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

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, let's pretend that's true.
My explanation can't work.

You don't have to pretend .... your explanation could work ...It only lacks the evidence

Did he mean pull the building as to demolish it ?

Could be ... So far (as you just demonstrated)There no definite answer, making it suspect to me

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I asked you over and over to present the solid evidence that supports the office fires hypothesis, to this date you have presented nothing, nada ...So yes that is obtuse

The final investigation report. It's widely accepted, it's findings have been incorporated and hasn't been significantly challenged by any recognised group. There are no credible counter-theories

The conspiracy theories are a footnote

I find it suspect ...yes, critical thinking requires that, I find dozens more things suspect regarding 9/11, many of have not been sufficiently explained.

That's not critical thinking. That's conspiracy thinking. Basically conspiracy theorists decide something is a conspiracy and collect up all the things they find are "suspect", "fishy", "strange", etc to hint at some unspecified vague conspiracy they typically can't support with credible evidence

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Did he mean pull the building as to demolish it ?

Could be ...

But how could it be? You can't answer any of the questions this raises.

For a start:
Why did he confess?
Why did claim that they only decided it to spare further loss of life?
Why was he talking to a fire chief about it?
Why did they only decide to demolish it on the day?

If you don't know the answer to these questions, why then is your explanation still possible?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Misrepresentation of the dishonest kind. Again.

But Chandler proved it right ?

How did NIST used this in their collapse sequence animation? Did they account for this at all ?

King Mob wrote: »

Cool.
How long would it take a ball to fall from the roof of WTC7?

As I said Chandler did all the calculations ... do you agree or are you reverting back to silly games shouting dishonesty every other post

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

As I said Chandler did all the calculations ... do you agree or are you reverting back to silly games shouting dishonesty every other post

But that's not what I asked:
How long, in seconds, would it take for a ball to reach the ground from the same height as the roof of WTC7?
It's a very simple question. No point going further if you can't answer it.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But how could it be? You can't answer any of the questions this raises.

For a start:
Why did he confess?
Why did claim that they only decided it to spare further loss of life?
Why was he talking to a fire chief about it?
Why did they only decide to demolish it on the day?

If you don't know the answer to these questions, why then is your explanation still possible?

Why did he bring it up at all ?

As to being unable to answer these questions ? You were assuming as well, took about two pages of back and forth and claims of dishonesty and dodging questions thrown at me for you to realize this

You find it very plausible a conspiracy occurred during 9/11 ..... this could be part of it .... who knows

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Why did he bring it up at all ?

You tell us, it's your explanation.

weisses wrote: »

As to being unable to answer these questions ? You were assuming as well, took about two pages of back and forth and claims of dishonesty and dodging questions thrown at me for you to realize this

You find it very plausible a conspiracy occurred during 9/11 ..... this could be part of it .... who knows

But you've avoided the question again.

If you can't answer the questions, or any questions about it, why do you believe it?
Why should anyone accept it as evidence of a conspiracy?
Why do you believe that your explanation is more plausible than mine or any other explanation?
Why are you not as dismissive of the confession explanation as you are with mine?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not what I asked:
How long, in seconds, would it take for a ball to reach the ground from the same height as the roof of WTC7?
It's a very simple question. No point going further if you can't answer it.

Ohhh the classic backtracking when cornered

Can you explain why it is relevant ? ... I do know the building only reached free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

You tell us, it's your explanation.

But you've avoided the question again.

Uhh no you assumed it was planned operations that were being pulled

You do realize that is not true yes ?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Why did he bring it up at all ?

As to being unable to answer these questions ? You were assuming as well, took about two pages of back and forth and claims of dishonesty and dodging questions thrown at me for you to realize this

You find it very plausible a conspiracy occurred during 9/11 ..... this could be part of it .... who knows

Wow.

Do you believe Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 blown up?

Do you believe that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were blown up?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I do know the building only reached free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds

Cool.
And how long would it take for a ball to fall from the roof of the building?

Do you think that the building fell in 2.25 seconds?
If not, why was it not experiencing free fall acceleration for the entire collapse?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Uhh no you assumed it was planned operations that were being pulled

You do realize that is not true yes ?

