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

Dohnjoe

Straightforward enough, explain what alternatively caused the building to collapse with normal evidence, sources and information (not infowars, conspiracy sites and random blog stuff please)

Since I have a long history with this whole 911 thing, it's highly likely that individuals may attempt to divert or deflect back to attacking the NIST or details - many other threads cover that, this is a thread about alternative theories and looking at the supporting evidence behind those theories

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Straightforward enough, explain what alternatively caused the building to collapse with normal evidence, sources and information (not infowars, conspiracy sites and random blog stuff please)

Controlled demolition.

NIST has always stated no noise was heard above 130db prior to any collapse event.

That's false a loud bang was heard on video 1 second prior to the Penthouse collapse event.

Reason why is significiant that bang was heard blocks away and no collapsing floors noise audio was picked up at all. That literally means the noise was explosive in nature.

You clearly ignore this noise as if has no relevance and has nothing to do with the collapse.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Controlled demolition.

Let's start off with this one..

1. Who set the explosives, Navy Seals? demolition experts? which branch did they come from?

2. How many were there? what were their names?

3. Exactly when did they set the explosives? how long did it take?

4. Who gave them the order to set the explosives?

No guesses or "I think", backed up with witnesses, evidence and so on

The Phantom Jipper

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Controlled demolition.

NIST has always stated no noise was heard above 130db prior to any collapse event.

That's false a loud bang was heard on video 1 second prior to the Penthouse collapse event.

Reason why is significiant that bang was heard blocks away and no collapsing floors noise audio was picked up at all. That literally means the noise was explosive in nature.

You clearly ignore this noise as if has no relevance and has nothing to do with the collapse.

Perhaps my phone is dodgy but I can't hear a loud bang in that video, should I be hearing it? What's "collapsing floors noise audio" and why does it logically follow that any noise heard is therefore from an explosive device?

Cheerful Spring

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

What's "collapsing floors noise audio" and why does it logically follow that any noise heard is therefore from an explosive device?

You have to understand what NIST states did not occur.

They claim no noise above 130db was heard prior to any collapse. 130db is the noise level of a jackhammer.

If the noise was a result of floors falling we would have heard on the video. What we heard was an an echo from a blast, what followed as you see the Pentahouse fell in right after this noise.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Let's start off with this one..

1. Who set the explosives, Navy Seals? demolition experts? which branch did they come from?

2. How many were there? what were their names?

3. Exactly when did they set the explosives? how long did it take?

4. Who gave them the order to set the explosives?

No guesses or "I think", backed up with witnesses, evidence and so on

Stop playing silly games. You know damn well this information is only known to the people who carried out the demolition of WTC7.

What we can prove is NIST theory does not explain the collapse. NIST lied about events that happened.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You know damn well this information is only known to the people who carried out the demolition of WTC7.

So we're just supposed to "take your word on it" that the building was blown up?

Can you provide any details on it?

(no attacking the NIST we've had plenty of threads on that, just details backed by evidence)

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Let's start off with this one..

1. Who set the explosives, Navy Seals? demolition experts? which branch did they come from?

2. How many were there? what were their names?

3. Exactly when did they set the explosives? how long did it take?

4. Who gave them the order to set the explosives?

No guesses or "I think", backed up with witnesses, evidence and so on

5. Where were the explosives set?

6. What type of explosive was used?

7. When and how were they set?

8. Why set explosives at all?

9. Why do such an obviously **** job at it so that they leave so much evidence for keyboard investigators?

Dr. Bre

The whole thing is bizarrre . We will never forget or understand

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So we're just supposed to "take your word on it" that the building was blown up?

Can you provide any details on it?

(no attacking the NIST we've had plenty of threads on that, just details backed by evidence)

Professor Hulsey is an expert when he releases his report there be no doubt anymore how this was done. He was able to computer simulate the actual collapse. You see how it was achieved there be no debate anymore.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Professor Hulsey is an expert when he releases his report there be no doubt anymore how this was done.

How would you "know" this, perhaps his final report will conclude that the building fell due to fire? perhaps it will be found to be highly flawed? (skeptics already have issues with preliminary findings) perhaps peer review will show the final report to be faulty?

