nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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?

It wacky to you and people like you. The evidence supports a controlled demolition of WTC7.

What truly odd you can't seem to decipher fact from fiction.

You seem to not be able to process what is wrong with the NIST WTC7 images

Do you think WTC7 came down looking like a crushed soda can?.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It wacky to you and people like you. The evidence supports a controlled demolition of WTC7.

Great. So without refering to the problems you see in the NIST report, what evidence have you got?
We're four pages in and you've not produced a scrap of that?

Also again, gonna need some way of telling shills and real conspiracy theorists, cause again, you're doing so much damage to the credibility of conspiracy theorists...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Great. So without refering to the problems you see in the NIST report, what evidence have you got?
We're four pages in and you've not produced a scrap of that?

Also again, gonna need some way of telling shills and real conspiracy theorists, cause again, you're doing so much damage to the credibility of conspiracy theorists...

You just don't understand the evidence that the problem.

Office fire is not hot enough to melt steel beams it's scientifically impossible. Ask any scientist on any board would 600c degree fire melt steel and wait for their answer.

That alone proves the WTC7 collapse was not natural.

Cheerful Spring

Kingmob is like everyone has forgotten what was found.

New York Times article from 2001.

quote
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

Dr Barnett could not explain what he saw. This seemly just got brushed to the side and forgotten.

Thats your smoking gun something else was involved. Dr Barret pretty much-confirmed steel could not be melted or evaporated as he put by just an office fire.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You just don't understand the evidence that the problem.

Office fire is not hot enough to melt steel beams it's scientifically impossible. Ask any scientist on any board would 600c degree fire melt steel and wait for their answer.

That alone proves the WTC7 collapse was not natural.

Well no it doesn't. Even if your argument held and was true and wasn't just you misunderstanding the report and it wasn't an oft debunked factoid, it just means that the NIST report isn't accurate.

It's not proof of any alternate theory.

It also would disprove the theories you natter on about as demolitions do not result in melted steel either.

The great Dr Judy Wood accounts for this however, as space lasers are more than enough to melt steel beams.

Again, it's nearly been 5 pages and you haven't produced jot one of evidence for any alternative theory.

Ipso

Was WTC 7 the main target if that day and the twin towers were attacked as a distraction?
Or is it a case of convergent conspiracies or was the twin tower attack uncoevered and they piggy backed WTC 7 on top of it?

[Deleted User]

Ipso wrote: »

Was WTC 7 the main target if that day and the twin towers were attacked as a distraction?
Or is it a case of convergent conspiracies or was the twin tower attack uncoevered and they piggy backed WTC 7 on top of it?

Well obviously!
Cause the only way to get rid of some documents is to fly planes into two different buildings to start a fire in a 3rd, then rig that 3rd building to explode with experimental explosives that have never been used before.

You can't just steal or shred those documents. Someone might notice that....

GreeBo

@cheerful spring

I'm confused why you go from
-NIST report has gaps
To
- it was an inside job with explosives

It send like a leap to me.... what is your evidence to help me understand this seeming leap?

Timberrrrrrrr

GreeBo wrote: »

@cheerful spring

I'm confused why you go from
-NIST report has gaps
To
- it was an inside job with explosives

It send like a leap to me.... what is your evidence to help me understand this seeming leap?

Prepare yourself for "The evidence is all there and it's the only plausible explanation' but without him showing the evidence or explaining why its the only plausible explanation.

At least he isnt dumping tons of 2 hour long youtube vids in this thread

Yet.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

What evidence? they found det cord? there were witnesses? there was a whistle-blower?

Your personal and subjective interpretation of a 3 year report is not a basis for Washington to hold another investigation

There are people who believe that Sandy Hook was an inside job, they have "as much" supporting evidence as you do, think there should be an investigation into it? should they be exhuming graves to satisfy a few truthers on the internet?

Or do you just dismiss them as "whackjobs"?