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]

Needed this sooner than I thought.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Of course, why not surprised. If I ask someone on photography forum and they say its reflections will you accept it then? I don't want to be wasting my time on this if you are just continue to ignore evidence?

Sure, why not.:rolleyes:

So what else could it have been if it wasn't a tiny piece of glass.

GreeBo

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
So that was what was reflecting the image?

Clearly you haven't heard of nano-reflections! :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You ignoring no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to just fire ever prior to 9/11 or after.

This is an example of you creating your own facts (aka lying)

Your point is also a deflection, not to mention absurd logic. The fact that something hasn't happened before or since is not evidence or proof that the event itself didn't happen

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is an example of you creating your own facts (aka lying)

Your point is also a deflection, not to mention absurd logic. The fact that something hasn't happened before or since is not evidence or proof that the event itself didn't happen

Not lying name one steel framed building in Europe and America that collapsed due to fire before 9/11 and afterwards.

When you finding evidence that disproves the fire collapse theory you can debunk it.

GreeBo

CheerfulSpring wrote:

no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to just fire ever prior to 9/11 or after.

No nothing ever happened prior to the first time it happened.

[Deleted User]

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is an example of you creating your own facts (aka lying)

Your point is also a deflection, not to mention absurd logic. The fact that something hasn't happened before or since is not evidence or proof that the event itself didn't happen

And when it's pointed out that no building has ever been demolished by thermite, cheerful points to partial demolitions of entirely different buildings. Or he also argues that it's entirely possible that it's just the first time nanothermite was used and that the fact there's no other examples isn't a problem.

He knows well his argument is bull****.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not lying name one steel framed building in Europe and America that collapsed due to fire before 9/11 and afterwards.

Name one building that was demolished by thermite or nanothermite.

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo wrote: »

No nothing ever happened prior to the first time it happened.

Big difference. The evidence clearly shows fire did not bring WTC7 down. That evidence is supported by historical precedent. Literally, dozens and dozens of steel framed high rise buildings have caught fire and burned for hours and never came down or collapsed.

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The evidence clearly shows fire did not bring WTC7 down.

If it clearly showed anything we wouldnt be still talking about it decades later.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And when it's pointed out that no building has ever been demolished by thermite, cheerful points to partial demolitions of entirely different buildings. Or he also argues that it's entirely possible that it's just the first time nanothermite was used and that the fact there's no other examples isn't a problem.

He knows well his argument is bull****.

Discoveries matter in this. We have confirmation why the steel melted. Lame excuses that it was done by office fires or later in the rubble doesn't work. NIST study of WTC7 is just confirming the reality of what occurred on 9/11. Even their own scientific computer sims of the collapse could not replicate how the building fell on 9/11.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Discoveries matter in this. We have confirmation why the steel melted. Lame excuses that it was done by office fires or later in the rubble doesn't work. NIST study of WTC7 is just confirming the reality of what occurred on 9/11. Even their own scientific computer sims of the collapse could not replicate how the building fell on 9/11.

Your ignorance is not a valid argument against something

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo wrote: »

If it clearly showed anything we wouldnt be still talking about it decades later.

Politics dude. We still don't the full extent of Saudis government role in planning the attack. People involved in the investigation of 9/11 had the guts to come out later and state they found plenty of evidence this was Saudi operation. That investigation got shut down by the White House.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Discoveries matter in this. We have confirmation why the steel melted. Lame excuses that it was done by office fires or later in the rubble doesn't work. NIST study of WTC7 is just confirming the reality of what occurred on 9/11. Even their own scientific computer sims of the collapse could not replicate how the building fell on 9/11.

Lol. Not even close to connected to the point I made.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your ignorance is not a valid argument against something

Not ignorance. The 9/11 debate is still ongoing because these questions remain unanswered.

It's interesting least some 9/11 Skeptics on are open now it was a Saudi led operation.