It's a study by one expert (and 2 assistants) to "prove" the building didn't fall due to fire (proving a negative), it was paid for by a conspiracy theory group, it's long overdue.

We will have to see when the report is released, but how can you have faith in something you haven't seen?

Why can't you answer the below elementary questions..

"So we're just supposed to "take your word on it" that the building was blown up?"

"Can you provide any details on it?"

Cheerful Spring

Dr. Bre wrote: »

The whole thing is bizarrre . We will never forget or understand

There so many different wild conspiracies about 9/11 that's the problem. We should just focus on WTC7.

If it can be proved a nefarious act happened there this will expose the rest of the conspiracy for people.

WTC7 wasn't brought down by demolition then I don't believe the twin towers were brought down by demolition either.

WTC7 is what changed my mind on the conspiracy. When NIST lies so blatantly you have to wonder why are they doing that and for who?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

5. Where were the explosives set?

6. What type of explosive was used?

7. When and how were they set?

8. Why set explosives at all?

9. Why do such an obviously **** job at it so that they leave so much evidence for keyboard investigators?

10. Why were risky explosives used when the building was going to be consumed by fire? why not let the building just burn like all the other buildings that burnt or damaged and had to be torn down?

11. What exactly was in building 7 that they needed to destroy? what not destroy it while they were sneaking in and carving up the building to set charges?

12. What if the planes missed the Twin Towers entirely, crashed elsewhere and investigators found a building in New York rigged with explosives?

13. The president of the US can't get a blowjob without the world finding out, Donald Trump has inside leaks left right and centre, how could they pull off such a massive inside job without a single leak, a single deathbed confession, a single whistle-blower, a single witness?

14. How do foreign intelligence agencies, people deep on the inside like Snowden, organisations like Wikileaks not have a single piece of information on it?

There are a lot of questions

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

How would you "know" this, perhaps his final report will conclude that the building fell due to fire? perhaps it will be found to be highly flawed? (skeptics already have issues with preliminary findings) perhaps peer review will show the final report to be faulty?

It's a study by one expert (and 2 assistants) to "prove" the building didn't fall due to fire (proving a negative), it was paid for by a conspiracy theory group, it's long overdue.

We will have to see when the report is released, but how can you have faith in something you haven't seen?

Why can't you answer the below elementary questions..

"So we're just supposed to "take your word on it" that the building was blown up?"

"Can you provide any details on it?"

Skeptics are not engineers or architects they are just people like you and me with different positions and believes about 9/11.

Skeptics still have a believe no steel melted and fires burned uncontrollably for six hours in WTC7.

Hulsey already stated fires did not bring it down in an update in 2018. He also modelled the girder at column 79 with shear and studs and web plate. It's his professional opinion it would not have mattered anyway with shear studs and web plate on the girder. He got very technical why the girder still would not move off its seat. When he releases the report we can read it and see what the issues are. This study cost 300,000 dollars it not half-arsed and done not correctly. He modelled every scenario possible even ones NIST did not even look at.

To computer sim, the actual collapse is an achievement. NIST could even do that with government backing. He going to have to account for every fault and structural failure so he cannot lie about this or he is found out.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

10. Why were risky explosives used when the building was going to be consumed by fire? why not let the building just burn like all the other buildings that burnt or damaged and had to be torn down?

11. What exactly was in building 7 that they needed to destroy? what not destroy it while they were sneaking in and carving up the building to set charges?

12. What if the planes missed the Twin Towers entirely, crashed elsewhere and investigators found a building in New York rigged with explosives?

13. The president of the US can't get a blowjob without the world finding out, Donald Trump has inside leaks left right and centre, how could they pull off such a massive inside job without a single leak, a single deathbed confession, a single whistle-blower, a single witness?

14. How do foreign intelligence agencies, people deep on the inside like Snowden, organisations like Wikileaks not have a single piece of information on it?

There are a lot of questions

15. How was all of it paid for? By who? And why did they pay for it?

16. How where they unable to get the NIST et all to produce a report that would be able to stand up to scrutiny by people who don't understand high school physics?

