Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1969799101102

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Richard Clarke was a senior high-level politician. He said the CIA had the info these guys were in the country to carry out attacks and the CIA did nothing to stop them and did not inform the FBI.

    Intelligence agencies had info on the Charlie Hebdo attackers, they had info on the Toulouse truck driver, on one of the Boston bombers. in many instances people who carried out attacks were already on warning or watch lists

    There are hundreds and thousands of people under suspicion and on lists at any one time. Thousands of suspects and potentials. The authorities cannot arbitrarily arrest every one of them, nor can they follow every one of them because we live in countries where people have rights

    Sometimes the authorities make good calls and manage to get people just before an attack, sometimes they make bad calls. It's highly complex and highly difficult work

    Failures to act or to apprehend people just before they conduct an actual attack does not automatically mean there is a massive inside conspiracy by those authorities.
    No conspiracy really? How the hell did these guys board the planes on 9/11 when the CIA had their real names and can easily have tracked them down in 24 hours. It not like they were not using their real names. They were using credit cards and staying at hotels and their real names were provided. You can claim there was no conspiracy or cover up i don't believe it.

    Mount Everest is the tallest mountain in the world. That's a widely accepted fact.

    "It's not the tallest mountain" in the world is an opinion. A speculative, extreme opinion for which you'd need extraordinary evidence (i.e. you'd need some pretty damn solid evidence to support that)

    Every time you assert that 911 was an inside job as a fact. Then I have questions. Every time you cannot answer those questions it exposes that it's just an opinion you have, not a fact. A baseless speculative opinion.

    If you want to make wild random conspiracy claims that you can't support, then don't be surprised when people compare you to Alex Jones, because that's exactly what he does


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Intelligence agencies had info on the Charlie Hebdo attackers, they had info on the Toulouse truck driver, on one of the Boston bombers. in many instances people who carried out attacks were already on warning or watch lists

    There are hundreds and thousands of people under suspicion and on lists at any one time. Thousands of suspects and potentials. The authorities cannot arbitrarily arrest every one of them, nor can they follow every one of them because we live in countries where people have rights

    Sometimes the authorities make good calls and manage to get people just before an attack, sometimes they make bad calls. It's highly complex and highly difficult work

    Failures to act or to apprehend people just before they conduct an actual attack does not automatically mean there is a massive inside conspiracy by those authorities.



    Mount Everest is the tallest mountain in the world. That's a widely accepted fact.

    "It's not the tallest mountain" in the world is an opinion. A speculative, extreme opinion for which you'd need extraordinary evidence (i.e. you'd need some pretty damn solid evidence to support that)

    Every time you assert that 911 was an inside job as a fact. Then I have questions. Every time you cannot answer those questions it exposes that it's just an opinion you have, not a fact. A baseless speculative opinion.

    If you want to make wild random conspiracy claims that you can't support, then don't be surprised when people compare you to Alex Jones, because that's exactly what he does

    The difference is the Pentagon attackers were well known Al Qaeda members high-level operatives. Mihdhar was even linked to the Cole Bombing in Yemen. Do you think these guys came to America for a holiday? CIA kept this information secret for a reason it obvious. There were memos and warnings about Bin Laden planning to strike America.

    You looking at info after 9/11. Those guys lived in France they are homegrown terrorists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The difference is the Pentagon attackers were well known Al Qaeda members high-level operatives. Mihdhar was even linked to the Cole Bombing in Yemen. Do you think these guys came to America for a holiday? CIA kept this information secret for a reason it obvious.

    And the reason speculated by Richard Clarke is clearly in the video

    What is his suspicion?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    And the reason speculated by Richard Clarke is clearly in the video

    What is his suspicion?

    He does not know why exactly. He speculated the CIA was tracking them to turn them and make them double agents. This does not make sense either because you have to approach them to turn them and they can hardly go home and act as if nothing happened. They knew they were going to hijack planes and die that day.

