but all you do is skimp over them and cherry pick your anwsers imo

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No you have not ... you have said that specific info they used is in the report but that is not what i asked and what NIST refuses to release ... i asked for the specific data used to make that computer model, there are many figures and numbers mentioned in the report but no one beside nist know which where used to fabricate their model



No one knows ...besides NIST ... how scientific



The whole building experienced free fall

And how did NIST reached their conclusion that only the facade reached free fall

And how does the model allow for free fall ... i don't see it




i asked you to be specific about the issues/problems raised in sections of the video but all you do is skimp over them and cherry pick your anwsers imo

And around you go again...
Weisses, there's nothing more I can say to answer your questions. No answer would satisfy what you are demanding.
You are simply just parroting off questions without even understanding why you are asking them.
I've tried enough.

Penn

Thread locked.