17. How were they unable to fake better more convincing evidence, like for example better video and telemetry for the plane that hit the Pentagon?

18. How come they don't use their space laser more often?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob NIST did not even realise freefall had occurred. When NIST released their findings David Chandler got on them by letter and phone and told them why Freefall occurred. They then had to re-evaluate their findings and they changed their report.

lawred2

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Controlled demolition.

NIST has always stated no noise was heard above 130db prior to any collapse event.

That's false a loud bang was heard on video 1 second prior to the Penthouse collapse event.

Reason why is significiant that bang was heard blocks away and no collapsing floors noise audio was picked up at all. That literally means the noise was explosive in nature.

You clearly ignore this noise as if has no relevance and has nothing to do with the collapse.

can you tell me at what time in that video I should expect to hear that bang because I heard nothing?

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob NIST did not even realise freefall had occurred. When NIST released their findings David Chandler got on them by letter and phone and told them why Freefall occurred. They then had to re-evaluate their findings and they changed their report.

That's not a reply to any points I made or questions I asked.
It's barely readable to be honest.
Please try again.
Please quote the question you are attempting to answer

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

10. Why were risky explosives used when the building was going to be consumed by fire? why not let the building just burn like all the other buildings that burnt or damaged and had to be torn down?

11. What exactly was in building 7 that they needed to destroy? what not destroy it while they were sneaking in and carving up the building to set charges?

12. What if the planes missed the Twin Towers entirely, crashed elsewhere and investigators found a building in New York rigged with explosives?

13. The president of the US can't get a blowjob without the world finding out, Donald Trump has inside leaks left right and centre, how could they pull off such a massive inside job without a single leak, a single deathbed confession, a single whistle-blower, a single witness?

14. How do foreign intelligence agencies, people deep on the inside like Snowden, organisations like Wikileaks not have a single piece of information on it?

There are a lot of questions

There were no fires on the east side till after 2 pm. They could not bring down WTC7 between 10.38am and 2 pm the excuse for why the collapse happened would not hold up. They placed demolitions on the east side and if there no fire was there when the building fell answers would be demanded. They probably expected greater damage and more fires and that never happened. Fires suddenly break out at 2 pm with no apparent cause on the eastside.

Financial crimes were investigated in the WTC7.. Enron was been investigated prior to 9/11. If you wanted to get rid of paper links to corruption and scandal 9/11 was good for that.

The planes were not going to crash anywhere else. The military drills on 9/11 pretty much guaranteed the planes safe passage to New York. They did not even call off the drills till after 10.30am. They drills were messing up the reaction time of Neads (Norad) I guess the 9/11 hijackers just picked the right day to carry out the attack?

There were plenty of leaks about Saudi Arabia involvement. Nothing leaked about the deep state involvement. What you overlooking there is a reason for that the White House went out of there way to obstruct the 9/11 investigation. They had seven years to block everyone out. Bush did not leave the office till 2008. People have just moved on.

Cheerful Spring

lawred2 wrote: »

can you tell me at what time in that video I should expect to hear that bang because I heard nothing?

1 second into the video, you hear the echo of the blast and then 1 second or thereabouts after the Penthouse starts falling in

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They placed demolitions on the east side

You are now asserting they placed explosives on the East side of the building

1. Who placed the explosives?

2. When were they placed?

3. Who ordered them to be placed?

With evidence.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No guesses or "I think", backed up with witnesses, evidence and so on

A reminder.

There are already a lot of deflections, whack-a-mole attempts, random associations/assertions going on

If making a claim, back it up with evidence

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are now asserting they placed explosives on the East side of the building

1. Who placed the explosives?

2. When were they placed?

3. Who ordered them to be placed?

With evidence.

That's where the first sign of collapse was occurring. The Penthouse dropped down on the east side on the north face.

NIST denied a noise of 130db was heard prior to collapse. Their theory doesn't hold up when a bang echo was picked up by the audio second before this collapse started.

NIST is denying a sound was heard before the collapse.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A reminder.