    The CIA knew from day one these guys came to America to carry out attacks. Why did they keep this information secret? The hijackers were boarding planes and acting suspiciously before 9/11 it not like the info was not there to find. The pieces were all there all you needed to know where the hijackers were at the time. The FBI was thinking they were in the middle east somewhere and were tracking Al Qaeda members there. Nope some of them were eating out at restaurants in Florida and places in Los Angeles.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    He does know why exactly. He speculated the CIA was tracking them to turn them and make them double agents.

    He "does know why exactly"/ He "speculated".

    Those two things aren't the same, in fact they have the opposite meaning.

    The second part is correct, he does indeed speculate that the CIA wanted to turn the men into double agents in order to get more info about Al Qaeda, which is why they didn't inform the other agencies about the men

    He's accusing the CIA of essentially "****ing up", the men slipping through their fingers and then conducting the attack. At no point does he claim or infer the men didn't carry out the attacks or that it was an "inside job"
    The CIA knew from day one these guys came to America to carry out attacks. Why did they keep this information secret?

    You answer your own question. To turn them as double agents (Clarke's speculation)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He "does know why exactly"/ He "speculated".

    Those two things aren't the same, in fact they have the opposite meaning.

    The second part is correct, he does indeed speculate that the CIA wanted to turn the men into double agents in order to get more info about Al Qaeda, which is why they didn't inform the other agencies about the men

    He's accusing the CIA of essentially "****ing up", the men slipping through their fingers and then conducting the attack. At no point does he claim or infer the men didn't carry out the attacks or that it was an "inside job"



    You answer your own question. To turn them as double agents (Clarke's speculation)

    Speculation is not fact. Clarke said he was kept out of the loop and not told about ongoing operation to recruit these men. The director of the CIA did not tell him about any ongoing operation to recruit them as double agents. Clarke, not a low-level white house staffer, he was the Anti-Terrorism Chairperson. He obviously does not want to believe the CIA would be involved in this false flag. They had plenty of time to talk about this in July 2001 Al Qaeda was planning to attack America was public information. They had plenty of opportunities to stop the attack and the CIA never shared this information with senior officers in the FBI. They had all the evidence they needed to stop the attacks from happening.

    Terrorists did not knock down the buildings. It obvious this was a rogue military style false flag operation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,662 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    double post


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,662 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Truth movement does have to know the names of the people who did. They can tell from the just looking at the buildings and how they fell down it was not fire that brought them down.

    Forget about freefall, molten whatever for a second.

    The people who planted the explosives.

    Who are they?

    How did they get in the buildings?

    What floors did they have access to? And what parts of those floors?

    Do these access points correlate to where they would've had to place explosives to bring the buildings down?
    Terrorists did not knock down the buildings. It obvious this was a rogue military style false flag operation.

    Obvious yet you have no idea or theory on how they planted the explosives. Literally not a clue.

    lol.

    You may want it to be a conspiracy but you are the best example to prove that its not. Its not a conspiracy. You've spent years wasting your time. Years really wanting it to be a conspiracy yet you fall at the first hurdle, who planted the explosives, and how.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    Forget about freefall, molten whatever for a second.

    The people who planted the explosives.

    Who are they?

    How did they get in the buildings?

    What floors did they have access to? And what parts of those floors?

    Do these access points correlate to where they would've had to place explosives to bring the buildings down?



    Obvious yet you have no idea or theory on how they planted the explosives. Literally not a clue.

    lol.

    You may want it to be a conspiracy but you are the best example to prove that its not. Its not a conspiracy. You've spent years wasting your time. Years really wanting it to be a conspiracy yet you fall at the first hurdle, who planted the explosives, and how.

    The truthers have won the science debate. It already established since 2014.

    Dr. Griscom and ANETA paid for a debate about the physicists of the collapse. JREF forum could not find one physicist on their forum to have a debate and nobody could support the official story, and they even contacted scientists at universities to debate and support the official story, none of them took on the challenge.

    You what me to speculation about who did it? Why, when the science already has established it was a controlled demolition?

    Dr Griscom is a highly credentialed scientist.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,556 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    The Nal wrote: »
    The people who planted the explosives.

    Who are they?

    How did they get in the buildings?