Ok, sure, Weisses. Yes. It's impossible that firefighters on the day were planning to fight a fire. :rolleyes:

Now answer my question please:
If you can't answer the questions, or any questions about it, why do you believe it?
Why should anyone accept it as evidence of a conspiracy?
Why do you believe that your explanation is more plausible than mine or any other explanation?
Why are you not as dismissive of the confession explanation as you are with mine?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The final investigation report. It's widely accepted, it's findings have been incorporated and hasn't been significantly challenged by any recognised group. There are no credible counter-theories

The conspiracy theories are a footnote

A stop the BS ..If what I asked is in the final report then point me to the relevant section ... I asked you over and over and yet again you fail to provide the solid evidence you so desire in alt theories

I know its not in there

I know the free fall evidence is not properly incorporated in the collapse animation ... I ask you why not ?

I know the lead investigator said free fall was impossible because of the resistance ... Why did he say that after completion of the report ? ..The report were 200 highly trained experts worked on for years ...

Do you agree that if they had to allow their computer model to include the free fall acceleration evidence their probable collapse theory would not be supported ?

That is critical thinking !!

3 simple questions that should be easily answered ... even from high up the fence

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Cool.
And how long would it take for a ball to fall from the roof of the building?

Do you think that the building fell in 2.25 seconds?
If not, why was it not experiencing free fall acceleration for the entire collapse?

The building reached free fall acceleration ... That is all that matters I do not think the building fell freefall all the way ( even controlled demolitioned buildings do not behave like that)

I asked you over and over as to how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

The building reached free fall acceleration ... That is all that matters I do not think the building fell freefall all the way ( even controlled demolitioned buildings do not behave like that)

But why wouldn't it fall "freefall" all the way?
At what point did it undergo freefall?
The end? The beginning?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Even worse there is evidence stating the opposite of what you assume

A lie and more dodging of questions.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, sure, Weisses. Yes. It's impossible that firefighters on the day were planning to fight a fire. :rolleyes:

No ..Your assumption is impossible because it lacks the supporting evidence in regards to building 7 ... Even worse there is evidence stating the opposite of what you assume

So no point in trying to be smart with me

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But why wouldn't it fall "freefall" all the way?
At what point did it undergo freefall?
The end? The beginning?

I asked you over and over as to how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I asked you over and over as to how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

Again, we have to establish what you are even talking about. You've been doing nothing but dodging questions.

Why wouldn't it fall "freefall" all the way?
At what point did it undergo freefall acceleration?

Dohnjoe

A building owner in an interview about the building he owned recalled that they made a decision to "pull it"

Some individuals have made the extraordinary leap to interpret this as meaning to "demolish" the building - that this man was calmly admitting on national TV that he was blowing up his own building. Revealing on live TV to a huge audience including his insurers

There is no evidence to support this man blowing up WTC 7 (or WTC7 being blown up at all), yet it demonstrates that people who are so "deep" into discrediting the established version of events will entertain anything, no matter how absurd or implausible

That's literally all it takes for people with this type of thinking to accept a bizarre or whacky theory

The findings of a 3 year investigation by 200 industry and scientific experts and investigators backing up other findings that a building fell due to fire - utterly impossible and implausible to them

A man stating (and clarifying) that he called for firefighters to be withdrawn for a building - completely plausible that he had that building blown up and admitted to it on live tv

This is why people have a tendency to dismiss 911 "truthers" and people like Alex Jones

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, we have to establish what you are even talking about. Ypu've been doing nothing but dodging questions.

I am not dodging anything .. .I stated pages ago the building fell symmetrical and that all the outer columns completely lost all support and were removed to allow for free fall acceleration ... you disagreed without stating why ... instead you went on a mission into my knowledge about free fall

That brings me to the question of how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

King Mob wrote: »

Why wouldn't it fall "freefall" all the way?

