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

bessboroughboy

King Mob wrote: »

For me it's because none of the conspiracy theory explanations make any sense and never stand up to scrutiny. And those proposing them usually ignore questions, whine, then run away when their ideas are examined...

Cool

[Deleted User]

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I'm inclined to question the mentality of people who, having seen footage of the collapses, were so easily dissuaded from thinking that they were controlled demolitions.

I would say that such people have fallen at the first hurdle.

Not trying to win an argument here, I don't have any investment in the outcome.

Cheerio!

For me it's because none of the conspiracy theory explanations make any sense and never stand up to scrutiny. And those proposing them usually ignore questions, whine, then run away when their ideas are examined...

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How do you know this? By your own repeated admissions this is the first time steel structured buildings have ever collapsed in this manner so if there are no previous examples to go by how do you know that this is not the way steel structured buildings fall due to intense fires?

By looking at video of what actually happened on the day.

This WTC7 falling in real time on 9/11. Can you not spot the differences between this and NIST graphic?

Keep an eye on the roofline and side corner walls as the building collapses. What do you see?

[IMG][/img][IMG][/img]

via Imgflip GIF Maker

bessboroughboy

I'm inclined to question the mentality of people who, having seen footage of the collapses, were so easily dissuaded from thinking that they were controlled demolitions.

I would say that such people have fallen at the first hurdle.

Not trying to win an argument here, I don't have any investment in the outcome.

Cheerio!

[Deleted User]

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How do you know this? By your own repeated admissions this is the first time steel structured buildings have ever collapsed in this manner so if there are no previous examples to go by how do you know that this is not the way steel structured buildings fall due to intense fires?

It's also the first time that a building has been demolished by using secret magic thermite in a stealth demolition. Yet it also looks like a typical demolition.

I wonder why the conspirators weren't able to make it look more like a natural collapse...?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Exactly. Asymmetrical collapse can only occur in a controlled demolition.

Dohnjoe does not know this, either do the people who keep liking his posts.

He claims there is no evidence for controlled demolition. When you then show him what happened to the building on 9/11 he ignores it.

Then when you produce NIST images of the collapse, he ignores this. Is he serious?

NIST image shows a non-symmetrical collapse.

How do you know this? By your own repeated admissions this is the first time steel structured buildings have ever collapsed in this manner so if there are no previous examples to go by how do you know that this is not the way steel structured buildings fall due to intense fires?

Cheerful Spring

NIST computer model of the collapse is a fraud plain and simple.

NIST computer simulation of WTC7 collapse side by side with the actual collapse.

There is a reason why NIST shut the computer simulation off at this point and did not show the full collapse to the end!

NIST provided a graphic. NIST is claiming this is what is happening to WTC7 as it fell!

Viewed from the North. The video of the actual collapse is also the north side view. This is not symmetrical.

Another problem is you can't have intact floors, with steel and concrete underneath. It established beyond all doubt now WTC7 collapsed at freefall speeds So there can't be floors there when the building collapsed!

bessboroughboy

storker wrote: »

Hang on...one of you is saying that the damage was asymmetrical and the collapse was symmetrical, so that it must have been a controlled explosion, and the other is saying that that the collapse was asymmetrical, and therefor it must have been a controlled explosion.

You've also said that the damage didn't contribute to the collapse. When then should the "shape" of the collapse be affected by the damage?

Can't you at least get your stories straight?

Obviously a typo, if you read Cheerful's previous post.

storker

bessboroughboy wrote: »

How on earth can asymmetrical structural damage cause such symmetrical collapses, it defies logic.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Exactly. Asymmetrical collapse can only occur in a controlled demolition.

[...]

NIST image shows a non-symmetrical collapse.

Hang on...one of you is saying that the damage was asymmetrical and the collapse was symmetrical, so that it must have been a controlled explosion, and the other is saying that that the collapse was asymmetrical, and therefor it must have been a controlled explosion.

You've also said that the damage didn't contribute to the collapse. When then should the "shape" of the collapse be affected by the damage?

Can't you at least get your stories straight?

Cheerful Spring

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Was I referring to 911 when I ENDED a sentence with "Bit weird"
NO

It was an analogy.

I have no evidence, therefore I am not in a position to offer any.

On the other hand, perhaps LOGIC might enter the fray.

How on earth can asymmetrical structural damage cause such symmetrical collapses, it defies logic.

Obviously it was a controlled demolition.

Exactly. Asymmetrical collapse can only occur in a controlled demolition.

Dohnjoe does not know this, either do the people who keep liking his posts.

He claims there is no evidence for controlled demolition. When you then show him what happened to the building on 9/11 he ignores it.