    What floors did they have access to? And what parts of those floors?

    https://www.ae911truth.org/news/479-security-alerts-disabled-fire-alarms-and-unused-elevators-suspicious-events-at-the-world-trade-center-before-9-11


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,662 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    The truthers have won the science debate. It already established since 2014.

    The science debate is totally obsolete when theres no evidence of planted explosives.

    Yup. No evidence. Just cherry picked "coincidences" and proven actions.

    Security At The World Trade Center Was Increased Just Before 9/11.
    They had already received dossiers of threats prior to the attacks. Richard Clarke was very vocal about this. I've read his book. I bet Cheerful Spring has not and just cherry picks and quote mines.

    page1-651px-Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US_%28August_2001%29.pdf.jpg

    Fire Alarm System Was On 'Test Condition' In The Week Before 9/11
    Wow. They were testing the fire alarms!

    Elevators Were Out Of Operation Before 9/11
    Wow. Elevator maintenance in a big building!


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Speculation is not fact.

    Exactly, please take your own advice
    Clarke said he was kept out of the loop and not told about ongoing operation to recruit these men. The director of the CIA did not tell him about any ongoing operation to recruit them as double agents.

    Correct
    Clarke, not a low-level white house staffer, he was the Anti-Terrorism Chairperson.

    Correct
    He obviously does not want to believe the CIA would be involved in this false flag.

    Wow

    At no point in the interview is there any inference, mention or reference to

    a) false flags
    b) dragons
    c) unicorns

    Not by Clarke, not by the interviewers

    This is the part where your imagination kicks in and adds in the "exciting" bit that you make up page by page in this thread


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,254 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Moderator can't distinguish one image showing a pool of red/yellow liquid and the other is sparks from cutting and the sparks disappear :D

    How is it an image of a pool? Prove it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,662 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Wow

    At no point in the interview is there any inference, mention or reference to

    a) false flags
    b) dragons
    c) unicorns

    Not by Clarke, not by the interviewers

    This is the part where your imagination kicks in and adds in the "exciting" bit that you make up page by page in this thread

    Clark fully believes it was Al Qaeda and believes intelligent agencies let the American people down. No conspiracy. Only in Cheerful Springs mind.

    The years he has wasted reading and believing this nonsense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    This is a conspiracy site, it's maliciously designed to use disinformation to plant doubt in reader's heads about the event (also to get paid subscribers)

    It relies on pseudo-science, cherry-picking, out-of-context info, disinfo, straight up lies. Very similar to anti-vaxx and anti-medical sites, it relies heavily the "appeal to authority" trick (like "International Medical Council on Vaccination" or "Physicians for Informed Consent" for anti-vaxxers) to deceive the reader into thinking their views are scientific or informed

    It goes without saying you should be using credible or reliable sources of information to get your info


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,254 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The truthers have won the science debate. It already established since 2014.

    Dr. Griscom and ANETA paid for a debate about the physicists of the collapse. JREF forum could not find one physicist on their forum to have a debate and nobody could support the official story, and they even contacted scientists at universities to debate and support the official story, none of them took on the challenge.

    You what me to speculation about who did it? Why, when the science already has established it was a controlled demolition?

    Dr Griscom is a highly credentialed scientist.


    This Dr. David Griscom previously of the NRL hasn’t published a paper that traveled outside the realm of silicon glass - all of his work was in glass. He worked for the optical sciences division. Not a jot to do with any of the science involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

    It’s a bit like being impressed by a professor of computer science and then trying to respect his professional services in the design of airplanes. I’m not flying on that.

    http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Niy4up0AAAAJ&hl=en


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,662 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Its like whack-a-mole. Quite literally anything a truther can put up can be so easily debunked with one post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    This Dr. David Griscom previously of the NRL hasn’t published a paper that traveled outside the realm of silicon glass - all of his work was in glass. He worked for the optical sciences division. Not a jot to do with any of the science involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

    It’s a bit like being impressed by a professor of computer science and then trying to respect his professional services in the design of airplanes. I’m not flying on that.

    http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Niy4up0AAAAJ&hl=en

    PhD, Brown University, a scientist at NASA, Naval Research Laboratory, and DARPA, with over 190 published studies.

