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

[Deleted User]

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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"?

I would say in some parts more so cause at least there they try to provide more of an alternative theory.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

I would say in some parts more so cause at least there they try to provide more of an alternative theory.

I remember the Sandy Hook threads here ages back and people passionately arguing that it could be inside job

The psychology remains the same, only the subject changes

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Ok, you just denying facts now. You denying a FEMA science paper.

Professors from the Worchester Polytechnic institute recovered pieces of the steel from WTC7 and identified it. The pieces they recovered had undergone intergranular melting. Pieces of this steel had melted away and this was caused by high temp and Sulphur they speculated?

The Professors at Worchestor recommended further study and investigation for the future as they could not identify the source of the sulphur. There testing showed it was elemental sulphur that had melted into the ingrains of the steel.

No office fire is hot enough to melt steel.

NIST denied pieces of WTC7 steel were recovered. Even though professors at Worchestor had identified these particular pieces of WTC7 steel in 2002 and even produced images of the given steel that had melted. That NIST continues to lie is not disputable it's true.

Sulphur is a substance used in thermate and can be added to nano thermite explosive.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Sulphur is a substance used in thermate and can be added to nano thermite explosive.

But that can't be the explaination.
Firstly Thermate and nano thermite have never been used for demolition, secret or otherwise. You argue that if there's no examples of something, then it can't happen.
Secondly, it can't be those things as there's no pictures of video of them or of them being planted. You argued previously that if there's no video or photographic evidence, then it can't exist.

Similarly, thermite doesn't leave melted steel. Neither do explosives, but since thermite isn't an explosive, we can rule those out.
Which begs the question of where that explosion sound you keep claiming comes from?
If it's thermite, then the explosion proves it wasn't...

Also, you haven't really answered my points at all...

The incomparable Dr Judy Wood's theory explains how there is melted steel where yours does not.
Why do you reject it?

Cheerful Spring

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?

NIST report is the cover-up. They ignored the evidence for political reasons. The evidence shows WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

It easy to see this when you read their report and see the errors made. You only have to observe their computer simulation model of the collapse see where they lied. I produced an image belonging to NIST on this thread showing a depiction of the collapse viewed from the north. They claim WTC7 looked like a crushed soda can as it fell down. That not true WTC7 fell down symmetrically there were no deformations of the roofline and east and west side walls in the actual collapse.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But that can't be the explaination.
Firstly Thermate and nano thermite have never been used for demolition, secret or otherwise. You argue that if there's no examples of something, then it can't happen.
Secondly, it can't be those things as there's no pictures of video of them or of them being planted. You argued previously that if there's no video or photographic evidence, then it can't exist.

Similarly, thermite doesn't leave melted steel. Neither do explosives, but since thermite isn't an explosive, we can rule those out.
Which begs the question of where that explosion sound you keep claiming comes from?
If it's thermite, then the explosion proves it wasn't...

Also, you haven't really answered my points at all...

The incomparable Dr Judy Wood's theory explains how there is melted steel where yours does not.
Why do you reject it?

Stop lying and denying facts thermate can melt steel. I have already produced a video of this experiment. What Scientists found in the WTC dust was nano-thermite a revolutionary new incendiary substance. Was this used with explosives we guessing, but WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Thermite was not used and nobody has ever said this was used here.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Stop lying and denying facts thermate can melt steel.

I'm not lying.
Thermite does not produce flowing rivers of molten steel like you've claimed
Thermite does not produce explosions.
There's no photos or videos.
Thermite has never been used in a demolition.
A controlled demolition never produces molten steel.
But your own evidence and arguments it can't be thermite.

Dr Judy Wood is a scientist and her work concludes that it was a space laser and she produces a lot more evidence than just sulpher.
Again why do you deny her work?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not lying.
Thermite does not produce flowing rivers of molten steel like you've claimed
Thermite does not produce explosions.
There's no photos or videos.
Thermite has never been used in a demolition.
A controlled demolition never produces molten steel.
But your own evidence and arguments it can't be thermite.

Dr Judy Wood is a scientist and her work concludes that it was a space laser and she produces a lot more evidence than just sulpher.
Again why do you deny her work?

I never claimed thermite melted the steel. You still seem unable to process this.

Scientists claim they found 100nv nanometer red/grey chips (nano-thermite) in the WTC dust. US military was experimenting with nano-thermite in the 90's to use with explosives.

Professor Harrit claims the chips ignite low temps and then they noticed in calorimeter the chips released a high energy spike. Thermite does not ignite at low temp it requires very high temp to ignite.

Liquid metal yellow in colour was seen pouring out of the towers on the 80th floor. That liquid has never been identified. False again there is pictures and videos of a yellow liquid in the rubble pile at WTC sites.

What unknown here what explosive was used to bring down WTC7? The Red/grey chips were found in the WTC dust. There is no way to tell what building the dust came from?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never claimed thermite melted the steel.
Liquid metal yellow in colour was seen pouring out of the towers on the 80th floor. That liquid has never been identified. False again there is pictures and videos of a yellow liquid in the rubble pile at WTC sites.

