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

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They are basic questions.

1. Who did this?

2. Why did they do it?

3. How did they do it?

And failure to answer the above means what exactly ?

Even Nist who had all the access needed (at least what was left over from the hastily destroyed evidence) Could only come up with a hypothesis that needed to be revised because joe public found glaring holes in the report on a regular basis

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Name one scientist who agrees with her from the mainstream? She has to prove her theory.

There proper scientific work being done to investigate the collapse of WTC7. Work that will be peer-reviewed.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Both events are linked you can't dispute that.

Correalation does not equal causation.
What evidence can you provide other than your belief, that the sound is actually the initiation of a controlled demolition?

You dismiss out of hand any objection to nano-thermite without presenting any factual evidence that it actually even exists in easily handled and ignited format!

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

You just don't want to debate the subject. You know the NIST images are not representative of the actual collapse. If you were an honest person you admit that.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Name one scientist who agrees with her from the mainstream? She has to prove her theory.

There proper scientific work being done to investigate the collapse of WTC7. Work that will be peer-reviewed.

Lol. You have no sense of irony.

However, there are plenty of other scientists in the conspiracy world who buy into her theory.
Some of them have also been from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
She has published her work openly for anyone to peer review.

Why do you not believe her?

Timberrrrrrrr

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.

OMG i forgot about this one, didn't he once claim on a thread that there were no planes and it was all holograms to make the sheeple think it was a terror attack when really it was super nano thermite that was used?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Correalation does not equal causation.
What evidence can you provide other than your belief, that the sound is actually the initiation of a controlled demolition?

You dismiss out of hand any objection to nano-thermite without presenting any factual evidence that it actually even exists!

The noise of collapsing floors was not picked up by audio. Remember NIST is claiming floors, steel beams and columns, and furniture fittings elevators were all collapsing inside the building when the Penthouse fell in The noise picked up was so loud the echo was picked up blocks away from the site.

The building was motionless not a hinting of anything was happening. Then you hear a loud bang. Almost immediately the Penthouse started falling from the roofline.

It was scientifically proven the red/grey chips are nano-thermite. They're not a single peer-reviewed paper released by Skeptics that disproves the scientist's claims.

Paper is here if you interested.

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

banie01

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

OMG i forgot about this one, dudnt he ince claim on a thread that there were no planes and it was all holograms to make the sheeple think it was a terror attack when really it was super nano thermite that was used?

Yep and the plane that hit the pentagon was an A-3 Sky Warrior.
Then proceeded to disagree with his own thesis completely.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

OMG i forgot about this one, didn't he once claim on a thread that there were no planes and it was all holograms to make the sheeple think it was a terror attack when really it was super nano thermite that was used?

I never said anything about holograms you thinking of someone else.

You don't understand the evidence, that not unusual when it comes to Skeptics. You can see even in this thread Dohjoe can't even address the NIST images because he knows he looks foolish if he attempted to try.

Instead, he uses deflections tactics and ad-hominems.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The noise of collapsing floors was not picked up by audio. Remember NIST is claiming floors, steel beams and columns, and furniture fittings elevators were all collapsing inside the building when the Penthouse fell in The noise picked up was so loud the echo was picked up blocks away from the site.

The building was motionless not a hinting of anything was happening. Then you hear a loud bang. Almost immediately the Penthouse started falling from the roofline.

It was scientifically proven the red/grey chips are nano-thermite. They're not a single peer-reviewed paper released by Skeptics that disproves the scientist's claims.

Paper is here if you interested.

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

That paper is based on 4 samples that were not collected by verifiably forensic means. It makes a blanket assumption of genuine sourcing and from its outset is based on flawed sample security.
Assuming any form of Nano Thermite was used, where was the UV spike?
Where are the damaged eyes from the thousands watching the incipient collapse?

If it was a controlled collapse via thermite/nano-thermite.
How was the burn initiated silently?
Simultanously at multiple points in the building?
How was the material placed?
By Whom?
To what end?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

And failure to answer the above means what exactly ?

Short answer: It means there is no credible alternative theory. Occam's razor.