    Where have you worked and where can we find your published peer review papers?

    By way he got his PhD in Physics I think he knows what he talking about :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This is a conspiracy site, it's maliciously designed to use disinformation to plant doubt in reader's heads about the event (also to get paid subscribers)

    It relies on pseudo-science, cherry-picking, out-of-context info, disinfo, straight up lies. Very similar to anti-vaxx and anti-medical sites, it relies heavily the "appeal to authority" trick (like "International Medical Council on Vaccination" or "Physicians for Informed Consent" for anti-vaxxers) to deceive the reader into thinking their views are scientific or informed

    It goes without saying you should be using credible or reliable sources of information to get your info

    Dohnjoe you are a parrot you have posted the same message a hundred times now, we get it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,254 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Richard Clarke was a senior high-level politician. He said the CIA had the info these guys were in the country to carry out attacks and the CIA did nothing to stop them and did not inform the FBI.

    No conspiracy really? How the hell did these guys board the planes on 9/11 when the CIA had their real names and can easily have tracked them down in 24 hours. It not like they were not using their real names. They were using credit cards and staying at hotels and their real names were provided. You can claim there was no conspiracy or cover up i don't believe it.

    That’s really what it comes down to: you can be supplied with all the facts and information in the world and still won’t believe the glaring reality, that these attacks were real and horrifying.

    You’re getting to the only real meat of the matter: that the CIA could have acted on information received but they didn’t. That’s it.

    But you seem to be implying that the CIA operated pre-9/11 like it has post-9/11: the two are very different. The USA Patriot Act did not exist. The Department of Homeland Security did not exist. The TSA did not exist. Body Scanners did not exist. Airliners with secured/reinforced cockpits did not exist. And there had never been a precedent, to suggest to the CIA (did they just lack the imagination, we will never be sure) that at least 4 cells would be successful in hijacking planes all on some morning yet to be determined and that instead of hostage negotiations that they would slam these into capital targets. Even if some people thought this, the CIA lacked the clear mechanisms for rounding up people based on limited evidence. We also could not be sure that attempting to do so wouldn’t have triggered other cells to initiate other attacks, either in a similar or dissimilar nature: if they found or disabled only one cell, the others might have been carried through anyway. If they shut down air traffic over the United States without clear evidence of an imminent threat there would have been political fallout and panic anyway, and those uncaptured cells could have either tried again at a later date or carried out a new style of attack. But, no answer would satisfy truthers either way, if hard science cannot.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    How is it an image of a pool? Prove it.

    It provable look at the image :) Sparks are from cutting they disappear immediately. Watch Dohnjoe video you see this. Have you used an angle grinder before?


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,254 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    PhD, Brown University, a scientist at NASA, Naval Research Laboratory, and DARPA, with over 190 published studies.

    Where have you worked and where can we find your published peer review papers?

    By way he got his PhD in Physics I think he knows what he talking about :)

    190 published papers virtually all of which are on silica and glass.

    Nope I’m not published but neither do I need to bank on an Appeal to Authority gimmick: I can just supply the science.

    Like AE911 like to pretend they’re engineers or have academic standards but reading their work is nauseating, just their paper on the Iran building, where they frequently conflate “steel” and “metal” to distort information and make their argument seem valid, that because it wasn’t hot enough to liquefy steel that therefore it wasn’t hot enough to liquefy any metal. That’s so beyond bogus that it’s appalling.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,254 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It provable look at the image :) Sparks are from cutting they disappear immediately. Watch Dohnjoe video you see this. Have you used an angle grinder before?

    You’re looking at a still image.

    You realize it’s a still image right?

    You have to realize it’s a still image.

    That Dohnjoe could literally have done a screen shot at 2:00 and 29:00 in the video he posted and convinced you it was a river of magma when it wasn’t?


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,254 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Dohnjoe you are a parrot you have posted the same message a hundred times now, we get it.