They just don't want to believe a group of Americans would be so cold-hearted to bring down buildings on 9/11 and kill thousands of Americans. They don't believe JFK was killed by the CIA and Mob either so there is that.

America changed after WW2 and wasn't good.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Politics dude.

Nope, this is your personal theory. Glass reflections in rubble, 3 buildings blown up in New York in complete secrecy, a missile military plane flight 77 hit the Pentagon but was a few degrees off, they secretly chopped the lamp-posts, it was Rumsfeld Larry Silverstein the Saudis all three

Have you heard yourself?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The 9/11 debate is still ongoing because these questions remain unanswered.

Yeah, no

It's going on for the same reason that the anti-vaxx "debate" is "going on". Ignorance and disinformation

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, this is your personal theory. Glass reflections in rubble, 3 buildings blown up in New York in complete secrecy, a missile military plane flight 77 hit the Pentagon but was a few degrees off, they secretly chopped the lamp-posts, it was Rumsfeld Larry Silverstein the Saudis all three

Have you heard yourself?

It well documented mainstream information. Even well known 9/11 Skeptics like Oystein has come around and believes Prince Bandar played a role in planning the attacks.

We get there eventually on controlled demolition. Dr Hulsey work will change minds I believe or maybe not who knows?

Cheerful Spring

Oystein is chief debunker on international Skeptic site. Well known debunker of controlled demolitions

Even he shocked me when he said this.

Quote
Too many in this forum are too quick, in my opinion, to dismiss out of hand hypotheses that true higher-ups in the Saudi power elite - I am talking government and Princes level - have knowingly co-conspired and willingly enabled 9/11. There IS initial evidence that, specifically, Prince Bandar had a hand in it all, and there IS some evidence that whatever was known about those ties before 9/11 has been handled in such a sorry way that closer scrutiny is warranted.

I have always felt that the likes of paloalto are onto something real; but unfortunately they overplay their cards, and insulate themselves from scrutiny by coming with a besieged-castle mentality.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331859&page=2

Ipso

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not ignorance. The 9/11 debate is still ongoing because these questions remain unanswered.

It's interesting least some 9/11 Skeptics on are open now it was a Saudi led operation.

They just don't want to believe a group of Americans would be so cold-hearted to bring down buildings on 9/11 and kill thousands of Americans. They don't believe JFK was killed by the CIA and Mob either so there is that.

America changed after WW2 and wasn't good.

I don't think it was ever an issue, and just because a plausible part of giant turducken of a theory is correct, it doesn't mean everything else is.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Too many in this forum are too quick, in my opinion, to dismiss out of hand hypotheses that true higher-ups in the Saudi power elite

Oh so now it's the Saudi's and Silverstein isn't involved?

Cheerful Spring

Just found this molten type metal in the rubble of the Plasco tower

I have come across interesting information on Skeptic site why this could be in the rubble.

From Iranian sources
The building was occupied primarily by garment businesses.
Large amounts of fabric were stored on the premises. Reportedly,
the building’s owners were warned on numerous
occasions that the building was unsafe due to the storage of
flammable materials throughout the building and the lack of
fire safety measures.6 There was no central heating system
in the building and each tenant had its own heating system,
reportedly fueled with gas or propane.

Gas and propane. I was right I suspected gas was involved in the building collapse. That building was a ticking time bomb ready to explode.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Oh so now it's the Saudi's and Silverstein isn't involved?

I don't believe the Saudis brought down the buildings. They definitely organised the plot to hijack the planes and fly them into the buildings.

What unknowable at this stage were the Saudis even aware of this second plot of bringing the buildings down by controlled demolition? Were they informed about it.

We know the CIA knew the hijackers arrived to carry out an attack in 2000. The hijackers were not picked up and arrested of course was blamed on intelligence failure. I don't buy into that for a second the US government spends billions on intelligence they knew this attack was coming. They tracked the planning of this mission in Malaysia.

Cheerful Spring

Ipso wrote: »

I don't think it was ever an issue, and just because a plausible part of giant turducken of a theory is correct, it doesn't mean everything else is.

