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?

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

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The problem with this is they very rarely ever explode due to having pressure valves fitted.

https://www.elgas.com.au/blog/365-busting-media-mythology-lpg-gas-bottles

Just wait for the claims that Elgas is involved with the conspiracy or somehow don't know as much as Cheerful Spring.

King Mob wrote: »

Just wait for the claims that Elgas is involved with the conspiracy or somehow don't know as much as Cheerful Spring.

Nahhhhhh

Easier to say they were cheap Iranian gas bottles made in a 3rd world factory and wouldnt have had pressure valves fitted.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nahhhhhh

Easier to say they were cheap Iranian gas bottles made in a 3rd world factory and wouldnt have had pressure valves fitted.

I forgot that he was an expert in the gas bottles of the Middle East and Persia as well.

King Mob wrote: »

Link?

here

King Mob wrote: »

So you say that you have examples of skyscrapers being demolished by thermite (not nanothermite or thermate ).

Where did he claim this ?

King Mob wrote: »

If it's about the content, what point were you trying to make by listing these people's supposed credentials?

That they are not some crackpot baby raping holocaust denying anti vaxxers

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"It was a controlled demolition", that's the entire theory?

Dr Judy Wood's is much more fleshed out than that

Care to elaborate on it?

I asked you earlier if you could provide solid credible evidence wtc7 was brought down by office fires..

The same evidence you are requesting with any other theory.

Enlighten me

weisses wrote: »

I asked you earlier if you could provide solid credible evidence wtc7 was brought down by office fires..

The same evidence you are requesting with any other theory.

Enlighten me

Can you do the same for explosives/thermite/thermate/nano thermite etc?

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, why not.:rolleyes:

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

Why act so surprised

Glass cannot survive this but intact paper passports belonging to the hijackers being found is credible according to you.

Think long and hard before using the word hypocrite again ....just a suggestion

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Can you do the same for explosives/thermite/thermate/nano thermite etc?

1 step at a time timberrrrr

You cannot demand solid evidence for alternative theories when the original hypothesis lacks exactly that

weisses wrote: »

I asked you earlier if you could provide solid credible evidence wtc7 was brought down by office fires..

The same evidence you are requesting with any other theory.

Enlighten me

There is credible evidence that WTC 7 fell due to fire, which is coincidentally the only theory supported by substantiated evidence and investigations

It's literally in the history books

This thread is about alternative theories with credible evidence - it's pretty obvious they don't exist

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Also look at an example of one of your sticking points, e.g.

Some individuals claimed they saw molten steel. This is explained as those individuals not having enough expertise to distinguish between heated metal, molten metal and molten steel - and making a common enough mistake

I am pretty sure (as a simple experiment) the picture of that excavator lifting up glowing metal from 911 rubble could be shown to e.g. 500 firefighters, rescue staff, emergency responders - and a number of them would say it's "molten steel"

I just leave this here ...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108395200&postcount=692

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is credible evidence that WTC 7 fell due to fire, which is coincidentally the only theory supported by substantiated evidence and investigations

It's literally in the history books

No there is no solid evidence ..Its a theory they tried to made look plausible with a flawed computer simulation.

Point me to solid evidence and Im happy to look at this

weisses wrote: »

here

Where did he claim this ?

Here:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

did find examples of thermite used to demolish steel structures.

If these steel structures weren't skyscrapers, why bring them up?
It would be dishonest to do that.

weisses wrote: »

Why act so surprised

Glass cannot survive this but intact paper passports belonging to the hijackers being found is credible according to you.

So just to clarify, you believe Cheerful's theory that there was a big giant pane of glass reflecting that image? You will dodge answering this question.

weisses wrote: »

Think long and hard before using the word hypocrite again ....just a suggestion

I do. It perfectly describes you guys and your tactics.

weisses wrote: »

That they are not some crackpot baby raping holocaust denying anti vaxxers

Lol, what?

Dr Judy Wood has just as much qualifications as those guys, yet you dismiss her as a kook. Cheerful called into question her qualifications based on nothing.

No one is accusing your experts of being "crackpot baby raping holocaust denying anti vaxxers."
That is a dishonest and hypocritical exaggeration on your part.

So since you can't provide anything to back up your silly theories, why should we take them any more seriously than space lasers?
Why do you reject that theory?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is credible evidence that WTC 7 fell due to fire, which is coincidentally the only theory supported by substantiated evidence and investigations

It's literally in the history books

This thread is about alternative theories with credible evidence - it's pretty obvious they don't exist

Do you believe the computer simulation made by NIST that shows the WTC7 collapse is a correct reflection of the actual collapse ?

King Mob wrote: »

Here:

If these steel structures weren't skyscrapers, why bring them up?
It would be dishonest to do that.

I can distinguish a steel structure from a steel skyscraper yes ....You cannot ?