    No clearly you don’t...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    That’s really what it comes down to: you can be supplied with all the facts and information in the world and still won’t believe the glaring reality, that these attacks were real and horrifying.

    You’re getting to the only real meat of the matter: that the CIA could have acted on information received but they didn’t. That’s it.

    But you seem to be implying that the CIA operated pre-9/11 like it has post-9/11: the two are very different. The USA Patriot Act did not exist. The Department of Homeland Security did not exist. The TSA did not exist. Body Scanners did not exist. Airliners with secured/reinforced cockpits did not exist. And there had never been a precedent, to suggest to the CIA (did they just lack the imagination, we will never be sure) that at least 4 cells would be successful in hijacking planes all on some morning yet to be determined and that instead of hostage negotiations that they would slam these into capital targets. Even if some people thought this, the CIA lacked the clear mechanisms for rounding up people based on limited evidence. We also could not be sure that attempting to do so wouldn’t have triggered other cells to initiate other attacks, either in a similar or dissimilar nature: if they found or disabled only one cell, the others might have been carried through anyway. If they shut down air traffic over the United States without clear evidence of an imminent threat there would have been political fallout and panic anyway, and those uncaptured cells could have either tried again at a later date or carried out a new style of attack. But, no answer would satisfy truthers either way, if hard science cannot.

    For you that is it. For others its evidence of a cover-up. CIA has never owned up to this or briefed anyone why they kept this intelligence private. Clarke said it one explanation and there may be other explanations. He just speculated about the CIA trying to recruit them as double agents. They had the names of Al Qaeda operatives as they met at Al Qaeda meeting in Mayalsia. They can check Visas when they entered the country. They were using their real names travelling across America. Only a novice would miss this and not notice the importance of it.

    It explains everything to why the steel cores fell apart, the molten steel seen and witnessed, the freefall acceleration and many other things. You don't want these guys caught if you have pre-rigged the buildings to come down on 9/11


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    You’re looking at a still image.

    You realize it’s a still image right?

    You have to realize it’s a still image.

    That Dohnjoe could literally have done a screen shot at 2:00 and 29:00 in the video he posted and convinced you it was a river of magma when it wasn’t?

    Yep and its a pool of liquid not sparks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,254 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    For you that is it. For others its evidence of a cover-up. CIA has never owned up to this or briefed anyone why they kept this intelligence private. Clarke said it one explanation and there may be other explanations. He just speculated about the CIA trying to recruit them as double agents. They had the names of Al Qaeda operatives as they met at Al Qaeda meeting in Mayalsia. They can check Visas when they entered the country. They were using their real names travelling across America. Only a novice would miss this and not notice the importance of it.

    It explains everything to why the steel cores fell apart, the molten steel seen and witnessed, the freefall acceleration and many other things. You don't want these guys caught if you have pre-rigged the buildings to come down on 9/11

    Again what molten steel was witnessed? Who did the metallurgical analyses? Who ruled out all other metal sources? How was it determined that it was not molten copper, molten aluminum or some other molten metal alloy?

    Why do you assume the CIA would publish how it does business just to satisfy the truther movement? Why jeapordize how it recruits double agents?

    You call it “evidence” but I don’t think you know what that word means.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,254 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Yep and its a pool of liquid not sparks.

    So those red dots are all just little pools floating in mid air? :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    190 published papers virtually all of which are on silica and glass.

    Nope I’m not published but neither do I need to bank on an Appeal to Authority gimmick: I can just supply the science.

    Like AE911 like to pretend they’re engineers or have academic standards but reading their work is nauseating, just their paper on the Iran building, where they frequently conflate “steel” and “metal” to distort information and make their argument seem valid, that because it wasn’t hot enough to liquefy steel that therefore it wasn’t hot enough to liquefy any metal. That’s so beyond bogus that it’s appalling.

    Not true. His papers are about radiation effects in glasses, optical fibers, fractal kinetics, electron spin resonance geology of major impacts on the earth.

    He has a PHD in Physics from a Top University.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,645 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Overheal wrote: »
    So those red dots are all just little pools floating in mid air? :D

    Magical sparkly reflections and artefacts ;)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement