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

Tipsy McSwagger

Big building fell on top of small building which later collapsed after being on fire for many hours.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Those sites are obviously planted there by the conspiracy against Dr Judy Wood: American Hero.

You are again dodging and stalling

Could it actually be that you can't actually debunk any of her claims?
Are you so closed minded that you won't even consider her ideas?

Why not? Why do you not believe her?

This video exposes her. I can't believe anyone takes her seriously. When she claims nobody saw molten metal right away i knew something seemed off about her. She also claimed no thermite and explosives were not used. This woman either truly believes in her wacky theories or she is a disinformation agent who trying to deflect people away from the real evidence.

Listen to her she did even want to discuss her theory.

The fun starts at 3.33 minutes in.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey is serious person researching and reviewing WTC7 collapse event.

He's one person, paid by several hundred thousands dollars by conspiracy theory group to "prove a negative". It's about as shady as you can get.

I don't doubt his credentials, but as mentioned Dr Judy Wood has a PhD.

Of course if he ever produces the final report, and if it claims the building fell to fire, you will either

1. Claim he's completely wrong/shill/etc

2. Flip and suddenly decide WTC 7 fell due to fire rendering all the posts you've ever made on the subject to be empty

Hell, one detail could make you entirely flip tomorrow, it's happened in several threads already

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She also claimed no thermite and explosives were not used.

Your theory has no evidence and is almost as "whacky" as hers

If you are going to dismiss her as a whackjob in this thread, then you'll understand why people will dismiss your empty theory. At least she has a book and some credentials

You have an insane theory that unknown people magically and silently blew up a 47 story building in downtown NY with absolutely no one noticing.. except for internet detectives who already believe in a raft of other random and bizarre conspiracy theories

And you still haven't put it together yet

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's one person, paid by several hundred thousands dollars by conspiracy theory group to "prove a negative". It's about as shady as you can get.

I don't doubt his credentials, but as mentioned Dr Judy Wood has a PhD.

Of course if he ever produces the final report, and if it claims the building fell to fire, you will either

1. Claim he's completely wrong/shill/etc

2. Flip and suddenly decide WTC 7 fell due to fire rendering all the posts you've ever made on the subject to be empty

Hell, one detail could make you entirely flip tomorrow, it's happened in several threads already

I don't agree with that. Dr Hulsey has to prove his work scientifically and show it was done right by peer review.

Dr Hulsey was asked to study the collapse. He even said before took on the project if he findings showed fire lead to the collapse he would state that as fact and not cover up. That was one of his demands before doing it.

I just posted an interview with Judy Wood listen to her. She is crackpot or disinformation agent planted in the 9/11 movement one of the two.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your theory has no evidence and is almost as "whacky" as hers

If you are going to dismiss her as a whackjob in this thread, then you'll understand why people will dismiss your empty theory. At least she has a book and some credentials

You have an insane theory that unknown people magically and silently blew up a 47 story building in downtown NY with absolutely no one noticing.. except for internet detectives who already believe in a raft of other random and bizarre conspiracy theories

And you still haven't put it together yet

You state its an insane theory but then refuse to discuss the evidence.

I still waiting for your answer as to why you think NIST believes building 7 came down like a crushed soda can?

If my theories were wrong least try to debunk them.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You state its an insane theory but then refuse to discuss the evidence.

I still waiting for your answer as to why you think NIST believes building 7 came down like a crushed soda can?

If my theories were wrong least try to debunk them.

The experts claimed this happened, you say it didn't, please explain why it didnt, please provide peer reviewed evidence as to why this claim is false (not truther sites or 3 hour long youtube vids from somem random guy) and please explain in your own words why you believe the evidence that you will no doubt provide.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The experts claimed this happened, you say it didn't, please explain why it didnt, please provide peer reviewed evidence as to why this claim is false (not truther sites or 3 hour long youtube vids from somem random guy) and please explain in your own words why you believe the evidence that you will no doubt provide.

It's observable data. Do you trust your own eyes?

If the north side truly looked like this when it fell then this would be observable in the actual collapse.

Notice the walls and roof are crumbling in as it's falling on the north side. This is a NIST image of the collapse.



This the CBS real-time video of the actual collapse viewed from the north. Do you see the same deformations here be honest?

