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]

weisses wrote: »

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 ......

But he also claimed that partial collapses and different types of structures didn't count.
I took him at his word then.

But since they do count, then he's a liar as he claims that no steel buildings were collapsed by fire.

I'm done arguing this silly point with you when you are ignoring every point put to you.

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

Not really.
You could make a more direct statement along the lines of:
"I don't agree with his theory."
And if you were feeling generous, you could perhaps explain why you reject his theory.

weisses wrote: »

Where did I reject her theory ?

So you believe her theory is as viable as your preferred ones.
Ok....

weisses

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.

Planes flying into the towers

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

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

Theory A - widely accept theory supported by multiple investigations. The consensus of the experts and investigators involved. Findings incorporated into separate peer reviews, industry guidelines (steel construction, building safety, etc) No major challenge by recognised associations of experts (engineers, architects). Literally written into the history books

Theory B - controlled demolition. Literally just a vague theory, no credible evidence

This thread is about theory B. But (as predicted) you keep trying to twist it into "prove A to me", which you will obviously never accept

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

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?

You should first ask yourself the question if its believable a passport, not just any passport but belonging to one of the hijackers was found undamaged and apparently soaked in jet fuel when the plane he hijacked evaporated after flying into a building at 500 mph ...It is Highly suspicious

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

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

Try again

So if I show photos of all the paper cards, ticket stubs, intact material, etc from the flights - will you accept it's possible for a passport to survive (several survived in various states)

Or will you just play whack-a-mole and "jump" to something else to be incredulous about

While we're on that subject, you find it completely implausible a steel framed building can fall due to fire despite all the investigations supporting it, but find it completely plausible there was a giant secret inside job involving controlled demolitions..

Can you grasp how ridiculous and absurd that type of viewpoint comes across as..

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

You should first ask yourself the question if its believable a passport, not just any passport but belonging to one of the hijackers was found undamaged and apparently soaked in jet fuel when the plane he hijacked evaporated after flying into a building at 500 mph

Yup it is.

Now answer the questions please:
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?

A big part of the reason I believe the real/official explanation is because there is no alternative.
The explanation you are implying is ridiculous and silly and leads to all of those questions above.

I simply can't believe the conspiracy explanation until at least the first lot are answered in some coherent way.
If you can answer the second lot as well and provide some kind of evidence for it, then I will reject the official explanation.
But you're not even going to do step one.

Until you can at least do that, the conspiracy explanation is not believable at all.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106748702&postcount=17

www.911myths.com_assets_images_db_images_db_P200069_11.jpg

img541.imageshack.us_img541_2961_pa00108a.jpg

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Theory A - widely accept theory supported by multiple investigations. The consensus of the experts and investigators involved. Findings incorporated into separate peer reviews, industry guidelines (steel construction, building safety, etc) No major challenge by recognised associations of experts (engineers, architects). Literally written into the history books

Theory B - controlled demolition. Literally just a vague theory, no credible evidence

This thread is about theory B. But (as predicted) you keep trying to twist it into "prove A to me", which you will obviously never accept

Theory A where is the solid evidence ? Where are the separate peer reviewed studies regarding building 7, ??

In light of these disasters, NIST issued 31 recommendations to improve the safety of high-rises and the emergency responses in the face of major threats. Critics did emerge against these recommendations, including from another federal agency, the General Services Administration. Concerns included the costs of these changes, "and when that happens, that's because they're not really convinced of the benefits, and I think that's because there was a lack of consensus over the results of the investigation," notes Guy Nordenson, a Princeton professor of architecture and structural engineering who runs a structural engineering firm in New York and was not involved in the NIST investigation.

Earlier NIST recommendations were received more easily. For instance, in the late 20th century, when NIST undertook a large investigation of building designs and their readiness for earthquakes,it had broad involvement from the engineering community and thus its recommendations were widely accepted by the field. "The problem many have with the World Trade Center investigation is that it wasn't as open and not adequately peer reviewed, due in part to the veil of security concerns, so lots of people can disagree with the conclusions,"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/twin-towers-forensic-investigation-revise-building-codes/

You claim being peer reviewed properly is part of the evidence .... Then show it

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Theory A where is the solid evidence ?

https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

Dohnjoe

Here's another question Weisses, if you require solid evidence of a theory

Then why do you blindly accept a theory for which there is no evidence

That's a contradiction

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Well, I never claimed the glass was near the liquid steel ( another false statement) I said if it was glass it was laying somewhere between the steel columns. There rubble on the ground there.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

You are a dishonest person. You asked has thermite ever cut steel before in building demolition. You claimed it never happened. I provided two examples thermites was used in the demolishing of the steel in buildings.

Cheerful Spring

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?

