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

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I see no reason to doubt the computer model, nor any valid expert consensus against it.

You should have every reason to doubt it

Computer model was created, then someone proved the building actually fell with free fall acceleration, something the computer model did not accounted for, making it completely useless and not in the slightest representing the actual collapse

Why are you looking for proven alternatives when the hypothesis you are supporting is flawed... And no that is not my opinion, its fact

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've asked you questions which you've avoided. This thread is about providing alternative theories and their supporting evidence which you generally ignore.

I provided a few earlier

Below another interesting view on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6VUpSgx9Q

Addressing a possibility even King Mob is not ruling out

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Why are you looking for proven alternatives when the hypothesis you are supporting is flawed... And no that is not my opinion, its fact

Cause it shows the central hypocrisy in conspiracy thinking.

You don't give a **** whether or not a hypothesis makes sense.
You subscribe to the notion of a controlled demolition via thermite.

But you know it doesn't make sense. You know you can't answer a single critical question about it. You know that it's self contradictory and ridiculous in scale and logic. You know there's an utter lack of evidence for it and stacks of evidence against it.
You know it's bull**** because you reject the space laser theory and the idea of holograms or miniature nukes for the same reason as the vast majority of rational people reject your preferred theories.

But that doesn't matter as the only thing that matters is that it's a conspiracy and you know about it and can pretend to have secret knowledge.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

You should have every reason to doubt it

Unless you start providing credible sources with consensus then your personal incredulity isn't enough

Why are you looking for proven alternatives when the hypothesis you are supporting is flawed... And no that is not my opinion, its fact

I am looking for an alternative theory with credible evidence. It's a pretty fair question after 17 years. So far we have Dr Judy Wood's and that's it.

Your personal opinion doesn't qualify as fact. Borrowing AE911's opinion on anything is farcical (they suggested Plasco was an "controlled demolition")

Do you think that Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 blown up? Did the Saudis blow it up? George Bush ordered it blown up?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Cause it shows the central hypocrisy in conspiracy thinking.

You don't give a **** whether or not a hypothesis makes sense.
You subscribe to the notion of a controlled demolition via thermite.

But you know it doesn't make sense. You know you can't answer a single critical question about it. You know that it's self contradictory and ridiculous in scale and logic. You know there's an utter lack of evidence for it and stacks of evidence against it.
You know it's bull**** because you reject the space laser theory and the idea of holograms or miniature nukes for the same reason as the vast majority of rational people reject your preferred theories.

But that doesn't matter as the only thing that matters is that it's a conspiracy and you know about it and can pretend to have secret knowledge.

It's mind-blowing that people who are so dogmatically committed to some insane theory do not see this. Even seemingly rational people.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Cause it shows the central hypocrisy in conspiracy thinking.

You don't give a **** whether or not a hypothesis makes sense.
You subscribe to the notion of a controlled demolition via thermite.

But you know it doesn't make sense. You know you can't answer a single critical question about it. You know that it's self contradictory and ridiculous in scale and logic. You know there's an utter lack of evidence for it and stacks of evidence against it.
You know it's bull**** because you reject the space laser theory and the idea of holograms or miniature nukes for the same reason as the vast majority of rational people reject your preferred theories.

But that doesn't matter as the only thing that matters is that it's a conspiracy and you know about it and can pretend to have secret knowledge.

Please stop the incoherent ramblings ....

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Unless you start providing credible sources with consensus then your personal incredulity isn't enough

But I did .... and it is verifiable

The NIST collapse animation was presented, then it was proven the building actual fell reaching free fall acceleration, But that beautiful animation which you find perfectly okay and correct was never updated to include the free fall acceleration ..... fact

Maybe get your head out of the sand and provide some evidence that the hypothesis you are supporting is a credible one

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They'd be contacting any of the 200 NIST experts/investigators who made up the report. Be asking on skeptic forums (where they'd be in agreement on 99% of other topics) The last place anyone rational would look for information is a conspiracy forum or conspiracy sites like AE911

Maybe the 200 NIST experts can contact the 2800 scientists, engineers etc who found this report to be in violation of the scientific method and below the norms of genuine scientific research

Just sayin

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I provided a few earlier

Below another interesting view on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6VUpSgx9Q