Long answer: Most modern conspiracy theorists generally operate by attacking/discrediting an "official version" of events. It's relatively easy to do. Typically when there is a certain type of attack (like Boston bombing, Charlie Hebdo, Vegas shooting, etc) a small army of like-minded internet "detectives" goes to work with the sole aim of trying to discredit the details/facts of the event as they emerge

They don't really have an interest in what happened because their motivations are to typically discredit the "authority" figures (the mainstream media, the investigations, the government, etc)

Some of these people are very "good" at it because it's literally a years long obsession with them. I could create a troll account on boards and argue "against" the NIST all day long, it's simple stuff. Anything can be denied on the internet where people don't have to adhere to stringent rules on skepticism and reasonable debate

It ends up being circular

So instead, it's easier to highlight the weakness of that approach by exposing their lack of alternative theories, or even interest in another theory at all. For example when a plane crashes, there can be any number of reasons - bird strike, pilot error, malfunction, mid-air collision, missile, pilot suicide, etc

Investigators work with the evidence in order to build up a picture of what has happened. They work from the ground up. They use substantiated evidence and information. Reliable witnesses, recordings, flight data, etc.

They don't decide it's a conspiracy from the outset and retroactively work from there. They don't seek to discredit all the evidence but provide no evidence of their own.

Anecdotally, I know someone who does this as a job, they've done it for two decades. By all accounts they are pretty damn good at it. But it doesn't mean they are infallible. Which is why they work as part of a team, with other experts who've been in the field, often for many years. These people certainly do not "automatically" agree with each other. When the entire team have fully investigated e.g. an aircraft crash, and they have all come to the same conclusion, one that is supported by the evidence. Sometimes it can be the strongest theory among a group of theories. Other times it can be the only theory supported by credible evidence

911 is one theory, widely accepted and established, across multiple attacks supported by credible and corroborated evidence. Supported by multiple investigations. There are no other credible theories on the matter.

It's pretty cut and dried. But then again you'd think that the world being round was pretty cut and dried. It isn't, there are thousands of people who passionately argue against it on the internet using the same kind of circular logic

This is a thread asking simple questions about what alternatively happened with evidence

Page 6, no answers, no motives, no suspects/witness/evidence... just circular subjective "can't explain this to me" attacks on the investigation and incredulity, which is always the case with 911, 7/7, Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, etc

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. You have no sense of irony.

However, there are plenty of other scientists in the conspiracy world who buy into her theory.
Some of them have also been from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
She has published her work openly for anyone to peer review.

Why do you not believe her?

She has an opinion about how the twin towers were demolished. As far as I know, her work is not about WTC7

Her work cannot be verified. How do you prove a space beam destroyed the towers? It's science fiction. If the US had this technology why have they not used it since?

We can easily dispute the NIST findings of WTC7.

If you truly don't believe WTC7 was brought down by demolition. Then people like you have to explain scientifically how a fire in WTC7 melted the steel?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

That paper is based on 4 samples that were not collected by verifiably forensic means. It makes a blanket assumption of genuine sourcing and from its outset is based on flawed sample security.
Assuming any form of Nano Thermite was used, where was the UV spike?
Where are the damaged eyes from the thousands watching the incipient collapse?

If it was a controlled collapse via thermite/nano-thermite.
How was the burn initiated silently?
Simultanously at multiple points in the building?
How was the material placed?
By Whom?
To what end?

That's false the samples were verified as genuine. Where the samples were taken from is documented. Skeptics don't even dispute that.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's false the samples were verified as genuine. Where the samples were taken from is documented. Skeptics don't even dispute that.

And the other questions asked of you?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She has an opinion about how the twin towers were demolished. As far as I know, her work is not about WTC7

Her work cannot be verified. How do you prove a space beam destroyed the towers? It's science fiction. If the US had this technology why have they not used it since?

We can easily dispute the NIST findings of WTC7.

If you truly don't believe WTC7 was brought down by demolition. Then people like you have to explain scientifically how a fire in WTC7 melted the steel?

Her work includes wtc7. Have you not even looked at her work before dismissing it and declaring that she's a shill? That's very closed minded of you...

She has published all of her reasearch on her website. Plus, it's already complete. So you can go peer review it right now. It's been peer reviewed and verified and has tons of evidence, much more complete and detailed than anything you've provided that shows it was a space laser.

Why are you asking me questions about the inner thoughts of the people who control the space laser? You complain when you are asked similar questions.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Her work includes wtc7. Have you not even looked at her work before dismissing it and declaring that she's a shill? That's very closed minded of you...

She has published all of her reasearch on her website. Plus, it's already complete. So you can go peer review it right now. It's been peer reviewed and verified and has tons of evidence, much more complete and detailed than anything you've provided that shows it was a space laser.

Why are you asking me questions about the inner thoughts of the people who control the space laser? You complain when you are asked similar questions.

Instead of claiming post information where she states a space beam destroyed WTC7?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Instead of claiming post information where she states a space beam destroyed WTC7?

Easily findable on her website. Google it.

