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

King Mob wrote: »

Again you are stalling. It's a bit sad.

Here you go:
http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/

Now, please explain why you are dismissing her.
She is a doctor. She is an expert. Why would we doubt her?
If we are to follow your arguments, that makes her unquestionable.

Her research is there in the open meaning that it's peer review, according to your definition of the word and no one has debunked her research.

You have not even address any of her points except to dismiss it as silly just because it relies on made up technology that doesn't exist and then you asked the same questions that you yourself say don't need to be answered when they are posed to you...

So why do you not believe her?

Your link
The Towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned (mostly) to dust in mid air.”

Please just show me something that supports what you said.

I want to see a detailed write up of her theory, not this crap.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A skeptic is someone who questions things logically and reasonably. Using it as a label is a compliment.

I like how you are suddenly demanding peer-reviewed everything but have stated that Hulsey's paper will be infallible the moment it is released.. without even knowing what it says

That's the opposite of skepticism.

I am Skeptical of NIST claims how the building collapsed

.

He is already given an update on his findings. He opinions are the collapse was not caused by fire.

He even replicated the actual collapse conditions in a computer simulated model. You going to see this alongside the NIST model and people will notice the differences immediately.

If he can by science replicate the real conditions of the collapse, that's what happened.

[Deleted User]

Dohnjoe wrote: »

demanding peer-reviewed everything

Remember that cheerful's version of "peer review" means "publish it on the internet and have your friends look it over and say it's fine."

It's the best kind of peer review apparently.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not finding what you claimed. I see pictures of 9/11 events on her website.

Link me to where she has paper discussing light beams blowing up WTC7

Again you are stalling. It's a bit sad.

Here you go:
http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/

Now, please explain why you are dismissing her.
She is a doctor. She is an expert. Why would we doubt her?
If we are to follow your arguments, that makes her unquestionable.

Her research is there in the open meaning that it's peer review, according to your definition of the word and no one has debunked her research.

You have not even address any of her points except to dismiss it as silly just because it relies on made up technology that doesn't exist and then you asked the same questions that you yourself say don't need to be answered when they are posed to you...

So why do you not believe her?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You, Skeptics, are still waiting for his peer-reviewed paper that he promised six years ago.

A skeptic is someone who questions things logically and reasonably. Using it as a label is a compliment.

I like how you are suddenly demanding peer-reviewed everything but have stated that Hulsey's paper will be infallible the moment it is released.. without even knowing what it says

That's the opposite of skepticism.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

That's what she's discussing. I don't know what you were looking at.

But you're just stalling now. Why do you reject DR Judy Woods' work?

Where's your peer reviewed study debunking all of her work?

Why are you dismissing her expertise? She's a doctor of many fields including engineering.
Why do you think you know better when you can't even do high school physics?

I not finding what you claimed. I see pictures of 9/11 events on her website.

Link me to where she has paper discussing light beams blowing up WTC7

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

LOL

Besides creating spurious facts you can now label anyone that disagrees as being part of some fictional "cover-up"

It's the casual and effortless dishonesty of these statements

You, Skeptics, are still waiting for his peer-reviewed paper that he promised six years ago.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

cover-up

1. What cover-up?

2. List of all those involved in this cover-up?

3. Explain it's existence?

Again, only with evidence. No speculation or assumptions.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Milette conclusions are problematic because he a scientist involved in the cover-up.

LOL

Besides creating spurious facts you can now label anyone that disagrees as being part of some fictional "cover-up"

It's the casual and effortless dishonesty of these statements

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

It is not false, chain of custody was never established for the Harrit samples.
That Milettes samples matched is a happy coincidence as it debunks the Thermite claim made by Harrit.
He also confirmed that whilst the samples he tested to replicate the Harrit study were consistent with Harrit et al. that there was no evidence of elemental aluminum in any sample tested and that the samples were categorically not Thermite or Nano Thermite.

The names of the people and locations were identified. Nobody disputes the red/grey chips were found in the dust samples.

Dr Milette conclusions are problematic because he a scientist involved in the cover-up. Skeptics should have asked independent scientists to debunk this paper. Dr Milette was involved in a documented mainstream cover-up of the dangers of the WTC dust to people health after the attacks. It was reported by official news sites.

Dr Milette claims no elemental aluminium was present even though he did not do the tests Harrit carried out. He did even do a DSC test to see if the chips spiked when heated. Dr Harrit tests clearly showed the Aluminium was not bonded with silicon. Dr Milette claims Aluminium and Silicon were bonded. He never produced his peer review he had promised he would to prove this.

Dohnjoe

Harika wrote: »

Should be on amazon soon but Jeff Bezos is holding it back. He wanted to release it but he was shown what would happen if he did by last weeks amazon shares drop

Right, but surely there is some summary or overview?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I see nothing on that awful looking website about a space beam blowing up WTC7 try again.

That's what she's discussing. I don't know what you were looking at.

But you're just stalling now. Why do you reject DR Judy Woods' work?

Where's your peer reviewed study debunking all of her work?

Why are you dismissing her expertise? She's a doctor of many fields including engineering.
Why do you think you know better when you can't even do high school physics?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

II. Once Upon a Time...

Once upon a time, there was a building called WTC7, and then it went away. And, it didn't even spill onto adjacent streets.

Lol is she serious?

Her "theory" has as much credible evidence as yours. I'd argue more, since you don't have any

Cheerful Spring

II. Once Upon a Time...

Once upon a time, there was a building called WTC7, and then it went away. And, it didn't even spill onto adjacent streets.

Lol is she serious?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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....

I see nothing on that awful looking website about a space beam blowing up WTC7 try again.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is false Dr Milette a scientist who was involved in the official WTC dust study confirmed the red/greys chips were in the dust.

It is not false, chain of custody was never established for the Harrit samples.
That Milettes samples matched is a happy coincidence as it debunks the Thermite claim made by Harrit.
He also confirmed that whilst the samples he tested to replicate the Harrit study were consistent with Harrit et al. that there was no evidence of elemental aluminum in any sample tested and that the samples were categorically not Thermite or Nano Thermite.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

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?

You have it backwards. There is no credible peer review paper disputing their findings.

When you release a scientific paper the other side has to debunk it scientifically.

[Deleted User]

banie01 wrote: »

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?

Btw: Here's a good video I finally found after a bit of digging. It was years since I've seen it.

It outlines how the samples in the paper in question are highly suspect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qROovaGUEI

I particularly like the part when Dr Jones wears a glove to handle the sample, but then just passes it to his ungloved hand.

Harika

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Good, we have something.

Do you have a summary of the theory anywhere?

Should be on amazon soon but Jeff Bezos is holding it back. He wanted to release it but he was shown what would happen if he did by last weeks amazon shares drop

Cheerful Spring

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!

This is false Dr Milette a scientist who was involved in the official WTC dust study confirmed the red/greys chips were in the dust.

He disagreed with their conclusions that's it. He is the only scientist to ever dispute their findings in a public setting. He also promised to release his findings to a peer review journal in 2012. Never happened because he knew his findings would be scrutinized and debated.

Hundreds of scientists release peer review papers on the Bentham open site. She probably someone who can not handle the truth. Look at this thread for example people beliefs often get in the way.

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?

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?

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

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

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

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?

[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: »

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!

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.

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?