Addressing a possibility even King Mob is not ruling out

So complete speculation, by a guy who believes in aliens and god knows what else
https://www.youtube.com/user/AlienScientist/videos

As I posted, just credible evidence and sources, not that "it could have been the Neocons because look how potentially evil all this stuff sounds when we take it all out of context and selectively add it to a video" crap

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

But I did .... and it is verifiable

I'll explain again, because you don't seem to get it

An event happened

You not understanding or misunderstanding either of the two investigative reports is not a valid argument against their findings

Your incredulity (e.g. "it looks like a demolition", "how can a passport survive") is not evidence of anything but your own incredulity

You haven't provided any credible evidence in support of your own theory, a controlled demolition, none

You link conspiracy style links and videos repeatedly demonstrating where you are getting your bizarre ideas

You label a disingenuous outfit (AE911) as a valid source when you know well they aren't

Maybe the 200 NIST experts can contact the 2800 scientists, engineers etc who found this report to be in violation of the scientific method and below the norms of genuine scientific research

2800 internet people with self-professed and supposed qualifications bound by a preheld belief that an event was a conspiracy

You could find millions of people with credentials on the internet with preheld beliefs in anything; ghosts, the supernatural, aliens.. it doesn't mean anything

Dohnjoe

Next time there's a plane crash or a building collapsing (Plasco?), we don't need any 3 year detailed on site investigations, we don't need dozens of specialists and investigators with access to the witnesses, photographs, video, material and physical evidence to form a consensus-built analysis and conclusion

We just need a bunch of people from the internet with qualifications in anything from mechanical drawing to chemistry and they can tell us that it has to be a conspiracy somehow. They don't even need to give us a theory, all they have to do is suggest something was "fishy" and we can imagine the rest

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Please stop the incoherent ramblings ....

Which part is incoherent?
Which part isn't true?

GottaGetGatt

Gravity as a result of a sh!t load of columns being destroyed from a big ass Boeing 767 with a 50 metre wingspan flying at nearly 600mph taking out 8 floors at the side of the building. The weight of 25 floors above that impact with the supporting columns gone. Wtf do you think is gonna happen? , gonna be held up by Sky Hooks?

Dohnjoe

GottaGetGatt wrote: »

Gravity as a result of a sh!t load of columns being destroyed from a big ass Boeing 767 with a 50 metre wingspan flying at nearly 600mph taking out 8 floors at the side of the building. The weight of 25 floors above that impact with the supporting columns gone. Wtf do you think is gonna happen? , gonna be held up by Sky Hooks?

Most 911 types have moved onto WTC 7, it's called the "path of least resistance".

[Deleted User]

GottaGetGatt wrote: »

Gravity as a result of a sh!t load of columns being destroyed from a big ass Boeing 767 with a 50 metre wingspan flying at nearly 600mph taking out 8 floors at the side of the building. The weight of 25 floors above that impact with the supporting columns gone. Wtf do you think is gonna happen? , gonna be held up by Sky Hooks?

The stock answer the conspiracy theorists will parrot is the notion that the building were designed to survive being hit by an airplane.
Which is true.

They will neglect to mention however that they were designed to survive a hit from a smaller plane traveling at a much lower speed and containing much less fuel.
Most conspiracy videos will omit this. Most conspiracy theorists who parrot these videos either don't know, don't realise the difference this makes or simply don't care.

None of them will be able to explain the contradiction this brings up:
Why would the conspirators try to make it look like the buildings came down because of the planes if they knew that was impossible and that anyone with an internet connection would be able to find out it was impossible?

Dohnjoe

What is striking is the fact that conspiracy theorists often don't debate each other despite having completely different and contradictory theories on the subject

It's like hey let's agree to ignore the truth just to back each other even though by definition at least one of us is 100% talking nonsense

[Deleted User]

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is striking is the fact that conspiracy theorists often don't debate each other despite having completely different and contradictory theories on the subject

It's like hey let's agree to ignore the truth just to back each other even though by definition at least one of us is 100% talking nonsense

It's pretty much why Weisses won't comment on any of Cheerful Spring's ideas even when that are patently ridiculous.