This is hard evidence

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr Listen to the bang heard in the first second of the video. Keep your eye on the Penthouse after hearing the bang!

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr If you want hard science about why fire did not bring down this building. Watch Dr Hulsey presentation.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You state its an insane theory but then refuse to discuss the evidence.

You still haven't presented any credible evidence for your theory

Only your inane (mis)understanding of the facts and investigation, which changes day by day

"I don't get the theory of gravity, prove it to me, oh you can't because I refuse to get it"

That's how denialists work. I know this. So this is why asked for proactive evidence for alternative theories - no one has provided any, only you and you refuse to provide any supporting evidence

Not only that but you refuse to answer the most basic questions and you refuse to even provide a motive

Dohnjoe

This is a panto

TheQuietFella

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

The big bad wolf said he'd huff and he'd puff and he'd blow the house down and so he did!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This video exposes her. I can't believe anyone takes her seriously. When she claims nobody saw molten metal right away i knew something seemed off about her. She also claimed no thermite and explosives were not used. This woman either truly believes in her wacky theories or she is a disinformation agent who trying to deflect people away from the real evidence.

Listen to her she did even want to discuss her theory.

The fun starts at 3.33 minutes in.

Lol. You giant hypocrite.

You are refusing to actually discuss her claims and evidence and you are just bleating on about how you think she's crazy.
You are claiming her qualifications are fake and you are claiming that she is part of the conspiracy based on zero evidence. Just your imagination.

You know you are using dishonest, lazy tactics here. You'd give us no end of grief if we did the same to your preferred experts.

And it's funny you have to resort to these tactics. It's very obviously because you can't explain any of her claims.
If her theory is wrong, at least try to debunk it

So again because apparently nothing needs to be true or supported in your style of debate: all of your experts are fake and they are planted by a conspiracy against Dr Judy Wood. They are all faking their research and their qualifications are invalid. They are all paid by the government to make the gullible think that the building were taken down by a ridiculous plan using magic thermite that doesn't exist.
QED.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. You giant hypocrite.

You are refusing to actually discuss her claims and evidence and you are just bleating on about how you think she's crazy.
You are claiming her qualifications are fake and you are claiming that she is part of the conspiracy based on zero evidence. Just your imagination.

You know you are using dishonest, lazy tactics here. You'd give us no end of grief if we did the same to your preferred experts.

And it's funny you have to resort to these tactics. It's very obviously because you can't explain any of her claims.

I listened to her interview, did you? She is a loon a crackpot. Why are you defending her what happened to Kingmob where is he gone?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob I think you should press play on the youtube video and listen to her for two minutes. She is not a serious person.

King Mob

Again, you are a hypocrite.
You are dismissing her as a crackpot without actually addressing any of her claims.
You are doing exactly what you have falsely and repeatedly claimed we are doing.

If she is a crackpot and not a serious person, why can't you debunk her theories?
Why do you have to lie about her qualifications and her being part of a conspiracy?

Can we just do the same with your experts?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you are a hypocrite.
You are dismissing her as a crackpot without actually addressing any of her claims.
You are doing exactly what you have falsely and repeatedly claimed we are doing.

If she is a crackpot and not a serious person, why can't you debunk her theories?
Why do you have to lie about her qualifications and her being part of a conspiracy?

Can we just do the same with your experts?

Did you even listen to her seriously?

The first question. She was asked can you specify what energy weapons were used.

She then started stuttering like she was lost and was trying to figure out what to say. We have got into listing them yet just energy weapons? So you have this theory the towers were blown up but you have no idea what kind of energy weapon it was?

The interviewer then says in what form? Stuttering again totally confused. I don't think we need to define it? So she not using science? She then said we collected these images that we trusted? So her research is based on images?

That just a minute into her interview. Do you really want me to continue?

King Mob

No I want you to actually address her claims and answer my questions.

Also again, you are showing your hypocrisy as you constantly bleat on about images that you think prove this and that.
You can barely string sentences together and it seems that English is your second language. Is that a valid reason to dismiss your claims?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No I want you to actually address her claims and answer my questions.

Also again, you are showing your hypocrisy as you constantly bleat on about images that you think prove this and that.
You can barely string sentences together and it seems that English is your second language. Is that a valid reason to dismiss your claims?