You have been saying repeatedly that thermite melted the steel. You then accused me of lying when you claimed I said that this wasn't the case.
You are very confused about your own theory.

Either way, neither thermite/nanothermite produces a liquid. So they can't have been what was used.
Neither can explosives.

A space laser can explain this liquid easily.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What unknown here what explosive was used to bring down WTC7? The Red/grey chips were found in the WTC dust. There is no way to tell what building the dust came from?

But explosives can't be used as you have no video or photo evidence of the charges, so they don't exist...

Space lasers can also cause red/grey chips. This is a well known fact.

Cheerful Spring

Kingmob Dr Judy Wood is a scientist and her work concludes that it was a space laser and she produces a lot more evidence than just sulpher.
Again why do you deny her work?

There no evidence for this. Have you any images of this super beam hitting the towers?

It was proven scientifically by mainstream professors the steel melted. It verifiable information, not a conspiracy.

salmocab

Steel could be melted by arc flash which certainly could be present in any building collapse.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There no evidence for this. Have you any images of this super beam hitting the towers?

Nope. Why is that an issue for her theory?
Do you have images of the demolition charges? Them being planted?

Besides, everyone know that space lasers are invisible and fry cameras looking at them.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It was proven scientifically by mainstream professors the steel melted. It verifiable information, not a conspiracy.

But you just said that the steel didn't melt...?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You have been saying repeatedly that thermite melted the steel. You then accused me of lying when you claimed I said that this wasn't the case.
You are very confused about your own theory.

Either way, neither thermite/nanothermite produces a liquid. So they can't have been what was used.
Neither can explosives.

A space laser can explain this liquid easily.

But explosives can't be used as you have no video or photo evidence of the charges, so they don't exist...

Space lasers can also cause red/grey chips. This is a well known fact.

No, I did not stop lying. The video I produced was a thermate experiment.

Thermate includes sulphur and barium that thermite does not use.

You are a nano-thermite expert now?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. Why is that an issue for her theory?
Do you have images of the demolition charges? Them being planted?

Besides, everyone know that space lasers are invisible and fry cameras looking at them.

But you just said that the steel didn't melt...?

Kingmob if you not going to debate honestly leave the thread. The first post today I made today, I clearly said Professors at Worchestor had identified WTC7 steel pieces were melted.

Now you saying I said the opposite

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No, I did not stop lying. The video I produced was a thermate experiment.

Thermate includes sulphur and barium that thermite does not use.

You are a nano-thermite expert now?

But Thermite, nano or otherwise nor thermate cannot provide rivers of following metal. It just can't.
If it can, proof please.

Otherwise we have to conclude that it can't be the explain for how the tower came down.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob if you not going to debate honestly leave the thread. The first post today I made today, I clearly said Professors at Worchestor had identified WTC7 steel pieces were melted.

Now you saying I said the opposite

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never claimed thermite melted the steel.

Also you keep ignoring all the excellent points from Dr Judy Woods investigation. Are you closed minded to her theory?
If so, why?

Marty Bird

I heard the bang at the start of that video. Has it ever been identified what that bang was from?

Dohnjoe

Lads can we keep this thread as a alternative theories with evidence only thread

Not to backseat mod, but it will just get cluttered up

6 pages and so far no supporting evidence of another theory has been provided. Likewise no motives and no suspects.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But Thermite, nano or otherwise nor thermate cannot provide rivers of following metal. It just can't.
If it can, proof please.

Otherwise we have to conclude that it can't be the explain for how the tower came down.

Also you keep ignoring all the excellent points from Dr Judy Woods investigation. Are you closed minded to her theory?
If so, why?

There no way you can say that conclusively nano-thermite can't produce rivers of flowing melted metals. You, not an expert. You just give your opinion.

Either way river of yellow liquid was photographed and videoed. Eyewitnesses claim they saw melted steel and Iron in the rubble. There no argument to be had here this yellow liquid was observed in the rubble.

What you ignoring here again is a scientific paper released by FEMA in 2002 highlighted the steel in WTC7 was melted by high temp. You seem to not understand steel melts at 1500c.

If steel pieces were been edged out and melted this should have investigated further by NIST.

NIST ignored the FEMA recommendation and claimed they could not identify any piece of WTC7 steel? Are you going to believe that they could not find one piece of steel from WTC7 to study? They just forget the FEMA study and what they found?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There no way you can say that conclusively nano-thermite can't produce rivers of flowing melted metals. You, not an expert. You just give your opinion.

So then a space laser can also produce it.
So you now agree with Dr Judy Wood's expert opinion?

Dr. Bre

Dr Judy wondered why people jumped from the twin towers . ??

Cheerful Spring

Marty Bird wrote: »

I heard the bang at the start of that video. Has it ever been identified what that bang was from?

No it hasn't been identified. Skeptics prefer to ignore it as if it's not relevant.

