Dohnjoe wrote: » 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"
Dohnjoe wrote: » 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..
Dohnjoe wrote: » 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
Dohnjoe wrote: » 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)
Dohnjoe wrote: » "Prove it to me" fallacy.
Dohnjoe wrote: » 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
weisses wrote: » Even King Mob doesnt rule out its an inside job
King Mob wrote: » It looks like neither.
King Mob wrote: » It also looks like what would happen if it was hit by space lasers.
King Mob wrote: » Not what I said. You are now dishonestly misrepresenting me.
weisses wrote: » Then I suggest you get your eyes checked and do something for the memory loss
weisses wrote: » And if he is able to prove the building could not have fallen due to fire ? ...
NIST got 20 million to discover what happened and the only thing they could come up with was a hypothesis and a probable collapse scenario ..Imagine what 300k can do
And you believe that because it had all the characteristics of a controlled demolition the logical conclusion would be it had to be office fires
You do realize the animation was based on the conclusion of the report ... So if the animation doesn't make sense what does that doe to the validity of the report
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf Posted here a couple of days ago ..... So this is a CT site, interesting
Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article The editors did also add the following note: This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors. In other words, they are telling you clearly that it is not scientific, and is instead just speculation.
Ohh another conspiracy site I linked tohttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/twin-towers-forensic-investigation-revise-building-codes/
Dohnjoe wrote: » Prove to who? the real world or the conspiracy community Because one of those is not the same as the other
Dohnjoe wrote: » It's a limited study backed by conspiracy theorists, in conjunction with conspiracy theorists. Maybe Hulsey is good, maybe he's another Judy Wood. So far, based on his preliminary results, it's not looking great - but will give him the benefit of the doubt and let his final results do the talking
Dohnjoe wrote: » The evidence supports fire (like Plasco)
Dohnjoe wrote: » There is no credible evidence for controlled demolition (or anything else)
Dohnjoe wrote: » If it doesn't make sense to you or the conspiracy community, literally nobody cares.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Yeah the AE911 guys got a magazine to accept one of their conspiracy reports
Dohnjoe wrote: » 1. Do you believe WTC 1 and WTC 2 were brought down by controlled demolition? (no fence sitting please it's getting ridiculous at this stage)
Dr. Bre wrote: » So you’ve started a thread knowing well there is no alt theories with credibile evidence. Well done
Dr. Bre wrote: » 2. Who do you think blew up WTC 7, do you think Larry Silvertein was involved? the Saudis? George Bush?
King Mob wrote: » Again, it superficially looks like a demolition. There are many things about it that are not consistant with a demolition.
weisses wrote: » King Mob tried to argue that they physically pulled it in another thread
weisses wrote: » What in the collapse sequence doesn't look like a controlled demolition ?
King Mob wrote: » No I didn't. This is a lie. You have ignored every point about his supposed confession because you can't answer those either.
weisses wrote: » I am not looking this up but you did say that when challenged about what pulling meant
weisses wrote: » So what did he mean with his pulling comment ?
King Mob wrote: » Lack of a rapid series of large noticeable explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building. The fact the internal structure collapsed before the outer structure. The existence of extensive fires that would damage or impair the demolition explosives. The fact that it's silly to suggest that it was secretly rigged up. And if we are to accept there was molten metal there, the molten metal. It looks like what would happen if a part of it collapsed due to fire, which then put strain on the other parts of the building that then spread out and dragged the core of the building before finally collapsing the outer facade. How should it look if it fell due to fires? Do you think it would just keel over like a felled tree? Peel open like a banana?
All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.”
King Mob wrote: » Pull it: It being the firefighting operation that was either in progress or being planned.
weisses wrote: » So you think a building can collapse in a symmetrical fashion with all its outer columns being removed simultaneously (otherwise free fall acceleration is impossible) due to office fires ?
weisses wrote: » Try again ... that story has been debunked ... over and over Explained in the same thread you said wtc7 must have been physically pulled
King Mob wrote: » Again, no, I have never said that. You are lying.
King Mob wrote: » You are also avoiding questions that prove how silly your conspiracy is: What did he mean when he said that he only decided to pull it after the loss of life? Why did they only decide to demolish the building on that day? Why would the loss of life influence his decision at this stage? Why was he talking to a fire chief about this? Why does he say that the fire chief actually made the decision, not him? Why would he be confessing this at all on camera? Why didn't the reporter interviewing him not realise that he was confessing to being part of the biggest crime of the century? Why did the makers of the documentary put that confession into the documentary as if it wasn't a massive headlining confession? Why didn't anyone in the government stop the footage being used or the documentary being made? Why didn't the insurance companies with which Silverstien was locked in legal combat with not point to his confession to prove he'd committed massive insurance fraud? If the best answer is that he was confessing, then explain these problems. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away.