I not going to answer your stupid questions. You too lazy to press a video to watch her debunk herself. Maybe you got crappy internet with not enough data to watch videos?

King Mob

No, you're not going to answer my questions because you are a dishonest hypocrite.
You're fooling exactly no one.

Yes Dr Judy Wood is a crackpot proposing a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
But it's no different than yours.
You've failed to show that it is.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob Your writing is not good either. You ramble a lot and your thoughts are all disjointed.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, you're not going to answer my questions because you are a dishonest hypocrite.
You're fooling exactly no one.

Yes Dr Judy Wood is a crackpot proposing a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
But it's no different than yours.
You've failed to show that it is.

I just posted what she said during an interview. Again more evidence of disjointed thinking by you.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob Your writing is not good either. You ramble a lot and your thoughts are all disjointed.

He's correct though. You dismiss her as a loon and a crackpot. But your theory has as much evidence as hers and is almost as insane

Dohnjoe

Page 12

Still zip

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's correct though. You dismiss her as a loon and a crackpot. But your theory has as much evidence as hers and is almost as insane

Have you watched Dr Hulsey presentation? He presents his findings scientifically and in clear form for the audience. He even does questions and answers and explains how he reached those conclusions.

She, on the other hand, was lost. She did not know the energy value used, did not know the energy weapon used. She had not carried out any tests in a lab to see if this was even possible. Her interview is a trainwreck a disaster. When you actually take time out to listen you have better idea of what i am saying!

Cheerful Spring

Reposting this again so you can watch it. Watch at 3 minutes 33 second. Listen to her answers.

Cheerful Spring

If Dr Hulsey did his research in the way Dr Judy Wood does it he be laughed at. Dr Hulsey is proving his theory scientifically. There no maybes, whys or what ifs.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's correct though. You dismiss her as a loon and a crackpot. But your theory has as much evidence as hers and is almost as insane

Hey! Don't jump to the defense of my writing or anything...

King Mob

Remind us Cheerful, how much thermite was used? Where was it placed?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She, on the other hand, was lost. She did not know the energy value used, did not know the energy weapon used. She had not carried out any tests in a lab to see if this was even possible. Her interview is a trainwreck a disaster. When you actually take time out to listen you have better idea of what i am saying!

You've decided a sound, captured on audio, is explosive charges going off in a 47 story building 17 years ago, because you say it is. You claim someone secretly blew up that building in downtown New York but you have no evidence of who it was, how they did it or what their motive was

You claimed it was impossible for an airliner to have hit the Pentagon, rejected all common sense replies on it, then randomly changed your mind and decided it did hit the Pentagon

You randomly claimed someone was part of a cover-up. But you can't detail the cover-up nor can you provide a jot of evidence to back up that claim

This is nothing but a creative writing exercise to you

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Remind us Cheerful, how much thermite was used? Where was it placed?

A 300,000 dollar WTC7 study is only weeks away from being released. We able to speculate then on this.

Dr Hulsey was able to replicate the correct failures in WTC7. His computer model will show how the building fell down inside.

King Mob

No, I asked you to tell us how much thermite was used. Fake Dr Hursleys fake paper isn't even looking at that.

Do you not know how much thermite was used?

bessboroughboy

I remember seeing the following clip live on the day it happened, Larry Silverstein clearly states that the decision was made to "pull it".

https://youtu.be/-jPzAakHPpk

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You've decided a sound, captured on audio, is explosive charges going off in a 47 story building 17 years ago, because you say it is. You claim someone secretly blew up that building in downtown New York but you have no evidence of who it was, how they did it or what their motive was

You claimed it was impossible for an airliner to have hit the Pentagon, rejected all common sense replies on it, then randomly changed your mind and decided it did hit the Pentagon

You randomly claimed someone was part of a cover-up. But you can't detail the cover-up nor can you provide a jot of evidence to back up that claim

This is nothing but a creative writing exercise to you

It going to be proven scientifically the building was taken down by demolition. Dr Hulsey has been able to model the actual collapse conditions.

When his collapse model is shown and look exactly like the collapse in real time, its game over. Dr Hulsey will be showing scientifically how it was done.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, I asked you to tell us how much thermite was used. Fake Dr Hursleys fake paper isn't even looking at that.

Do you not know how much thermite was used?

