Anonymous no action 9/11

hydro graphics ireland

Ok we all have watched or heard about the 9/11 conspiracies and at this point its just blatantly obvious that the collapse of WTC 1 2 and 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming at this point. So who can we the people turn to that would have the recourses to dig really deep into this. Well maybe the hacker group anonymous, i mean these guys are world renowned for digging deep, yet we see no action from them on this matter. So if the scientologists warrant action for scamming a few suckers why the hell the lack of action on one of the worlds biggest cover ups. So I guess the question is WHY NO ACTION.

I think there are several reason for this.
First I think that the conspiracies aren't as accepted by as many people as you seem to believe they are.

Second regardless of the truth of the conspiracy it lacks the organisation that would react as Scientology would. Assuming for a moment there was a conspiracy, there is no branch of the government or distinct office specifically to troll and get a reaction out of. If the conspiracy was true, then the best course of action for the conspirators is to simply ignore Anonymous and other activists as it would create the illusion that there is no conspiracy.
So with no one to make funny, exploitable, attention grabbing responses there's no lulz to be had by announcing the "truth" about 9/11 or DDoSing the government.

A third reason is that Anonymous isn't a hive mind or even an organisation. It's basically just a guy throwing up an idea they think would be funny and others jumping onto the band wagon. There's dozens of attempted campaigns by anons. Videos declaring internet war on stuff like Israel or the NSA or capitalism. None of them get very far and never get the media attention that the Scientology thing did (which also lessens the opportunity for lulz).

Also it should be noted that Anonymous didn't actually dig deep with Scientology, they simply gathered and brought attention to the information that was all ready all over the internet (some of it having been there for years.)

A much juicier target for Anonymous would in fact be places like abovetopsecret and infowars and paranoid loudmouths like Alex Jones who would freak out and explode at that type of harassment.
I don't know why they haven't tried yet.

cabrasnake

In the real world what is actually blatantly obvious is that the CT 'science' is schoolboy howler mumbo jumbo. Cobbled together by pub 'experts' and is such a dogs dinner of half baked self delusion it actually refutes its own arguments comprehensively.

weisses

cabrasnake wrote: »

In the real world what is actually blatantly obvious is that the CT 'science' is schoolboy howler mumbo jumbo. Cobbled together by pub 'experts' and is such a dogs dinner of half baked self delusion it actually refutes its own arguments comprehensively.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Bloody pub experts

weisses

hydro graphics ireland wrote: »

Ok we all have watched or heard about the 9/11 conspiracies and at this point its just blatantly obvious that the collapse of WTC 1 2 and 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming at this point. So who can we the people turn to that would have the recourses to dig really deep into this. Well maybe the hacker group anonymous, i mean these guys are world renowned for digging deep, yet we see no action from them on this matter. So if the scientologists warrant action for scamming a few suckers why the hell the lack of action on one of the worlds biggest cover ups. So I guess the question is WHY NO ACTION.

Below says it all

Ultimately, the budget for the 9/11 Commission was increased to $12 million and they were given 18 months to complete the investigation and issue their report. In comparison, $20 million was spent on the independent Columbia Accident Investigation Board's investigation of the 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster, in which 7 astronauts were killed. This amount does not include an estimated $300 million spent on debris recovery of the space shuttle, nor tens of millions spent by NASA in support of the investigation.

source

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Even the NIST report that came out later is full of holes and lacks the transparency to call it a proper scientific report

cabrasnake

weisses wrote: »

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Bloody pub experts

Pub experts and fruitcake cranks I forgot to add.

56% of Americans believe in alien abduction

18% believe the sun goes round the earth

6% believe in unicorns.

There's no credible science that the towers were controlled demolitions.

Except in the minds of those who want to believe it has to be true.

hydro graphics ireland

"There's no credible science that the towers were controlled demolitions."

Really then why did all 3 buildings fall at the rate of free fall. this means that the upper levels met no resistance on the way down. hence explosives must have been used.

TheChizler

hydro graphics ireland wrote: »

"There's no credible science that the towers were controlled demolitions."