He even gave examples

And yet you keep hammering on about he is unable tyo produce a steel building being demolished by thermite ... you are hilarious at this stage

Luckily I know you long enough to poke through these tactics

King Mob wrote: »

So just to clarify, you believe Cheerful's theory that there was a big giant pane of glass reflecting that image? You will dodge answering this question.

No ... try reading it correctly this time ... You have issues with glass surviving the collapse but are okay with paper passports belonging to the hijackers being found ... That is hypocrisy at its finest

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, what?

Dr Judy Wood has just as much qualifications as those guys, yet you dismiss her as a kook. Cheerful called into question her qualifications based on nothing.

No one is accusing your experts of being "crackpot baby raping holocaust denying anti vaxxers."
That is a dishonest and hypocritical exaggeration on your part.

I never mentioned wood ...

Again ...try and read, then think for a minute or 2 and then provide a reply that is coherent and not full of lies

weisses wrote: »

I can distinguish a steel structure from a steel skyscraper yes ....You cannot ?

He even gave examples

And yet you keep hammering on about he is unable tyo produce a steel building being demolished by thermite ... you are hilarious at this stage

Luckily I know you long enough to poke through these tactics

But why would he bring up steel structures if he didn't mean skyscrapers?
Do partial collapses and different types of structures suddenly count now?
Cause earlier we were told that they didn't count and couldn't be used to prove anything.

I was just taking him at his word.

weisses wrote: »

No ...

No what? No to my point or "no I don't believe that giant pane of glass was reflecting an image in that photo?"

I honestly don't understand what your position here is.
You believe some very silly things indeed, so I think that you would subscribe to the very silly notion cheerful is suggesting.
If I'm wrong, please say so clearly.

weisses wrote: »

try reading it correctly this time ... You have issues with glass surviving the collapse but are okay with paper passports belonging to the hijackers being found ... That is hypocrisy at its finest

And this is an example of your inherent dishonesty.

There is a slight difference between a passport and a large pane of glass for a start.

But it's pointless to get into this until you clarify whether or not you accept cheerful's silly theory?
If you do, I don't think there's much point in explaining the difference to you.
If you don't, you don't really have a point here at all.

If you dodge the point entirely, I'll just assume you were convinced by his argument and believe that there was a big giant pane of glass there.

weisses wrote: »

I never mentioned wood ...

But again, ya did. You dismiss her theory as kooky and silly even though she's far far more qualified than you.

Why are you allowed to do this?

weisses wrote: »

Again ...try and read, then think for a minute or 2 and then provide a reply that is coherent and not full of lies

Where did I lie?

Which part of my reply did you have trouble understanding?

Why are you asking me these questions, then ignoring my replies and follow up points?

Why do you reject the space lasers theory when it's far more coherent and evidenced and plausible than anything you have ever provided?

weisses wrote: »

No there is no solid evidence

Your personal opinion

..Its a theory they tried to made look plausible with a flawed computer simulation.

Again, entirely your opinion

There are no competing theories in this equation. You yourself have admitted you openly support a theory with no credible evidence

Without a shred of evidence how can anyone take you seriously?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your personal opinion

Again, entirely your opinion

There are no competing theories in this equation. You yourself have admitted you openly support a theory with no credible evidence

Without a shred of evidence how can anyone take you seriously?

nope ...Not my opinion ...fact ...There is no solid evidence wtc7 fell due to fire

weisses wrote: »

Why act so surprised

Glass cannot survive this but intact paper passports belonging to the hijackers being found is credible according to you.

Are you suggesting that the earlier photo contains a glass sheet sitting in rubble reflecting a person? right beside "liquid steel"?

King Mob wrote: »

But why would he bring up steel structures if he didn't mean skyscrapers?

As that it was used to bring down structures ... I got it ..you obviously not

King Mob wrote: »

I honestly don't understand

If you can not see your flawed reasoning in regards to being hypocritical that is fine ...I wont be able to make it any clearer

King Mob wrote: »

If you dodge the point entirely, I'll just assume you were convinced by his argument and believe that there was a big giant pane of glass there.

Be careful now ..3 pages down the line you will be convinced I stated I saw Jesus being reflected in the fire .... Not answering your silly questions doesn't mean I agree the opposite

King Mob wrote: »

But again, ya did. You dismiss her theory as kooky and silly even though she's far far more qualified than you.

Why are you allowed to do this?

Again ... where did I mention Dr Wood or made reference to her ... post number will do

If you Can provide that info I offer my sincere apologies .. .If not I stand by my point that you are making up statements as you go

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the earlier photo contains a glass sheet sitting in rubble reflecting a person? right beside "liquid steel"?

I find that as silly as a hijackers passport surviving the impact as seen on 9/11 .... You obviously not

Do you believe the computer simulation made by NIST that shows the WTC7 collapse is a correct reflection of the actual collapse ?

weisses wrote: »

nope ...Not my opinion ...fact ...There is no solid evidence wtc7 fell due to fire

Wow. You'll find that's your personal subjective opinion. It's not supported by any consensus, far from it. Fringe radio hosts, internet groups.