When his finds get released they're going to be a lot of backtracking in the 9/11 Skeptic community.

Cheerful Spring

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I remember seeing the following clip live on the day it happened, Larry Silverstein clearly states that the decision was made to "pull it".

https://youtu.be/-jPzAakHPpk

Excuses were made for this. I guess nobody told Silverstein a girder fell down at column 79? Why did he think it was pulled down?

King Mob

Again, I'm asking you to state how much thermite was used.

You dismissed Dr Judy Wood who had way more expertise than you because she allegedly couldn't answer a question like that.
Now you are dodging and deflecting it cause you don't know the answer and won't admit it.

So should we dismiss you as a crackpot too?

King Mob

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I remember seeing the following clip live on the day it happened, Larry Silverstein clearly states that the decision was made to "pull it".

https://youtu.be/-jPzAakHPpk

Ok, so leaving aside the fact that that quote was not ever broadcast live...

Why do you think he said this on camera? Why did he blow the whole conspiracy?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I'm asking you to state how much thermite was used.

You dismissed Dr Judy Wood who had way more expertise than you because she allegedly couldn't answer a question like that.
Now you are dodging and deflecting it cause you don't know the answer and won't admit it.

So should we dismiss you as a crackpot too?

Her theory doesn't make any sense. The failures occurred inside WTC7.

I don't believe a UFO passed overhead and shot down a laser and blew up WTC7.

King Mob

Again Cheerful, you dismiss her because she didn't know the power of the laser used.
You don't know how much thermite was used.
By your own argument we should dismiss your theory as just as crackpot.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so leaving aside the fact that that quote was not ever broadcast live...

Why do you think he said this on camera? Why did he blow the whole conspiracy?

Do you think he had an excuse ready in case they did look for explosives and found them? Oh ya, I remember now a fire chief who name is unknown told him that they did this on 9/11!

This interview is pre NIST investigation I believe. Ready with the excuse just in case!

Cheerful Spring

You can't demolition a building in a few hours. Silverstein already knew they were in place to take down the building.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again Cheerful, you dismiss her because she didn't know the power of the laser used.
You don't know how much thermite was used.
By your own argument we should dismiss your theory as just as crackpot.

There is a difference between her work and Dr Hulsey.

Dr Hulsey work on wtc7 is grounded in science. Her work is science fiction.

King Mob

But again, you dismiss her because supposedly she can't answer a question.
You also cannot answer the same question.

If we follow your argument we should dismiss you and your expert as crackpots.

There is no difference between you two.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can't demolition a building in a few hours. Silverstein already knew they were in place to take down the building.

Lol you have argued previously that the buildings were rigged in secret in a matter of hours...
You seem confused about your own theory.

bessboroughboy

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so leaving aside the fact that that quote was not ever broadcast live...

Why do you think he said this on camera? Why did he blow the whole conspiracy?

That quote WAS broadcast live, I remember seeing it on television on the day of the attack.
I have no idea why he said it but I do believe he's referring to a demolition which would obviously necessitate the existence of previously positioned explosives.
I agree with you, it does seem strange that he would say something that, one would imagine, would be better left unsaid.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol you have argued previously that the buildings were rigged in secret in a matter of hours...
You seem confused about your own theory.

Did i can you post the link where I said that? Was I talking about nano-thermite?

If explosives were used it takes a lot longer than a few hours. If you use multiple teams to plant explosives you can cut down the time.

Cheerful Spring

bessboroughboy wrote: »

That quote WAS broadcast live, I remember seeing it on television on the day of the attack.
I have no idea why he said it but I do believe he's referring to a demolition which would obviously necessitate the existence of previously positioned explosives.
I agree with you, it does seem strange that he would say something that, one would imagine, would be better left unsaid.

His full quote
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

People downplay this but it obvious he's referring to the building been pulled down by demolition.

Decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. There no ambiguity.

King Mob

that quote WAS broadcast live, I remember seeing it on television on the day of the attack.
I have no idea why he said it but I do believe he's referring to a demolition which would obviously necessitate the existence of previously positioned explosives.
I agree with you, it does seem strange that he would say something that, one would imagine, would be better left unsaid.

But that quote wasn't broadcast live. It comes from an interview much much later.
But why do you believe that he's talking about a demolition when it doesn't make sense for him to be giving the game away?