Really then why did all 3 buildings fall at the rate of free fall. this means that the upper levels met no resistance on the way down. hence explosives must have been used.

Eh, looking at the videos concrete pieces and other debris thrown out of the tower fall faster than the tower, unless these pieces were thrown down or affected by super gravity then they were free falling, and therefore the building was falling at less than free fall acceleration.

cabrasnake

Useless to reason with so called truthers. Or Liarists as I call them.

Controlled demolition thoroughy debunked in many normal studies.
Schoolby howler 'science' of truthists is risible.
Actually makes them look like deluded eejits.

Mod: Banned

hydro graphics ireland

The debri you see in the videos are projectiles from the explosives used. You can clearly see in the videos projectiles traveling horizontally which have been measured to be traveling between 50 and 70 miles per hour and some of these projectiles weighed upwards of 4 tones. Does this not defy newton's law of gravity. You also see a Pyroclastic flow which these phenomenon are typically visible only during volcanic eruptions and controlled demolition of buildings.

Also why was there nano thermite found in the rubble. This is a metastable intermolecular composite, Why was this found somewhere it should have never been.

hydro graphics ireland

hydro graphics ireland wrote: »

Really then why did all 3 buildings fall at the rate of free fall. this means that the upper levels met no resistance on the way down. hence explosives must have been used.

This is not true.
The twin towers and WTC7 all took longer to fall than they would have under free fall.
For example it is often claimed that WTC7 fell in 7 seconds, which is about as long as it takes for something dropped from the roof to hit the ground, thus indicating that it didn't meet any resistance.
However if you look at the unedited video, it's apparent that the building takes upwards of 14 seconds to fall out of view (there is no video footage of it hitting the ground, so the collapse was in total a few seconds more.)

The fact the first "undeniable" piece of evidence you provide is completely untrue and based on something that is essential a lie should tell you the main reason why people aren't as convinced as you are.

hydro graphics ireland

The free fall argument does not entirely suggest that there was no resistance from the lower floors of course the upper levels came across some resistance but not nearly enough to qualify as a natural collapse. WTC 1 and 2 fell in around 10 seconds when the a natural collapse should of took 40 seconds or more, that is a very big difference. So in actually fact while it was not quite free fall WTC 1 and 2 fell in around 10 seconds this should lead you to believe that there was little to no resistance.

hydro graphics ireland

hydro graphics ireland wrote: »

The free fall argument does not entirely suggest that there was no resistance from the lower floors of course the upper levels came across some resistance but not nearly enough to qualify as a natural collapse. WTC 1 and 2 fell in around 10 seconds when the a natural collapse should of took 40 seconds or more, that is a very big difference. So in actually fact while it was not quite free fall WTC 1 and 2 fell in around 10 seconds this should lead you to believe that there was little to no resistance.

What are you basing these numbers on exactly?
How do you know that the buildings collapsed in 10 seconds?
Why do you think that it should have taken 40 seconds?

What about this video that shows that the tower didn't collapse anyway near 10 seconds?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAYXdafNl6E

And what about the claim about WTC7 falling in 7 seconds? Do you agree with that?

TheChizler

hydro graphics ireland wrote: »

The debri you see in the videos are projectiles from the explosives used. You can clearly see in the videos projectiles traveling horizontally which have been measured to be traveling between 50 and 70 miles per hour and some of these projectiles weighed upwards of 4 tones.

They all just happened to be fired downwards did they?

hydro graphics ireland

huh?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

However if you look at the unedited video, it's apparent that the building takes upwards of 14 seconds to fall out of view (there is no video footage of it hitting the ground, so the collapse was in total a few seconds more.)