Prince Bandar involvement means this attack was ordered by the highest levels of power in Saudi Arabia.

Prince Bandar was the (Saudi Ambassador) for the United States in 2001 and close friend of the Bush family and the neocon political establishment.

Why would he involve himself in an terrorist attack on a friendly country?

Cheerful Spring

FBI officials speak out about the United States cover-up of 9/11. This is the world in reality.

https://www.newsweek.com/cia-and-saudi-arabia-conspired-keep-911-details-secret-new-book-says-1091935

https://www.sarasotamagazine.com/articles/2016/10/26/secrets-and-lies

https://28pages.org/2018/08/01/exclusive-fbi-told-former-agent-not-to-help-9-11-victims-build-case-against-saudi-arabia/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-fbi-is-keeping-80000-secret-files-on-the-saudis-and-911

Cheerful Spring

I just highlight this quote.

His motion follows a sworn statement by Steven Moore, the FBI agent who headed the bureau’s investigation into the hijacking of the plane that flew into the Pentagon, charging the 9/11 Commission with misleading the public when it said it “had not found evidence” of Saudi assistance to Hazmi and Mihdhar.

There it is a top FBI agent investigating 9/11 attacks says the 9/11 commission lied to the American public and the world.

It goes on.

There was clearly evidence that Thumairy provided assistance to Hazmi and Mihdhar,” Moore wrote. And “based on the proof in our investigation,” he added, “Bayoumi himself was a clandestine agent and associated with radical extremists, including Thumairy.”

Moore’s statement was first reported by the Florida Bulldog, a Fort Lauderdale news site that has been investigating the hijackers’ contacts with flight schools. “To my knowledge,” Moore stated, “Thumairy has never been the subject of a genuine law enforcement interview conducted by the actual agents who investigated him.”

Thumairy and Bayomi are Saudi intelligence

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Just found this molten type metal in the rubble of the Plasco tower

Molten metal was also found at 911

I was right I suspected gas was involved in the building collapse. That building was a ticking time bomb ready to explode.

So Plasco didn't fall due to fire?

Or?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't believe the Saudis brought down the buildings. They definitely organised the plot to hijack the planes and fly them into the buildings.

I'm trying to make sense of your speculation and theory

Larry Silverstein was not involved in blowing up WTC 7 or he was?

The Saudi's were not involved in blowing up WTC or they are?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Molten metal was also found at 911

So Plasco didn't fall due to fire?

Or?

Gas and propane going off would result in extreme temps well above the melting point of steel. The building steel was not secured by shear studs reported by the Iranians. No adequate fireproofing. I not shocked they find molten steel in the rubble. Gas+fire is a lethal combination.

It seems fire+ gas and propane was the cause.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just highlight this quote.

His motion follows a sworn statement by Steven Moore, the FBI agent who headed the bureau’s investigation into the hijacking of the plane that flew into the Pentagon, charging the 9/11 Commission with misleading the public when it said it “had not found evidence” of Saudi assistance to Hazmi and Mihdhar.

There it is a top FBI agent investigating 9/11 attacks says the 9/11 commission lied to the American public and the world.

It goes on.

There was clearly evidence that Thumairy provided assistance to Hazmi and Mihdhar,” Moore wrote. And “based on the proof in our investigation,” he added, “Bayoumi himself was a clandestine agent and associated with radical extremists, including Thumairy.”

Moore’s statement was first reported by the Florida Bulldog, a Fort Lauderdale news site that has been investigating the hijackers’ contacts with flight schools. “To my knowledge,” Moore stated, “Thumairy has never been the subject of a genuine law enforcement interview conducted by the actual agents who investigated him.”

Thumairy and Bayomi are Saudi intelligence

This thread is about WTC 7 falling down

Please put this stuff in other threads.

Stick to the topic, WTC 7, your theory, your support for that theory (I've almost given up on credible evidence because there is none)