Why would it ? that would make no sense... there is resistance at some point ... Usually at the start and end of a collapse

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A building owner in an interview recalled that they made a decision to "pull it"

Some individuals have made the extraordinary leap to interpret this as meaning to "demolish" on the building

Other people invented firefighters crawling through the building to make sense of the "pull it" remark

People make up all kind of things

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Why would it ? that would make no sense... there is resistance at some point ... Usually at the start and end of a collapse

Why would there be resistance at the start of the collapse?
I thought you said that all of the support columns were taken out all at once so that the building could fall at free fall?

.I stated pages ago the building fell symmetrical and that all the outer columns completely lost all support and were removed to allow for free fall acceleration

What resistance was it encountering?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Other people invented firefighters crawling through the building to make sense of the "pull it" remark

People make up all kind of things

Do you believe Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7?

Is it one of the theories you entertain?

I am on phone and I apologise if I've missed the answer but do you also maintain that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were blown up also?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Why would there be resistance at the start of the collapse?
I thought you said that all of the support columns were taken out all at once so that the building could fall at free fall?

I answered your question ... now answer mine

I stated pages ago the building fell symmetrical and that all the outer columns completely lost all support and were removed to allow for free fall acceleration ... you disagreed without stating why ... instead you went on a mission into my knowledge about free fall

That brings me to the question of how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Do you believe Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7?

Is it one of the theories you entertain?

I am on phone and I apologise if I've missed the answer but do you also maintain that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were blown up also?

No I find his remarks suspect ..as I find many things regarding 9/11 The most funny thing is that debunkers come up with all kinds of crap in regards to the pulling remark .. as is evident on this same thread

As in regards to wtc 1 and 2 and 7

All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.”

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

That brings me to the question of how free fall acceleration is possible during a progressive collapse sequence?

It is possible because it happened, and was observed happening. But explain why anyone should bother explaining to this someone who

a) will dogmatically reject all explanations
b) have no counter-explanation accept to back a bizarre theory for which they have no evidence

What's the point?

I find it crazy that one of the hijackers passports survived that impact and explosion - but it did. My (and your) incredulity doesn't mean anything. Likewise your inability (and determination) not to accept any explanations makes any attempt to explain pointless

It's circular, and personally I feel it's deliberately so, some people just don't want to accept that their beliefs might be wrong

This is why I created a thread where people could present their own theories and substantiate them. It exposes this type of faulty conspiracy thinking built on incredulity rather than evidence

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I answered your question ... now answer mine

No, you didn't answer my question. You dodged it.

Why would there be resistance at the start of the collapse?

If all of the supports were taken out all at once, that would mean it would be experiencing free fall from the start.

You are now saying that it didn't experience free fall at the start.
So why was it experiencing resistance?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

No I find his remarks suspect

You believe it's plausible that he blew up his own building and admitted it on live TV. I don't need to mention how irrational this viewpoint is.

The most funny thing is that debunkers come up with all kinds of crap in regards to the pulling remark

You support skeptics and "debunkers" in 99% of other events and situations. Just not in this one. That tells everyone something. As I mentioned you possibly need to step back and take a long look at your beliefs.

As in regards to wtc 1 and 2 and 7

Translation, you find it plausible the buildings were blown up. With no evidence.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It is possible because it happened, and was observed happening. But explain why anyone should bother explaining to this someone who

a) will dogmatically reject all explanations
b) have no counter-explanation accept to back a bizarre theory for which they have no evidence

What's the point?

How can I reject something that was not presented ..You asked for valid alt theories ..The only thing I asked in return is to apply the same critical thinking to the official narrative/ hypothesis ... All I got is dodging fence sitting ..being accused of dishonesty ... I asked you 3 simple questions in regards to the theory you believe

Fact is the free fall evidence is not properly incorporated in the collapse animation ... I ask you why not ?

Fact is the lead investigator said free fall was impossible because of the resistance the building encountered ... Why did he say that after completion of the report but never changed the showed collapse sequence ? ..The report were 200 highly trained experts worked on for years, and then get corrected by a physics professor who was using simple video editing tools to backup this evidence

Fact is that if they had to allow their computer model to include the free fall acceleration evidence their probable collapse theory would not be supported, do you agree ?

That is critical thinking !!

And no one has provided any sensible fact/evidence based answer to counteract what I am stating