There is also no video footage of the penthouse collapsing all the way down to ground level ... The most important thing from these videos is that they can determine building 7 reaching partial free fall speed, measured when the visible parts of the building starts falling ... and they calculated that there was free fall speed for a couple of seconds. To achieve that there can be NO resistance .. All the 58 perimeter columns (minus 7 according to NIST) and 25 core columns had to give way simultaneously

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e.,slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

It doesn't matter when the penthouse Disappeared in calculating how long it took for building 7 to come down ... The only evidence is what was visible ... the rest is based on a computer model that couldn't be verified to be accurate

weisses

weisses wrote: »

There is also no video footage of the penthouse collapsing all the way down to ground level ... The most important thing from these videos is that they can determine building 7 reaching partial free fall speed, measured when the visible parts of the building starts falling ... and they calculated that there was free fall speed for a couple of seconds. To achieve that there can be NO resistance .. All the 58 perimeter columns (minus 7 according to NIST) and 25 core columns had to give way simultaneously

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e.,slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

It doesn't matter when the penthouse Disappeared in calculating how long it took for building 7 to come down ... The only evidence is what was visible ... the rest is based on a computer model that couldn't be verified to be accurate

Any chance you're able to explain why the penthouse collapsed suddenly?
Or explain why the building was falling at less than free fall speeds for the other two stages? What was happening there to slow the building down?

Otherwise your point is you simply going around in circles again and there's no sense in wasting effort watching you chase your tail.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Any chance you're able to explain why the penthouse collapsed suddenly?

It did collapse .. But as i said before there is no evidence as in how far it fell

King Mob wrote: »

Or explain why the building was falling at less than free fall speeds for the other two stages? What was happening there to slow the building down?

I think you should be worried/question the building reaching free fall speed in the first place

But i can think of an explanation ... In fase one the building is getting its momentum fase two is free fall and fase 3 is the building encountering resistance

If you can explain to me as in how all those 70 or so columns gave way instantly due to office fires alone that would be nice

King Mob wrote: »

Otherwise your point is you simply going around in circles again and there's no sense in wasting effort watching you chase your tail.

Stick to the points raised ... No interest in petty personal digs

weisses

weisses wrote: »

It did collapse .. But as i said before there is no evidence as in how far it fell

Except that an internal collapse under that point is the only plausible explanation on offer. I have asked you several times to suggest another one, but you are incapable of providing one.
To suggest that the collapse of the penthouse is totally unconnected to the collapse of the rest of the building means that there must be some other reason for it to have spontaneously collapsed and fall only a few floors.
Until you can provide a plausible reason for this, then the collapse of the penthouse being the start of the collapse is the best explanation and the one I'm going to stick to.

weisses wrote: »

I think you should be worried/question the building reaching free fall speed in the first place

Why? You've yet to explain why this is inconsistent with the official story or model or how it confirms the claims of conspiracy theorists who falsely state the building collapsed completely under free fall speed.
And why do you think that being unable to offer an explanation would be an issue for my position? There are dozens of unanswered questions about conflicting ideas in yours, yet you don't seem worried that you are unable to answer these questions.

weisses wrote: »

But i can think of an explanation ... In fase one the building is getting its momentum fase two is free fall and fase 3 is the building encountering resistance

And thus we see that you don't under stand what acceleration and free fall is.
You don't build up acceleration. You are either falling at free fall acceleration from the moment your are able to fall or you are falling at less acceleration. (unless you have another force acting downwards on you besides gravity.)

If the building was not falling at free fall speeds in the first section, then it is encountering resistance.
What might cause this resistance?
Making some columns give way perhaps?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Except that an internal collapse under that point is the only plausible explanation on offer. I have asked you several times to suggest another one, but you are incapable of providing one.
To suggest that the collapse of the penthouse is totally unconnected to the collapse of the rest of the building means that there must be some other reason for it to have spontaneously collapsed and fall only a few floors.
Until you can provide a plausible reason for this, then the collapse of the penthouse being the start of the collapse is the best explanation and the one I'm going to stick to.

You are giving what you think is plausible ( not fact)

I am saying there is no evidence in how far the penthouse collapses

I am as much incapable in proving the penthouse only collapsed lets say 3 floors as you are in proving the penthouse dragged the whole building with it

King Mob wrote: »

Why? You've yet to explain why this is inconsistent with the official story or model or how it confirms the claims of conspiracy theorists who falsely state the building collapsed completely under free fall speed.
And why do you think that being unable to offer an explanation would be an issue for my position? There are dozens of unanswered questions about conflicting ideas in yours, yet you don't seem worried that you are unable to answer these questions.