At best they will accuse others of being kooks that are completely unlike them and totally different. But these will only be people not posting.
They will claim that people who believe silliness like space lasers and hologram planes don't really exist, despite several people like that posting her before.

Otherwise, some people like Judy Wood and Alex Jones are accused of being shills.

Either way, another conspiracy theorist can't just be wrong because of faulty logic or incorrect information. To challenge someone on that would require thinking about their own stance and whether their own logic or evidence is sound.
And that is not permitted.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'll explain again, because you don't seem to get it

An event happened

You not understanding or misunderstanding either of the two investigative reports is not a valid argument against their findings

But the animation of the collapse you find accurate is based on incorrect input data, The whole sequence of events is proven to be wrong, how can you hold on to that hypothesis when applying critical thinking ?

Like I said over and over ... Its not me finding this out .. There are about 2800 scientists etc who did the math

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your incredulity (e.g. "it looks like a demolition", "how can a passport survive") is not evidence of anything but your own incredulity

Of course the correct way of thinking would be ..experts agreeing on it looks like controlled demolition lets run with the hypothesis it was office fires somehow being able to cause a symmetrical collapse ... The collapse animation is evidently/ factually incorrect

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You haven't provided any credible evidence in support of your own theory, a controlled demolition, none

What credible evidence supports the computer animation you believe in despite facts proving it is an incorrect reflection of the collapse of wtc7 ?

I already stated earlier the solid evidence is missing from a lot of theories ...

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You link conspiracy style links and videos repeatedly demonstrating where you are getting your bizarre ideas

I linked form reputable sites as well and posted a youtube video with other theories as well (theories even king mob could find plausible)

You didn't even watch the video

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You label a disingenuous outfit (AE911) as a valid source when you know well they aren't

I find them a valid source yes ... Do not agree with everything

In the end they want a proper investigation in the event to end all the controversy ... which is something anyone should welcome

Dohnjoe wrote: »

2800 internet people with self-professed and supposed qualifications bound by a preheld belief that an event was a conspiracy

Uhh no ... they identified themselves and their credentials can be verified .. what they did was use their expertise to go through the NIST findings and concluded the report to be in violation of the scientific method and below the norms of genuine scientific research.

Another good analysis on the investigation

https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/htm

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Which part is incoherent?

The whole post

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

(theories even king mob could find plausible)

Again, no I won't as none of my questions are answered.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

The whole post

I'll summarise for you in simple language then.

You accept the thermite/controlled demolition theory even though you know it's nonsense and you can't address any of the problems with it.

This proves that your whining about "the official theory not making sense" is meaningless and hypocritical.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Most 911 types have moved onto WTC 7, it's called the "path of least resistance".

How do you explain the collapse of building 7 using the office fires hypothesis

You can use the NIST animation to point out exactly where they showed how all the outer columns disappeared simultaneously to allow fore free fall acceleration

Enlighten me ..Prove your theory with solid evidence

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, no I won't as none of my questions are answered.

Does the video show a theory 9/11 was allowed to happen ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Does the video show a theory 9/11 was allowed to happen ?

Does it rely on the notion of a controlled demolition?
If so, then no, I don't believe it.

You believe that is was a controlled demolition, so you don't believe that video if it doesn't rely on the notion of a controlled demolition.

I have no intention of watching it while you continue to ignore questions you are unable to answer.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I'll summarise for you in simple language then.

You accept the thermite/controlled demolition theory

Yes ... as a theory ... AFAIK there is no hard evidence for this theory

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Does it rely on the notion of a controlled demolition?
If so, then no, I don't believe it.

You believe that is was a controlled demolition, so you don't believe that video if it doesn't rely on the notion of a controlled demolition.

I have no intention of watching it while you continue to ignore questions you are unable to answer.

Does the video show a theory that 9/11 was allowed to happen ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Yes ... as a theory ... AFAIK there is no hard evidence for this theory

Yes. There is no evidence.
The space laser theory is also a theory with no evidence.

There's no difference.

weisses wrote: »

Does the video show a theory that 9/11 was allowed to happen ?

I don't know, I haven't bothered to watch it. I don't really care either.

Either it does rely on a controlled demolition and it's on the crazy pile with thermite and space lasers.
Or it doesn't rely on the theory you believe, thus you don't think the video is accurate, so it's just you wasting time.