Then when you produce NIST images of the collapse, he ignores this. Is he serious?

NIST image shows a non-symmetrical collapse.

[Deleted User]

bessboroughboy wrote: »

How on earth can asymmetrical structural damage cause such symmetrical collapses, it defies logic.

Obviously it was a controlled demolition.

Are you an engineer?
Are you familiar with the detailed plans of the buildings and experienced with how buildings typically collapse?

How, if the buildings fell by fire alone, should they have looked in your expert opinion?

If it was a controlled demolition, how do you account for things like there being no multiple large explosions in sequences immediately prior to the collapse?

Why if you are so sure of your position do you have to ignore questions?
Could you please address the questions about Larry Silverstien or at least explain why you are ignoring them?

bessboroughboy

storker wrote: »

This is the problem with such pseudo-evidence. "Bit weird" != proof.

Was I referring to 911 when I ENDED a sentence with "Bit weird"

NO

It was an analogy.

I have no evidence, therefore I am not in a position to offer any.

On the other hand, perhaps LOGIC might enter the fray.

How on earth can asymmetrical structural damage cause such symmetrical collapses, it defies logic.

Obviously it was a controlled demolition.

storker

bessboroughboy wrote: »

bit weird, eh?

Perfect pancake collapses, all of them !

This is the problem with such pseudo-evidence. "Bit weird" != proof.

[Deleted User]

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Suspects: none

One: Larry Silverstien is involved somehow. The reason they know this is because he admitted it on camera for no real reason in a way that doesn't make sense and contradicts the claims of the conspiracy.

[Deleted User]

It fell downwards.

Dohnjoe

To recap

Theory - WTC 7 fell due to some sort of controlled demolition

Witnesses: none
Physical and material evidence: none
Motives: none provided
Suspects: none

Dohnjoe

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Psychology is quite important in all this, consider one's reaction to the word "conspiracy", compared to one's reaction to the word "corruption".

Both words relate to very similar concepts, yet it would be naive to say that corruption doesn't exist.

Conspiracies and corruption happen all the time, I rarely see threads about them on this forum

Here it's generally about incredulous denials "no way man went to the moon", "a steel framed building can't fall due to fire", "Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have acted alone", etc

When pressed for an evidence based alternative theory.. the actual conspiracy theory part, that's typically thin or non-existent

[Deleted User]

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Psychology is quite important in all this, consider one's reaction to the word "conspiracy", compared to one's reaction to the word "corruption".

Both words relate to very similar concepts, yet it would be naive to say that corruption doesn't exist.

But here's the thing. It's all well and good to pick at flaws in the official story and regurgitate factoids you've heard in youtube videos.
But when you actually examine these factoids and claims closely and directly, they fall apart.

Like your claim that Larry Silverstien admitted to being part of the conspiracy on camera.
You've admitted that this doesn't actually make sense to you, as you can't explain why he would do this. Yet you still hold it up as the only explanation.

So please stick to this point as it is the one you brought up as proof positive that it was a conspiracy.

Do you think that his telling of the anecdote is accurate to what happened?

bessboroughboy

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This thread demonstrates perfectly the psychology behind such thinking

Psychology is quite important in all this, consider one's reaction to the word "conspiracy", compared to one's reaction to the word "corruption".

Both words relate to very similar concepts, yet it would be naive to say that corruption doesn't exist.

Three buildings collapse in much the same manner, within a similar timeframe, and one of them wasn't hit by a plane.

Imagine hacking away at one side of a tree with an axe, and then the tree descends vertically into it's own pile of sawdust, bit weird, eh?

Perfect pancake collapses, all of them !

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good question, I like to know that too? The reality is that's how it went down.

"The reality is the Loch Ness monster exists. It's true because I say it is and no one can convince me otherwise."

19 pages in and zero credible evidence of a controlled demolition. Countless 911 truthers have been working on this for 17-odd years and they have nothing but a myriad of vague theories with no supporting evidence

This thread demonstrates perfectly the psychology behind such thinking

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The terrorist attack was the diversion.

Stage 1
My opinion and the evidence is very strong for this Saudi Arabia was working with the terrorists to carry out the 9/11 attack? Saudi officials with Wahhabism religious beliefs helped and funded and planned the attacks with Al Qaeda.

Stage 2
What I not sure of is were they in contact with a rogue group inside the United States? Did they plan this together in secret?

The other possibility the rogue group knew this was going to happen on Sep 11. So used that day to get rid of the evidence of financial crimes? Even if explosives were found the terrorists will be blamed?

The plan only required the planes to hit the towers. That was guaranteed because the defence network was in shambles from the military drill taking place that day. That terrorists were able to pick a day where US military was doing multiple war drills is a smoking gun that terrorists had inside information. These drills were secret at the time.