Funny you could have said ... I cannot find an answer for this strange fact

but instead of doing your best in answering it you cloud the discussion with even more nonsense

King Mob wrote: »

And thus we see that you don't under stand what acceleration and free fall is.
You don't build up acceleration. You are either falling at free fall acceleration from the moment your are able to fall or you are falling at less acceleration. (unless you have another force acting downwards on you besides gravity.)

No you reach free fall speed .. When someone jumps from a plane he is not instantly at free fall speed

If not please explain how you think reaching free fall speed works and more important , how can mass reach free fall speed instantly

King Mob wrote: »

If the building was not falling at free fall speeds in the first section, then it is encountering resistance.
What might cause this resistance?
Making some columns give way perhaps?

Again i ask you how can you explain how a building affected by office fires suddenly collapses reaching free fall speed for nearly 2.25 seconds (meaning no resistance at all ) neither from floors nor the 70 plus columns that where supporting the building

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Y
No you reach free fall speed .. When someone jumps from a plane he is not instantly at free fall speed

If not please explain how you think reaching free fall speed works and more important , how can mass reach free fall speed instantly

It's rather telling of how good your position is when you don't understand the difference between acceleration and speed.

You don't start at free fall speeds.
You start at free fall acceleration, or more technically, acceleration due to gravity. That acceleration brings you up to free fall speed.
Acceleration does not build up unless something is pushing the object down. Acceleration is not momentum.

The section you like to quote specifically states acceleration, not speed.

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e.,slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

If the building was accelerating less than acceleration due to gravity then it is encountering resistance.

This first lot of resistance is it breaking all of the supports under it's own weight, then it falls unimpeded for a short time before it encounters the piling up debris and encounters resistance again.

if this is not the case, why was the building experiencing less acceleration?

weisses wrote: »

Again i ask you how can you explain how a building affected by office fires suddenly collapses reaching free fall speed for nearly 2.25 seconds (meaning no resistance at all ) neither from floors nor the 70 plus columns that where supporting the building

It did encounter resistance from it's supports.
That resistance accounts for the acceleration less than that of gravity.

So unless you can provide an alternate explanation...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It's rather pointless to have this conversation when you don't understand the difference between acceleration and speed.

You don't start at free fall speeds.
You start at free fall acceleration, or more technically, acceleration due to gravity. That acceleration brings you up to free fall speed.
Acceleration does not build up unless something is pushing the object down. Acceleration is not momentum.

The section you like to quote specifically states acceleration, not speed.


If the building was accelerating less than acceleration due to gravity then it is encountering resistance.

This first lot of resistance is it breaking all of the supports under it's own weight, then it falls unimpeded for a short time before it encounters the piling up debris and encounters resistance again.

if this is not the case, why was the building experiencing less acceleration?

It did encounter resistance from it's supports.
That resistance accounts for the acceleration less than that of gravity.

So unless you can provide an alternate explanation...

Those first 1.75 seconds the building was accelerating to free fall speed (without resistance) because if the building would have encountered resistance in those first two seconds it couldn't have reached the eventual free fall speed it experienced for 2.25 seconds.. correct ? because my knowledge is that in order to reach free fall speed the only thing creating resistance is air and not floors and columns buckling

If that is an impossible conclusion please show me where my conclusion is flawed

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Those first 1.75 seconds the building was accelerating to free fall speed (without resistance) because if the building would have encountered resistance in those first two seconds it couldn't have reached the eventual free fall speed it experienced for 2.25 seconds.. correct ? because my knowledge is that in order to reach free fall speed the only thing creating resistance is air and not floors and columns buckling

If that is an impossible conclusion please show me where my conclusion is flawed

Your conclusion is flawed because again you are confusing acceleration and speed.
The section of the NIST report you like to repeat does not mention speed at all.

It specifically refers to the acceleration in each section.

The building didn't experience free fall speeds for 2.25 seconds it experienced free fall acceleration, or acceleration due to gravity for 2.25 seconds.

Before that it was falling at less than gravitational acceleration. This means that that section of the building was not accelerating towards the ground as much as it would be if it was simply dropped over empty air.
Which means there was something acting in the opposite direction to reduce the acceleration.