In the same way you'll dismiss people like Alex Jones (who supports the same theory you do by the way) and Dr Judy Wood, people can dismiss your personal opinions

As mentioned you can take your attacks on the NIST to another thread. If you can't support your own theory I have no idea what you are adding to this

weisses wrote: »

I find that as silly as a hijackers passport surviving the impact as seen on 9/11 .... You obviously not

Personal incredulity

Paper survived, seat covers.

Instead of sitting on the fence, sniping - make an effort to support your own theory. Perhaps instead of using conspiracy sources, use real sources.

weisses wrote: »

As that it was used to bring down structures ... I got it ..you obviously not

Ok, but then why did he say that there's no examples of steel structures being destroyed by fire when he was provided them?
Why did he claim they didn't count?
Do they not count?
If not, why then does his examples count?

Am I supposed to have psychically divined that he was in fact making an irrelevant point?

weisses wrote: »

If you can not see your flawed reasoning in regards to being hypocritical that is fine ...I wont be able to make it any clearer

No, I get the argument you are attempting to make.
I don't understand why you think it's convincing or honest or even particularly clever.
I also don't understand why you are pretending not to know how the passport survived or what the difference between it and a giant piece of glass is.

weisses wrote: »

Be careful now ..3 pages down the line you will be convinced I stated I saw Jesus being reflected in the fire .... Not answering your silly questions doesn't mean I agree the opposite

Or, mad thought, you could answer a question directly and honestly for a change.
But not going to hold my breath.

Do you agree with Cheerful's idea or not?
If you don't answer this directly, then I will have to assume that you do believe this very silly theory.

Edit:
I see now that you agree that it's silly and you reject it. Would have been a lot easier if you just said that directly.

weisses wrote: »

Again ... where did I mention Dr Wood or made reference to her ... post number will do

My mistake then.

Why do you reject her theory when she's perfectly qualified?

This is becoming very hard to follow but I appreciate the efforts to have people explain the alternative theory of the collapse.

Can I ask both sides what is the one thing from the opposing side that you believe has the most credibility and troubles your opinion on what happened.

Like I get that ye are 100% sure of whichever side of the argument you fall on but there must be one little thing that appears odd or is at odds with your beliefs on both sides.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As mentioned you can take your attacks on the NIST to another thread. If you can't support your own theory I have no idea what you are adding to this

Can you support your own theory in regards to wtc7 with solid evidence ?

Why ask a high standard of evidence from an alternative theory if you cannot do the same supporting yours ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Personal incredulity

Paper survived, seat covers.

Instead of sitting on the fence, sniping - make an effort to support your own theory. Perhaps instead of using conspiracy sources, use real sources.

Yes heavily burned seat covers ... passport was found without a scratch

Try again

seannash wrote: »

This is becoming very hard to follow but I appreciate the efforts to have people explain the alternative theory of the collapse.

Can I ask both sides what is the one thing from the opposing side that you believe has the most credibility and troubles your opinion on what happened.

Like I get that ye are 100% sure of whichever side of the argument you fall on but there must be one little thing that appears odd or is at odds with your beliefs on both sides.

I've said a few times that the basic premise of the conspiracy theory isn't far fetched.
It's entirely possible that elements of the US government allowed or helped or ordered terrorists to fly planes into buildings.
The problem is the idea of alternative theories about the collapse. They are all inherently silly and far far more complicated that the above theory.
There's no need for the government to plant explosives or secret hi tech magic thermite.

There is no viable alternative explanation offered for how the towers might have collapsed and the ones that are offered are all silly.
And this is just taking them at face value without actually digging into them and picking them apart.

If conspiracy theorists kept to the above slimmed down theory, it would be a lot more difficult to argue against.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, but then why did he say that there's no examples of steel structures being destroyed by fire when he was provided them?
Why did he claim they didn't count?
Do they not count?
If not, why then does his examples count?

Am I supposed to have psychically divined that he was in fact making an irrelevant point?

I got it what he was saying ... I looked up the structures he referred to ... you took it upon yourself to bash him over and over to show evidence of steel framed buildings being brought down by termite ... something he never claimed ......

King Mob wrote: »

No, I get the argument you are attempting to make.

Great

King Mob wrote: »

Do you agree with Cheerful's idea or not?
If you don't answer this directly, then I will have to assume that you do believe this very silly theory.

Edit:
I see now that you agree that it's silly and you reject it. Would have been a lot easier if you just said that directly.

post 671 .... Not clear enough for you ?

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you reject her theory when she's perfectly qualified?

Where did I reject her theory ?

weisses wrote: »

passport was found without a scratch

So what's the alternative explanation for this then?
Why did they place a passport in the wreckage?
What benefit did it bring them?
Why would they do if it would be obviously fake and convince no one?
Why, if they had to do it, could they not add some scratches and weathering to make it look more convincing?

Who placed it there?
Under who's orders?
When and where?