There are already a lot of deflections, whack-a-mole attempts, random associations/assertions going on

If making a claim, back it up with evidence

I not going to address nonsensical questions who did it. All we know building 7 did not fall down in way NIST claims. If you have an alternative fire collapse theory lets hear it?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe it amazing you support NIST when you know this what they released in their study!

The north side image should be enough to doubt their claims. You have actual video of the collapse of building 7 to see what the building looked like when it fell

Ash.J.Williams

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Straightforward enough, explain what alternatively caused the building to collapse with normal evidence, sources and information (not infowars, conspiracy sites and random blog stuff please)

Since I have a long history with this whole 911 thing, it's highly likely that individuals may attempt to divert or deflect back to attacking the NIST or details - many other threads cover that, this is a thread about alternative theories and looking at the supporting evidence behind those theories

It fell because the Saudis flew into it. Now for some reason after just killing one bloke America is angry with them.

Cheerful Spring

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

It fell because the Saudis flew into it. Now for some reason after just killing one bloke America is angry with them.

It's a building that collapsed later in the day on 9/11, no planes no Saudis involved.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's where the first sign of collapse was occurring. The Penthouse dropped down on the east side on the north face.

You are avoiding the questions

Again, I don't want guesses, I don't want "leaps", I don't want your personal attacks on the NIST (you do this in plenty of other threads)

I want simple, straight forward evidence

So again


1. Who placed the explosives?

2. When were they placed?

3. Who ordered them to be placed?

With evidence.

What can be assumed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are avoiding the questions

Again, I don't want guesses, I don't want "leaps", I don't want your personal attacks on the NIST (you do this in plenty of other threads)

I want simple, straight forward evidence

So again


1. Who placed the explosives?

2. When were they placed?

3. Who ordered them to be placed?

With evidence.

What can be assumed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

You are avoiding talking about images NIST released of what the north side looked when it collapsed!

Do you not think is weird their images look nothing like what happened? You have the actual video of collapse to see the position of the roof wall and side walls as it came down. There no deformations occurring like that in the actual video of collapse.

Nobody can answer these questions unless you are in the know. Is like asking me what did Dohnjoe eat for breakfast today? How would I know?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe come on now no deflection answer honestly why are the images from NIST showing deformations of the side walls of WTC7?

sabat

The most likely explanation is that the building wasn't as well constructed or the materials used weren't as good as they were supposed to be. New York city construction in the 1970s would have had a lot of mafia involvement so it has to be at least a possibility.

Cheerful Spring

sabat wrote: »

The most likely explanation is that the building wasn't as well constructed or the materials used weren't as good as they were supposed to be. New York city construction in the 1970s would have had a lot of mafia involvement so it has to be at least a possibility.

It was built in 1984 by Tishman Realty & Construction. No mafia links I ever heard about but not a bad theory all the same, but unlikely here.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You are avoiding talking

This is a subjective deflection

This thread is about alternative theories as to how WTC 7 fell that have supporting evidence.

If you personally have issues with a report or an investigation, that is not supporting evidence.

So far, the theory that the building fell due to controlled explosion does not appear to have any of the below

1. Witnesses/whistle-blowers/leaked information/insiders/confessions
2. Physical evidence of explosives, detonator cord, wiring, physical plans for the attack, material evidence, data
3. Evidence of exactly who planted the explosives, when they planted them, how it was done, how many were involved
4. Evidence of any chain of commend or plan
5. Evidence of any motive for a controlled demolition

So far, no motive, no evidence, no witnesses

It's unacceptable as a theory if it can't stand on it's own.

Attacking the theory that the building fell due to fire doesn't "prove" it was a controlled demolition anymore than attacking the theory that the Titanic sank due to an iceberg "proves" it was rammed by another ship (for which there is no evidence)

Maybe you do have evidence, but am still waiting..

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is a subjective deflection

This thread is about alternative theories as to how WTC 7 fell that have supporting evidence.

If you personally have issues with a report or an investigation, that is not supporting evidence.