The only plausible explanation for this is resistance from the columns as they buckled and broke before finally failing entirely and allowing the building to fall at gravitational acceleration.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

The section of the NIST report you like to repeat does not mention speed at all.

Correct they stated "gravitational acceleration" which equals 9.8 m/s2 which equals free fall speed ... correct ?

King Mob wrote: »

The building didn't experience free fall speeds for 2.25 seconds it experienced free fall acceleration, or acceleration due to gravity for 2.25 seconds.

It experienced gravitational acceleration in other words it was falling at free fall speed for 2.25 seconds

King Mob wrote: »

Before that it was falling at less than gravitational acceleration. This means that that section of the building was not accelerating towards the ground as much as it would be if it was simply dropped over empty air.
Which means there was something acting in the opposite direction to reduce the acceleration.

Mass doesn't reach gravitational acceleration instantly ... but in order to reach gravitational acceleration it cannot be slowed down other then air friction ... so your point is mute

King Mob wrote: »

The only plausible explanation for this is resistance from the columns as they buckled and broke before finally failing entirely and allowing the building to fall at gravitational acceleration.

physics are disagreeing with you

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Correct they stated "gravitational acceleration" which equals 9.8 m/s2 which equals free fall speed ... correct ?

No 9.8 m/s^2 is not free fall speed. It's not even a speed.
It is acceleration due to gravity.
It specifically means that your speed is increasing 9.8 metres a second every second.

Speed is not acceleration. This is junior cert physics.

weisses wrote: »

It experienced gravitational acceleration in other words it was falling at free fall speed for 2.25 seconds

Yes. After experiencing lesser acceleration.

weisses wrote: »

Mass doesn't reach gravitational acceleration instantly ... but in order to reach gravitational acceleration it cannot be slowed down other then air friction ... so your point is mute

Again confusing speed and acceleration.
You are experiencing gravitational acceleration right now. If you stepped off a height you would still experience free acceleration.

weisses wrote: »

physics are disagreeing with you

Lol...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No 9.8 m/s^2 is not free fall speed. It's not even a speed.
It is acceleration due to gravity.
It specifically means that your speed is increasing 9.8 metres a second every second.

Which means ........free fall

King Mob wrote: »

Again confusing speed and acceleration.
You are experiencing gravitational acceleration right now. If you stepped off a height you would still experience free acceleration.

How would this be possible with a collapsing building full of steal and concrete and other stuff that creates resistance ?

Nice you added that junior cert remark in it ... you couldn't resist could you

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Which means ........free fall

Yes. But before that, the building experienced acceleration less than that due to gravity. As in it gained less than 9.8 metres per second of speed every second.

The only explanation for this is it encountering resistance from the failing structure.

Your alternative explanation is based on complete lack of understanding about basic physics.

weisses wrote: »

How would this be possible with a collapsing building full of steal and concrete and other stuff that creates resistance ?

How would what be possible? For it to experience free fall after the structure failed entirely and was no longer able to offer resistance?

Um... Gravity?

weisses wrote: »

Nice you added that junior cert remark in it ... you couldn't resist could you

Because you are showing that you do not understand physics terms and concepts that are taught at the junior cert level then claiming a great many things based on this abject ignorance including suggesting that I am getting the physics wrong.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Because you are showing that you do not understand physics terms and concepts that are taught at the junior cert level then claiming a great many things based on this abject ignorance including suggesting that I am getting the physics wrong.

I do understand this much that when a building collapses there is more resistance then gravity ... The fact you don't address this point says it all i think ... Its also physics

http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/NIST%20WTC%207%20FAQ%20alterations%20revealed.pdf

Starting at page 12

quote

NIST’s response to this is the ‘hollow shell’ hypothesis: there is no structural resistance because there is no resisting structure
Sadly, we have no way of verifying the key
assertions of NIST’s ‘best estimate’ simulation, because its key characteristics, a completely collapsed core and a façade buckling between floors 7 and 14, are almost all hidden from view. Neither does NIST, to the best of my knowledge, cite any witness statements in support of this proposed external column buckling in this region.
Last but certainly not least, there was no physical evidence whatsoever used by NIST to reality check their largely simulation-based hypothesis. As stated in NCSTAR 1A:

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I do understand this much that when a building collapses there is more resistance then gravity ... The fact you don't address this point says it all i think ... Its also physics

No no weisses, you don't get to whinge about me supposedly not answering points then try to change the subject.