Not a personal opinion. The WTC7 construction drawings were released by Freedom of information request in 2012. This was 4 years after the NIST WTC7 study completed. We can now verify there was shear studs, a girder plate, and web plate stiffeners on the girder. In the NIST study, none of these items was on the girder at column 79.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Theory A - widely accept theory supported by multiple investigations. The consensus of the experts and investigators involved. Findings incorporated into separate peer reviews, industry guidelines (steel construction, building safety, etc) No major challenge by recognised associations of experts (engineers, architects). Literally written into the history books

Theory B - controlled demolition. Literally just a vague theory, no credible evidence

This thread is about theory B. But (as predicted) you keep trying to twist it into "prove A to me", which you will obviously never accept

Theory B has more evidence than Theory A

Freefall ( it occurs during the demolition of a building)
The building dropped symmetrically on 9/11 ( NIST model is showing a non-symmetrical building falling. NIST model is not an accurate representation of the real collapse.
Loud bang heard on video just before the Penthouse collapsed ( NIST denied any noise was heard prior to a collapse
NIST claim at 4 pm fires was still blazing on floor 12. This, not accurate photographic evidence clearly shows the fires on this floor had gone out.

NIST claims a girder at column 79 fell of its seat and this lead to entire floors collapsing? Could that have even happened with shears studs, girder plate and web stiffeners on the girder? This isn't some conspiracy nonsense NIST did not include them on the girder. This is fraudulent as we now have real proof all these elements were on the girder.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why unfortunately, you clearly rely on them as a source of information and "expertise", are they wrong?

No, I don't. The evidence will still exist with or without them.

Dr Hulsey is a not truther he turned down their offer to do this two times in the past. He took the project on in the last few years to find out what truth is. I trust him to reveal the truth.

You think the FBI agent who claimed the 9/11 commission mislead the American public, is a conspiracy theorist? Do you believe him?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No, I don't. The evidence will still exist with or without them.

Dr Hulsey is not truther he turned down their offer to do this two times in the past. He took the project on in the last few years to find out what truth is. I trust him to reveal the truth.

You think the FBI agent who claimed the 9/11 commission mislead the American public, is a conspiracy theorist? Do you believe him?

And if he says fire was the cause?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

So I ask again

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

[Deleted User]

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And if he says fire was the cause?

He won't. They had already stated that the predetermined goal of his "study" was to prove that the fire theory was impossible.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And if he says fire was the cause?

He already said it wasn't fire. He was able to replicate the actual collapse in a computer simulation. The computer model will be released with he completes his study. He looking to have it peer reviewed by scientifically credible people and journals.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here's another question Weisses, if you require solid evidence of a theory

Then why do you blindly accept a theory for which there is no evidence

That's a contradiction

You require solid evidence for a theory I only want you to accept the same for the theory you believe to be true You claimed NIST report was properly peer reviewed I showed you the opinion of a professor it wasn't

I don't blindly accept any theory ..evidently displayed in regards to the NIST report

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

He won't. They had already stated that the predetermined goal of his "study" was to prove that the fire theory was impossible.

That false. Dr Hulsey set out to find out if fires did collapse the building. He already stated he would tell the truth.

weisses

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And if he says fire was the cause?

Then he is the first source that after intensive research and testing collaborates the NIST hypothesis (after only 17 years)

What if he states fire wasn't the cause ?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

He won't. They had already stated that the predetermined goal of his "study" was to prove that the fire theory was impossible.

Why are you worried ... NIST predefined goal was to prove fire brought down building 7 ... you believe NIST so you should have no worries believing Hulsey ...right

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

So I ask again

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

He will not comment on that. He just thinks it all explained somewhere?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Why are you worried ... NIST predefined goal was to prove fire brought down building 7 ... you believe NIST so you should have no worries believing Hulsey ...right

Mm hmm. Sure. Ok.
Back to the points you've missed now.

What's the alternative explanation for the passport?

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?

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

Then he is the first source that after intensive research and testing collaborates the NIST hypothesis (after only 17 years)

What if he states fire wasn't the cause ?

When he releases the computer simulation that when people will see the actual behaviour of the building internally and from the outside. You going to see what actually collapsed. All this has to be proved scientifically. 9/11 Skeptics are going to be looking at data themselves to see if accurate or not. Unlike NIST, Dr Hulsey will release all the raw data for people to verify and peer review.

Cheerful Spring

He gave a good lecture to ASCE engineers.

ASCE is a mainstream group highly respected.

https://ascelibrary.org/

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He already said it wasn't fire. He was able to replicate the actual collapse in a computer simulation. The computer model will be released with he completes his study. He looking to have it peer reviewed by scientifically credible people and journals.

So he went in and started his "study" with a biased outlook?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

ASCE is a mainstream group highly respected.

https://ascelibrary.org/

You have earlier accused them of publishing a fraudulent paper.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So he went in and started his "study" with a biased outlook?

No he didn't. The truth movement looked for someone who had the background and expertise to do an independent study of WTC7 collapse. Dr Hulsey was never involved in truth movement prior to taking on this study. He was contacted and he turned it down numerous times because he was too busy.