Again, no intention of watching a 30 min video when you can't be arsed to answer simple questions.

What point are you trying to make with the video and how does it provide evidence for an alternate theory for how the towers fell?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

But the animation of the collapse you find accurate is based on incorrect input data, The whole sequence of events is proven to be wrong, how can you hold on to that hypothesis when applying critical thinking ?

Like I said over and over ... Its not me finding this out .. There are about 2800 scientists etc who did the math

Nothing is "proven" to be wrong. Just because something sounds "sciencey" to you, is group validated by conspiracy theorists and/or confirms bias doesn't mean it's correct or "proven"

Try to keep in mind these are a bunch of conspiracy theorists who have a belief it's some sort of inside job and have worked backwards from there.. they haven't produced anything of substance, and anything they do come up with tends to be debunked pretty quickly, not that that has ever put them off

Their latest stunt has been to pay one sympathetic expert $300,000 to conduct a study, not to discover what really happened, but to try and prove that the building can't have fallen due to fire

Of course the correct way of thinking would be ..experts agreeing on it looks like controlled demolition lets run with the hypothesis it was office fires somehow being able to cause a symmetrical collapse ... The collapse animation is evidently/ factually incorrect

You believe that it's a controlled demolition because "of the way it looks". Like AE911 you try to rationalise that with "science" (debunked pseudo-science and tenuous links)

What credible evidence supports the computer animation you believe in despite facts proving it is an incorrect reflection of the collapse of wtc7 ?

"Prove it to me" fallacy.

A computer animation is one part of it, I've read the NIST. All the evidence corroborates structural failure due to fire. Those results have been studied and adopted by the industry and build safety standards bodies

"Steel structures can't fail due to fire" - do you believe that?

If you do, then why would you support a body of internet conspiracy theorists who claim such pseudo-science

I linked form reputable sites as well and posted a youtube video with other theories as well (theories even king mob could find plausible)

You are linking from conspiracy sites and conspiracy videos. If you can't tell the difference I don't know how to help you there

You didn't even watch the video

I watched 10 mins of garbage by a guy who believes in UFOs and makes tons of conspiracy videos. One of his week old videos actually shows him coming to terms with the fact that beams cut after 911 weren't cut before and that burning paper wasn't molten steel

These people are idiots. Some of this stuff has been the key arguments of the truther movement for years.

In the end they want a proper investigation in the event to end all the controversy ... which is something anyone should welcome

The only real "grey" area is how well individuals in the Saudi leadership knew of Al Qaeda militancy in Saud. Even that has been fairly well explored in the past few years. Apart from that, there is no controversy, there is no mystery and there are no credible competing theories.

There was a proper 3 year investigation after the 2002 FEMA investigation. Conspiracy types have demonstrated over the last decade that they aren't the slightest bit interested in the truth, they are only interested in going to extraordinary stretches to discredit facts in order to hint at some vague conspiracy that they also aren't interested in

Here's the PDF about the Plasco collapse from that conspiracy group who you view as a "valid source", if you are impressed by "sciencey" sounding horse**** like this then I suggest the issue is on your end

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf

"A preliminary assessment" - jesus christ, that makes it "official", I can't imagine how busy they were with google images and youtube

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. There is no evidence.
The space laser theory is also a theory with no evidence.

There's no difference.

Did it look like controlled demolition or an attack by space lasers ?

King Mob wrote: »

I don't know, I haven't bothered to watch it. I don't really care either.

Ahh the King Mob I know ... backtracking when confronted with a possible conspiracy theory he himself doesn't rule out

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Did it look like controlled demolition or an attack by space lasers ?

It looks like neither.
The superficially look like a controlled demolition, but here are many many things about the collapses that don't line up with a controlled demolition.
And Dr Judy Wood has made a very detailed argument how it does indeed look exactly like a building being destroyed by a space laser.

It also looks like what would happen if the building were destroyed by the real explanations.

weisses wrote: »

Ahh the King Mob I know ... backtracking when confronted with a possible conspiracy theory he himself doesn't rule out

No, just not interested in wasting time on a video that doesn't have anything to do with my points and you don't even believe.

You're still dodging my questions and points, you are fooling noone.