According the to NIST section you repeatedly quote and cling to like the gospel truth states that the section of the building it measured fell at less acceleration than it would have under gravity.

What caused this reduced acceleration?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No no weisses, you don't get to whinge about me supposedly not answering points then try to change the subject.

According the to NIST section you repeatedly quote and cling to like the gospel truth states that the section of the building it measured fell at less acceleration than it would have under gravity.

What caused this reduced acceleration?

I am not changing the subject ...

I asked you from early on ... How can you explain how its possible for a building falling at gravitational acceleration when there should be so much building preventing gravitational acceleration ... It cannot all just disappear

That's why i added the link with the "hollow shell" theory

I also tried answering your questions here

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

But in that post i also asked about If you can explain to me as in how all those 70 or so columns gave way instantly due to office fires alone (happened in the first two seconds)

So don't preach to me about not answering questions

Penn

King Mob wrote: »

No no weisses, you don't get to whinge about me supposedly not answering points then try to change the subject.

weisses wrote: »

So don't preach to me about not answering questions

Knock it off, the pair of you. Bans will be handed out if necessary.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I am not changing the subject ...

I asked you from early on ... How can you explain how its possible for a building falling at gravitational acceleration when there should be so much building preventing gravitational acceleration ... It cannot all just disappear

That's why i added the link with the "hollow shell" theory

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

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

weisses wrote: »

I also tried answering your questions here

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

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

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

weisses wrote: »

But in that post i also asked about If you can explain to me as in how all those 70 or so columns gave way instantly due to office fires alone (happened in the first two seconds)

So don't preach to me about not answering questions

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

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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

What mechanism caused the whole building to collapse instantly ?

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

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

weisses

weisses wrote: »

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

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

What mechanism caused the whole building to collapse instantly ?

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

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

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

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

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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

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

So you cannot answer my simple question ...

How can you explain how its possible for a building falling at gravitational acceleration when there should be so much building preventing gravitational acceleration ... It cannot all just disappear

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So you cannot answer my simple question ...

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

weisses wrote: »

How can you explain how its possible for a building falling at gravitational acceleration when there should be so much building preventing gravitational acceleration ... It cannot all just disappear

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

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

weisses wrote: »

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

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

weisses wrote: »

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

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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

So "not supporting" equals free fall speed now ?

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

Stubborn little office fires

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

weisses

weisses wrote: »

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

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

So "not supporting" equals free fall speed now ?

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

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

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

Stubborn little office fires

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

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

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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

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

No you said

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

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

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

And how was it a strawman ?

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

weisses

weisses wrote: »

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

Trying to address those things just goes around in circles.

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

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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Trying to address those things just goes around in circles.

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

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

Even the official story is rightfully challenged by different people

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

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

weisses

weisses wrote: »

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

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

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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

I am not saying you nor those people are mistaken.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

weisses wrote: »

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

I am not saying you nor those people are mistaken.

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

3DataModem

I believe there's some pretty solid math here;

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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

weisses

3DataModem wrote: »

I believe there's some pretty solid math here;

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

That is not regarding building 7

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

weisses

weisses wrote: »

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

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

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

weisses wrote: »

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

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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

And does it require for me to challenge them ?

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

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

A Primal Nut

hydro graphics ireland wrote: »

Ok we all have watched or heard about the 9/11 conspiracies and at this point its just blatantly obvious that the collapse of WTC 1 2 and 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming at this point. So who can we the people turn to that would have the recourses to dig really deep into this. Well maybe the hacker group anonymous, i mean these guys are world renowned for digging deep, yet we see no action from them on this matter. So if the scientologists warrant action for scamming a few suckers why the hell the lack of action on one of the worlds biggest cover ups. So I guess the question is WHY NO ACTION.

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

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

weisses

weisses wrote: »

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

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