How is this a smoking gun?

Lets say the drills had not been taking place, what do you think would have happened differently?

This was an unprecedented attack the likes of which had never been seen before, When the 1st plane hit it was presumed it was a terrible accident, only when the 2nd plane hit was it realised that it was a terrorist attack.

After that nothing changes! The twin towers still fall, WTC7 (and other buildings) still gets damaged and falls.

Military drills or not the outcome was the same once those planes hit.

[Deleted User]

Ok, so you think that he was talking about the building.
Why does he admit this on camera?

Is the story he tells what you think actually happened?

bessboroughboy

Obviously building 7 was brought down by fire, sure it was made of balsa wood !

On a serious note though, if metal becomes hot enough to melt, it must already have been hot enough to deform, i.e. bend, buckle, warp, expand, sag. So why didn't anything give way in a non-instantaneous manner, prior to the instant "disappearance" of any form of metal support from the building.

Of course it was a controlled demolition, that's why it looks like one !

Anyway, Larry Silverstein didn't say "pull them", he said "pull it" so he was talking about the building, not the firefighters.

[Deleted User]

Guys, don't let Cheerful drag you into a debate on his misunderstandings and lies about the official story.
This thread is about the alternative explanations and why they are stupid, ridiculous and ultimately hollow.

The best tactic is to ask questions and try to pin down claims from the conspiracy theory so you get ideas like a guy calling his insurance company to ask if he still gets paid if he commits fraud against them.

Conspiracy theorists can't deal with questions about their own conspiracy theories. They don't like having to admit they can't answer them and they don't like having to face how silly they are.

Also math. He doesn't like doing math.

Tipsy McSwagger

weisses wrote: »

An hour ago you you put up an inaccurate video wrongly claiming how and why building 7 collapsed

That is the reality

Only thing in that video which is up for debate is whether the diesel tanks helped spread the fire. But the diesel tanks were there which nobody can deny (unlike explosives), so whether they did or not doesn’t really matter as it was fire which caused the building to collapse.

weisses

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The reality is there is zero proof of explosives been used. The whole plan would rely on a diversion anyway, and a big one at that, the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7. So the plan to bring down Building 7 would rely on a plane hitting the South Tower and then the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7 and badly damaging it enough to use as cover to set off multiple explosives. Why not just fly the plane into Building 7?

An hour ago you you put up an inaccurate video wrongly claiming how and why building 7 collapsed

That is the reality

Cheerful Spring

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The reality is there is zero proof of explosives been used. The whole plan would rely on a diversion anyway, and a big one at that, the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7. So the plan to bring down Building 7 would rely on a plane hitting the South Tower and then the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7 and badly damaging it enough to set off multiple explosives. Why not just fly the plane into Building 7?

The terrorist attack was the diversion.

Stage 1
My opinion and the evidence is very strong for this Saudi Arabia was working with the terrorists to carry out the 9/11 attack? Saudi officials with Wahhabism religious beliefs helped and funded and planned the attacks with Al Qaeda.

Stage 2
What I not sure of is were they in contact with a rogue group inside the United States? Did they plan this together in secret?

The other possibility the rogue group knew this was going to happen on Sep 11. So used that day to get rid of the evidence of financial crimes? Even if explosives were found the terrorists will be blamed?

The plan only required the planes to hit the towers. That was guaranteed because the defence network was in shambles from the military drill taking place that day. That terrorists were able to pick a day where US military was doing multiple war drills is a smoking gun that terrorists had inside information. These drills were secret at the time.

Tipsy McSwagger

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good question, I like to know that too? The reality is that's how it went down.

NIST could not repeat the actual collapse conditions is proof that's what happened.

The reality is there is zero proof of explosives been used. The whole plan would rely on a diversion anyway, and a big one at that, the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7. So the plan to bring down Building 7 would rely on a plane hitting the South Tower and then the South Tower collapsing on top of Building 7 and badly damaging it enough to use as cover to set off multiple explosives. Why not just fly the plane into Building 7?

Cheerful Spring

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Why put explosives in Building 7?

Good question, I like to know that too? The reality is that's how it went down.

NIST could not repeat the actual collapse conditions is proof that's what happened.

Tipsy McSwagger

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The video is out of date. Most of that information has been debunked a long time ago. Mostly by NIST by the way, not truthers.

Diesel theory was debunked by NIST.

You miss this tipy on the video you posted

PLEASE NOTE: This video was made in September 2007. The official investigation into the collapse of WTC7 at this time was still ongoing and did its final report was not released until more than a year later, in December 2008

Why put explosives in Building 7?