Good luck.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Easily findable on her website. Google it.

Good luck.

So you don't if she actually said that? So your post is just hyperbole?

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

And the other questions asked of you?

You do realise you've just been fed debunked nonsense as a "fact"

The thermite thing has been long debunked, here's a starting point
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

Anything but answer the questions

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So you don't if she actually said that? So you post is just hyperbole?

She did. Go google it.
Go read her research before you dismiss her as a crank and a shill and stop being so closed minded.

That's not what hyperbole is btw.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You do realise you've just been fed debunked nonsense as a "fact"

The thermite thing has been long debunked, here's a starting point
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

Anything but answer the questions

Dohnjoe links to a Skeptic forum. He is unable to post a genuine peer-reviewed paper debunking their work?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

She did. Go google it.
Go read her research before you dismiss her as a crank and a shill and stop being so closed minded.

That's not what hyperbole is btw.

You made the claim you brought her into this conversation, prove it or never happened.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's false the samples were verified as genuine. Where the samples were taken from is documented. Skeptics don't even dispute that.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

There is no clear chain of custody for the samples used in the paper, none.
No chain of custody means that no credible hypothesis can be considered.
The Managing Editor of the Open Chemical Physics Journal resigned after the articles publication as she claimed it was done without her knowledge and approval.
Plenty there to debunk the thermite hypothesis and thats before one takes into account the extensive issues with Bentham Open as a peer reviewed publisher in fact it is widely perceived to be a vanity publisher!

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You made the claim you brought her into this conversation, prove it or never happened.

Lol. How many times had you been asked to provide evidence or a link to your claims and then fobbed it off by telling us to google it.

And again, she did include WTC7. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/WTC7.html

You are just being closed minded about her work.

Or you are starting to see how silly your own position and arguments are....

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe links to a Skeptic forum. He is unable to post a genuine peer-reviewed paper debunking their work?

banie01 wrote: »

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

There is no clear chain of custody for the samples used in the paper, none.
No chain of custody means that no credible hypothesis can be considered.
The Managing Editor of the Open Chemical Physics Journal resigned after the articles publication as she claimed it was done without her knowledge and approval.
Plenty there to debunk the thermite hypothesis and thats before one takes into account the extensive issues with Bentham Open as a peer reviewed publisher in fact it is widely perceived to be a vanity publisher!

Dammit me an Dohnjoe posted the same link!

Can Cheerful spring post a credible peer reviewed paper supporting the same thesis? i.e Thermite that is not peddled by a discredited and non peer reviewed journal?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe What he should have linked is a debate between a Skeptic and 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

You see two people debate the subject honestly from both sides.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289588

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

peer-reviewed paper

It's not a proper scientific paper published in a respected journal. It's a random claim. Doesn't need to be peer-reviewed. Doesn't even need to be addressed (but some have gone to the effort of doing so) because it was misleading

Just about every steel framed building contains the "components" for thermite, iron oxide and aluminium, so if a building falls down, then people can comb through the debris, find samples and et voila claim thermite was present so by extraodinary leaps and bounds.. it must have been bought down by some unspecified demolition somehow using thermite

Or nano-thermite to make it sound so much more cutting edge

You still haven't answered any of the questions properly, or you haven't provided any credible evidence

We're still at zero here

Harika

There is a book coming out from J. Horvath, Schiller and Goethe who show that wtc 7 collapsed because of an explosion caused by a chem trail container from one of the planes survived the impact and dropped into Wtc 7 where the chemical reaction of those chemicals caused the crash. They show that by using those chemicals you can reproduce everything like the explosion, the molten steel and the health impact of people close by. Impressive work.

Dohnjoe

Harika wrote: »

There is a book coming out from J. Horvath, Schiller and Goethe who show that wtc 7 collapsed because of an explosion caused by a chem trail container from one of the planes survived the impact and dropped into Wtc 7 where the chemical reaction of those chemicals caused the crash. They show that by using those chemicals you can reproduce everything like the explosion, the molten steel and the health impact of people close by. Impressive work.

Good, we have something.

Do you have a summary of the theory anywhere?

banie01

Harika wrote: »

There is a book coming out from J. Horvath, Schiller and Goethe who show that wtc 7 collapsed because of an explosion caused by a chem trail container from one of the planes survived the impact and dropped into Wtc 7 where the chemical reaction of those chemicals caused the crash. They show that by using those chemicals you can reproduce everything like the explosion, the molten steel and the health impact of people close by. Impressive work.

So even when it was the nano Thermite....
All along it was actually the pesk chem-trails?