So far, the theory that the building fell due to controlled explosion does not appear to have any of the below

1. Witnesses/whistle-blowers/leaked information/insiders/confessions
2. Physical evidence of explosives, detonator cord, wiring, physical plans for the attack, material evidence, data
3. Evidence of exactly who planted the explosives, when they planted them, how it was done, how many were involved
4. Evidence of any chain of commend or plan
5. Evidence of any motive for a controlled demolition

So far, no motive, no evidence, no witnesses

It's unacceptable as a theory if it can't stand on it's own.

Attacking the theory that the building fell due to fire doesn't "prove" it was a controlled demolition anymore than attacking the theory that the Titanic sank due to an iceberg "proves" it was rammed by another ship (for which there is no evidence)

Maybe you do have evidence, but am still waiting..

So you rule out demolitions happened here as nobody has stepped forward to claim responsibility or has leaked this already?

How many people do you think was involved in the conspiracy? A demolition team could involve just four to five people that can easily be kept a secret. If hundreds and thousands of people were in the know then you be right.

Nobody was looking for explosives in the rubble. The area was secured for weeks and no authorised personnel were allowed in to check. Pretty much everything got removed and dumped in sites secured by federal authorities. Nobody was checking the WTC7 rubble for explosive components residue. There no video of where the steel from WTC7 ended up being kept and there no video or any photographic evidence available online showing clean up workers removing the WTC7 steel from on site. You got images of the collapsed wreckage after that nothing was shown.

So you want to see how they planned this out? I would love to see this is too, but you're demanding a lot especially if this a super secret covert operation. Do you know of every plan the CIA has come out with since the 60's, have you seen every detail?

These questions would be answerable if there was not a cover-up. There good people in law enforcement and US military and they would investigate these links if allowed to, but they have bosses and they have to obey their political masters in Washington. It was clear from the get-go the White House did not want the FBI digging deep into the Saudi Arabia ties to the Hijackers. If they exposed these links this could have a lead right back to the people involved in this conspiracy in the United States?

The problem is NIST was not right. Their collapse model does not explain the collapse. We have to look at better alternatives. The actual collapse looks like a controlled demolition. Why is this so improbable for you this event occurred during a time of history when sinister people operated out of the White House. These very same people invented lies to start wars in the middle east. The White House was infested with neo con war hawks.

sabat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It was built in 1984 by Tishman Realty & Construction. No mafia links I ever heard about but not a bad theory all the same, but unlikely here.

Well my extensive research of typing "tishman Mafia" into Google brought up lots of links straight away. Why do you consider the good quality of the build to be axiomatic when it's by far the likeliest cause of the quick collapse?

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1988/06/06/70628/index.htm

Cheerful Spring

sabat wrote: »

Well my extensive research of typing "tishman Mafia" into Google brought up lots of links straight away. Why do you consider the good quality of the build to be axiomatic when it's by far the likeliest cause of the quick collapse?

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1988/06/06/70628/index.htm

There is no evidence for what you are claiming. I fairly certain but sides would have mentioned this by now if the concrete and steel was not of good quality.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So you rule out demolitions happened

The thread is about supporting evidence for an alternative theory

• Your speculation is not evidence
• Your personal understanding or interpretation of investigations is not evidence
• You making guesses based on assumptions is not evidence

Making a claim about financial trades or Enron or whatever is not supporting evidence for a controlled demolition

We are still at zero here.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There is no evidence for what you are claiming. I fairly certain but sides would have mentioned this by now if the concrete and steel was not of good quality.

Pretty ironic statement coming from you!

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Pretty ironic statement coming from you!

There is plenty of evidence I have shown you just refuse to open your eyes to this information.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The thread is about supporting evidence for an alternative theory

• Your speculation is not evidence
• Your personal understanding or interpretation of investigations is not evidence
• You making guesses based on assumptions is not evidence

Making a claim about financial trades or Enron or whatever is not supporting evidence for a controlled demolition

We are still at zero here.

There plenty of evidence for the alternative theory.

Freefall was observed in WTC7 collapse. NIST knows them well Freefall cannot occur in a natural building collapse. It can not be explained by buckling weakening or crushing of floors or columns. In a natural building collapse, there will be an interaction between the top floor and floors underneath that would slow the fall. The building came down meeting no resistance for 2.25 seconds. This is real proof the structural resistance was taken out by controlled demolition prior to the building completely collapsing into its own footprint.

