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

Dohnjoe · 13-10-2018 01:25PM #1

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 · 13-10-2018 02:41PM

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 · 13-10-2018 03:01PM

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 · 13-10-2018 03:13PM

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 · 13-10-2018 03:21PM

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 · 13-10-2018 03:34PM

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 · 13-10-2018 03:47PM

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)

13-10-2018 03:49PM

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 · 13-10-2018 03:50PM

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

Cheerful Spring · 13-10-2018 03:54PM

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 · 13-10-2018 04:13PM

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 · 13-10-2018 04:19PM

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 · 13-10-2018 04:25PM

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 · 13-10-2018 04:30PM

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.

13-10-2018 04:31PM

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 · 13-10-2018 04:40PM

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 · 13-10-2018 04:46PM

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?

13-10-2018 04:53PM

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 · 13-10-2018 05:03PM

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 · 13-10-2018 05:12PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:01PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:03PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:08PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:13PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:18PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:19PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:21PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:23PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:27PM

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 · 13-10-2018 06:34PM

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

sabat · 13-10-2018 06:35PM

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.

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

Comments