King Mob wrote: » Again, as has been explained to you, this description is not accurate. That description is also problematic for your explanation of a controlled demolition.As if you are claiming that "outer columns being removed simultaneously" then there would be very loud, very noticable explosions on all of those columns all at once and all right before the collapse. There is no such explosions reported, hence the controlled demolition explanation you believe in must be impossible. How should the building have fallen if it failed due to fire?
weisses wrote: » Knock urself out
King Mob wrote: » No weisses, use your own brain for this. That site does not answer a single one of my questions. We both know that this is just you deflecting from the fact you can't address these questions. Try again: What did he mean when he said that he only decided to pull it after the loss of life? Why did they only decide to demolish the building on that day? Why would the loss of life influence his decision at this stage? Why was he talking to a fire chief about this? Why does he say that the fire chief actually made the decision, not him? Why would he be confessing this at all on camera? Why didn't the reporter interviewing him not realise that he was confessing to being part of the biggest crime of the century? Why did the makers of the documentary put that confession into the documentary as if it wasn't a massive headlining confession? Why didn't anyone in the government stop the footage being used or the documentary being made? Why didn't the insurance companies with which Silverstien was locked in legal combat with not point to his confession to prove he'd committed massive insurance fraud?
According to Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study , firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
weisses wrote: » Dont explain it ... prove it .. provide the evidence that supports fires resulted in all the outer columns being removed simultaneously resulting in a symmetrical free fall acceleration due to office fires Its simple ... Link to the relevant evidence
That description is also problematic for your explanation of a controlled demolition. As if you are claiming that "outer columns being removed simultaneously" then there would be very loud, very noticable explosions on all of those columns all at once and all right before the collapse. There is no such explosions reported, hence the controlled demolition explanation you believe in must be impossible. How should the building have fallen if it failed due to fire?
weisses wrote: » Dont know to all of them
weisses wrote: » How do you explain all your questions when FEMA concluded
King Mob wrote: » Planned operation. Hence why "pull it" not "pull them out" Said that many times before.
King Mob wrote: » Again, I can't prove that as it's an inaccurate description of what happened. I do not believe that all the outer columns were removed simultaneously. I do not believe that it was symmetrical. I do not believe that if fell under free fall in the way you think it fell under free fall. (You, like cheerful do not understand what free fall is or what the NIST meant when they mentioned it.) Why would I prove something I don't believe is true. And I have no inclination to walk you through it another time when again you have ignored questions you can't answer. If the building fell as you are claiming, why do you believe it was controlled demolition when there are no explosions?
free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, “there was structural resistance that was provided.”
weisses wrote: » Why pull something that was never there ?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Remote wireless detonators were used before 9/11. Skeptics are living in the past claiming you need to wire every floor for demolition. The demolitions only need to take out core columns to bring the building down. And you may not have noticed only 4 to 6 floors out of 47 floors had fires during the day? Blowing up columns can be delayed or blown all at the same time. Blowing up a few columns will not bring the building down. You can do all at once or do it over a period of time. Just one second before the Penthouse fell from the roof an echo reverberated out and this noise was picked up by reporter audio mic a few blocks away on 9/11. That can easily could be a number of small explosions going off timely fashion. From blocks away, that noise may sound like one big bang? Also, NIST believes multiple floors are crashing down across the width of the building when the Penthouse fell in. Yet not a rubble, a tick or sound of that event was heard on video? So how come ask yourself why was that noise heard and the collapsing floors- no noise associated with this was? You surely have noticed there were no large or even small dust plumes shattering windows until the full collapse began? 47 floors are collapsing down, then there will be substantial sliding occurring before the full building came down, surely? Furniture, computers, filing cabinets, you name it moving and crashing up against glass panels and windows breaking them, and smashing up against walls. The dust plumes will be blowing forward at an incredible velocity through windows on all floors. Yet what do we see but perfect rows of intact windows in the middle section and west section of the building? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If it was controlled demolition then naturally the columns would buckle first then the whole building will come down and drop floor by floor to the bottom. NIST released two computer sims one slower than the other. Faster collapse sim model had full intact floors in the middle section ( Freefall cannot occur) in this model. Skeptics seemly have not noticed that error? On the NIST slower Model. When the Penthouse fell it took another 20+ seconds for the full building to collapse in their model. The Skeptics maybe have not noticed this? It took only 5 to 6 seconds in the actual video of the collapse ( i revealed this to you guys already! The collapse in real time happened much faster compared to what their computer simulation data showed them when they ran it.. The progressive collapse and actual collapse calculations, don’t match. The kink in the roof was obviously caused by the internal columns buckling on the east side ( by controlled demolition) Then the penthouse and the rest of the building structure collapsing 5 seconds later! When you remove the structural resistance there nothing stopping the building from coming down at a faster rate in the final stages of the collapse.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » So why do professionals used wired detonators (det cord) if wireless works perfectly well?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I just highlighting wireless non-electronic detonators existed pre 9/11. It makes sense they do it wirelessly on 9/11. If they can hide the wiring from people inside the building then they did it that way.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