NIST computer models have been shown to be inaccurate. They claim fires were in the red zone in one of their images at 4 pm on floor 12. Photograph evidence clearly shows fires on floor 12 had gone out at this time.

NIST said no noise that could be an explosion was heard prior to the collapse. False a loud band was heard just a second before the Penthouse fell in and this lead to the building falling down about 5 to 6 seconds later.

NIST computer simulation of the progressive collapse doesn't work in the real world. It took 20+ seconds for all the floors to completely fall away. In actual reality, it took only 5 to 6 seconds. Just more proof of controlled demolition. The NIST model could not account for this speed of collapse.

NIST lied about there being shears studs, web plate and fasteners on the girder that buckled first at column 79 on floor 12 and 13

NIST lied about people witnessing and hearing an explosion and seeing melted steel and Iron in the rubble.

NIST model of WTC7 is showing deformations in the middle of the roof and both side walls as it fell down. Not true the actual video of the collapse shows no deformation of walls or buckling as it came down. The building came down symmetrically. More evidence of controlled demolition.

FEMA finding WTC7 steel was melted by high temp. Could not have happened in a low temp office fire. NIST temps don't account for how this occurred. The highest temp they could predict was 600c and only last for 15 minutes after all the combustibles got burned away the temp rapidly dropped off to 300c or less. Melting steel you need a temp of 1500c. Clear evidence again the steel in WTC7 was blasted by heat above the temp of a typical office fire.

There many other reasons to doubt the fire collapse theory for building 7.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There plenty of evidence for the alternative theory.

You then provide no direct evidence of your theory

And attack the investigation again

Dr Judy Wood PhD believes that the Twin Towers were "dustified" by energy weapons. Like you, she also attacks the investigation report. Attacking the report does not "prove" her theory of energy weapons any more than you attacking the same report "proves" your theory of a controlled demolition

Both theories have no credible evidence

I'm still waiting...

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You then provide no direct evidence of your theory

And attack the investigation again

Dr Judy Wood PhD believes that the Twin Towers were "dustified" by energy weapons. Like you, she also attacks the investigation report. Attacking the report does not "prove" her theory of energy weapons any more than you attacking the same report "proves" your theory of a controlled demolition

Both theories have no credible evidence

I'm still waiting...

NIST theory is overly complicated and does fit the observable evidence. If NIST told you an orange was an apple you believe them.

Nice deflection to Dr Judy wood? Who is she is anyway what makes her theory credible?

We attack the NIST report because it's fake and an error-riddled study. If someone came out later and proves fire collapsed the building I open to that. Right now the evidence is pointing in one direction that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.#

NIST had seven years to solve this and their best explanation does not fit the evidence.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There plenty of evidence for the alternative theory.

At best, and assuming everything you said was correct(it's not), that just shows that the NIST report is incorrect.

It does not prove or support any other explanation.

So what direct positive evidence do you have that the buildings were demolished without referencing the problems you have with the NIST report?

Cause Dr Judy Wood has a lot of that to support her theory, yet you dismiss her out of hand.
Have you not read her theory?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

At best, and assuming everything you said was correct(it's not), that just shows that the NIST report is incorrect.

It does not prove or support any other explanation.

So what direct positive evidence do you have that the buildings were demolished without referencing the problems you have with the NIST report?

Cause Dr Judy Wood has a lot of that to support her theory, yet you dismiss her out of hand.
Have you not read her theory?

Everything I said is correct.

By the way, historical precedent can't be overlooked here when no steel high rise building had collapsed from a fire before 9/11 If it looks like a controlled demolition that likely what happened. You trying to find a fire explanation when there no need to.

You can't ignore the NIST report. They could only find one plausible fire explanation for why the building fell. When their theory doesn't work out then you left with the only alternative controlled demolition.

Dr Judy work is based on the Twin Towers been destroyed by a super beam from space or a nuclear device. It's a wacky theory nothing supports that theory. There no observable data there no evidence for this. I would not be surprised if she was a shill brought in to discredit the 9/11 movement.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST

Attacking an investigation report is not evidence that mini-nukes blew up the building or that they were dustified by energy weapons or that there was a controlled demolition.