You hear the bang echo picked up audio and then you see the Penthouse fall in.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So then a space laser can also produce it.
So you now agree with Dr Judy Wood's expert opinion?

I don't agree with her opinion. There no evidence of light beam hitting the towers.

There is evidence for melted steel and scientifically proven by mainstream scientists.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No it hasn't been identified. Skeptics prefer to ignore it as if it's not relevant.

You hear the bang echo picked up audio and then you see the Penthouse fall in.

There were multiple loud bangs on the day, elevators crashing to the ground, debris falling, transformers exploding, massive buildings generally falling down.

Is every one of those loud bangs is an explosive charge? No

You've just personally chosen one such sound, decided it is a "controlled explosion" because according to you "it happened just before the building fell". That's literally all the criteria to your assumption.

Reports and investigations have recorded no explosive blasts consistent with explosive charges

It's not evidence, it's just a "thing" you have created. You can write post after post claiming it - it's a fallacy. No one can deny disprove something you have created in your head, and you'll never accept any information that does explain it.

Circular.

Again, it's not supporting evidence of a controlled demolition. We still have nothing.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There no evidence of light beam hitting the towers.

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition. There is no evidence of "mini-nukes". There is no evidence of hologram planes.

You are in the exact same criteria as Judy Wood, someone you dismiss as a crackpot.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There were multiple loud bangs on the day, elevators crashing to the ground, debris falling, transformers exploding, massive buildings generally falling down.

Is every one of those loud bangs is an explosive charge? No

You've just personally chosen one such sound, decided it is a "controlled explosion" because according to you "it happened just before the building fell". That's literally all the criteria to your assumption.

Reports and investigations have recorded no explosive blasts consistent with explosive charges

It's not evidence, it's just a "thing" you have created. You can write post after post claiming it - it's a fallacy. No one can deny disprove something you have created in your head, and you'll never accept any information that does explain it.

Circular.

Again, it's not supporting evidence of a controlled demolition. We still have nothing.

Don't dispute that multiple noises were heard during the day..

The building was perfectly still no noise. Suddenly a bang is heard the echo reverberates, then 1 second later you see the first signs of collapse happening, the Penthouse drops from the roof. Five to six seconds later the entire building starts collapsing. This is clearly a controlled demolition.

Both events are linked you can't dispute that.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition. There is no evidence of "mini-nukes". There is no evidence of hologram planes.

You are in the exact same criteria as Judy Wood, someone you dismiss as a crackpot.

You just can't see it that the problem. If you were so confident NIST was right how come you still have replied to my question.

Do you think WTC7 fell like a crushed soda can? Stop throwing out ad-hominems and answer the question.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is clearly a controlled demolition.

It's a personal invention and speculation in your head.

In a previous thread you claimed it was utterly impossible an airliner could hit the Pentagon. You invented it in your head, you created your own fact and despite all the evidence provided to the contrary, you ruled that it was impossible

You later just randomly changed your mind, suddenly it was possible

None of this is about 911, it's about psychology

I can ask a mod to delete all posts with no supporting credible evidence of alternative theories in this thread and we are back to square one

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't agree with her opinion. There no evidence of light beam hitting the towers.

There is evidence for melted steel and scientifically proven by mainstream scientists.

But she's a scientist. She did research. You're not an expert, so you can't really disagree with her.

And again, where did I say that she claimed a beam of light hit the building?
I already told you that space lasers are invisible and fry cameras that look at them. Everyone knows that.

Where is your photos or video of the demolition charges?
Don't have any?
So therefore, using your own impeccable logic, they can't exist.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You just can't

Trying to suck me into circular "prove it to me" arguments doesn't work

It's a classic denialism trick. "You can't prove something to me I will never accept".

Therefore this thread is about providing credible evidence supporting an alternative theory

You are repeatedly demonstrating that you can't do that, which is why you are resorting to these tricks and fallacies in order to deflect from the simple fact that you can't support your own theory in any reasonable way

You may not be able to see this, but anyone else reading this thread can

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a personal invention and speculation in your head.

In a previous thread you claimed it was utterly impossible an airliner could hit the Pentagon. You invented it in your head, you created your own fact and despite all the evidence provided to the contrary, you ruled that it was impossible

You later just randomly changed your mind, suddenly it was possible

None of this is about 911, it's about psychology

I can ask a mod to delete all posts with no supporting credible evidence of alternative theories in this thread and we are back to square one

Skeptics will always try to deflect away and not answer. We have been over this about the plane. I did not rule out a plane hit. I said based on the physical damage and where the 9/11 commission states the plane was a smaller plane hit the Pentagon.

New Information I found. I now believe a commercial airliner did impact the Pentagon but not in the spot the 9/11 commission claims.. Opinions change you never change yours because you think you always right no matter what.

NIST denied anyone heard a noise prior to any collapse event. Someone else on this thread hears the bang so maybe you should re-evaluate NIST claims on this matter?