Personally disputing one theory does not prove all the other theories.. that is ridiculous

A theory needs it's own credible supporting evidence - so far you have provided none

You haven't answered any of the basic questions, haven't provided witnesses, suspects, inside information, you haven't even provided a motive

17 years, thousands of internet enthusiasts, yet not none of them has anything approaching credible evidence for any of their theories. Doesn't that strike you as odd? That they all (like you) solely attack the NIST and details of the event but almost universally show next to zero interest in uncovering what really happened

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Judy work is based on the Twin Towers been destroyed by a super beam from space or a nuclear device. It's a wacky theory nothing supports that theory.

And there no credible evidence that supports your theory. Which puts you in the same category as her. You've simply chosen a slightly less implausible theory - that's the only difference

You both have no proper supporting evidence. You both repeatedly attack the NIST.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Attacking an investigation report is not evidence that mini-nukes blew up the building or that they were dustified by energy weapons or that there was a controlled demolition.

Personally disputing one theory does not prove all the other theories.. that is ridiculous

A theory needs it's own credible supporting evidence - so far you have provided none

You haven't answered any of the basic questions, haven't provided witnesses, suspects, inside information, you haven't even provided a motive

17 years, thousands of internet enthusiasts, yet not none of them has anything approaching credible evidence for any of their theories. Doesn't that strike you as odd? That they all (like you) solely attack the NIST and details of the event but almost universally show next to zero interest in uncovering what really happened

They're not basic questions. You asking questions only an official investigation would find out.

The evidence exists there just not a willingness in Washington to investigate this further.

What I find odd you think WTC7 looked like a crushed soda can when it fell.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Judy work is based on the Twin Towers been destroyed by a super beam from space or a nuclear device. It's a wacky theory nothing supports that theory. There no observable data there no evidence for this. I would not be surprised if she was a shill brought in to discredit the 9/11 movement.

The idea of magic thermite is a wacky theory.

Her theory is much much more sound than yours (which basically is nothing).

She uses your exact same evidence to support her theory: ie. "I don't believe the NIST report".
She produces evidence that she claims can only be the result of a space laser.

So why do you not believe her?
What proof do you have that she's a shill?

Cause if anything, your own posts are doing a lot more to make conspiracy theorists look silly. How are we to know you're not a shill?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They're not basic questions.

They are basic questions.

1. Who did this?

2. Why did they do it?

3. How did they do it?

You can't get any more elementary than that.

You 100% believe a theory that you have no direct evidence for. How is that any different from Dr Judy Wood's approach. You dismiss her as batshiat. Yet you are in precisely the same boat.

Actually no, she has a book, with her "evidence". You don't have anything. You can both attack the NIST as much as you want.. doesn't prove anything but your personal subjective disagreement with the NIST.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And there no credible evidence that supports your theory. Which puts you in the same category as her. You've simply chosen a slightly less implausible theory - that's the only difference

You both have no proper supporting evidence. You both repeatedly attack the NIST.

This is false.

Steel was severely melted and was from WTC7. You tell me how an office fire did this?

We looking at what NIST claims and we then compare this to the observable actual collapse.

NIST has wrongly stated facts and denied the evidence. Their comments on what people saw and witnessed were proven to be a lie. They have claimed fires were present in areas they were not at times during the day.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They are basic questions.

1. Who did this?

2. Why did they do it?

3. How did they do it?

You can't get any more elementary than that.

You 100% believe a theory that you have no direct evidence for. How is that any different from Dr Judy Wood's approach. You dismiss her as batshiat. Yet you are in precisely the same boat.

Actually no, she has a book, with her "evidence". You don't have anything. You can both attack the NIST as much as you want.. doesn't prove anything but your personal subjective disagreement with the NIST.

This is just a deflection tactic. I not going to speculate on who the demolition team was and who hired them. I suspect Rumsfield was involved in the planning, but I not going state he send them there when I don't know.

Sorry, your questions are not basic that you think they are is laughable. Do you think I am a deep state insider I have this information? I would have leaked this if I knew for sure.