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; } } }

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

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Bin Laden group had carried out terrorist actions against US targets in Africa and the Middle East pre 9/11. If there was going to be a terrorist attack on US soil it was going to be blamed on them.Bin laden denied his movement carried out 9/11 a few days after it occurred.

It was actually Bill Cooper in June 2001 who predicted the Bin Laden would be blamed. Alex Jones probably heard his broadcast and then took credit for it. Bill Cooper was a popular conspiracy guy in 2001.

Alex Jones was calling it an inside job from the moment it happened

You both think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, he uses much of the same "evidence" and incredulity as you do.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe Bill Cooper broadcast June 2001.

Richard Gage, head of AE911 in one his appearances on Alex Jones

Dohnjoe

Oh here is Alex Jones again, this time as a guest of AE911

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQvL8eUBJWo

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Richard Gage, head of AE911 in one his appearances on Alex Jones

So what if he went on there to express his point of view? He appeared on Irish TV in the past.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So what if he went on there to express his point of view? He appeared on Irish TV in the past.

Ah, care to explain why any serious engineer or architect would choose to go onto an extreme radio show hosted by a loon (your own words), who has an audience of lunatics (who harass families of victims of shootings)?

Why would they do it multiple times?

Why would they invite said loon to speak at their conference?

I can make up an answer to that pretty easily, can you

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Ah, care to explain why any serious engineer or architect would choose to go onto an extreme radio show hosted by a loon (your own words), who has an audience of lunatics (who harass families of victims of shootings)?

Why would they do it multiple times?

Why would they invite said loon to speak at their conference?

I can make up an answer to that pretty easily, can you

Trump appeared on Alex Jones as he is the president of the United States now. They go on his show to express their views.

The mainstream news in the US are shills for the US government. So we never going to get the truth from them.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Alex Jones was calling it an inside job from the moment it happened

You both think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, he uses much of the same "evidence" and incredulity as you do.

It is an inside job. Bush and his cronies would not have shut down the investigation into Saudi Arabia involvement if they were innocent. They also refused to hand over documents to the panel on the 9/11 commission. Two commissioners resigned over it. Even the 9/11 commissioners left on the panel claimed they were lied to and stated this later.

The FBI claimed they don't who funded the operation in 2001. In fact its public knowledge now that money was sent to a Saudi spy wife bank account in Regis Bank through Prince Bandar wife account. That Saudi spy then passed on funds to the 9/11 hijackers.

Prince Bandar is a longterm friend of the Bushes. He was involved in Iran- Contra.

Cheerful Spring

To understand the deep covert world you need to watch this.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

To understand the deep covert world you need to watch this.

This has nothing to do with 9/11. Zero, nada.

No one denies governments engage in covert acts and deception.

[Deleted User]

The Nal wrote: »

This has nothing to do with 9/11. Zero, nada.

No one denies governments engage in covert acts and deception.

Yea, but he's gotta pretend he knows something we don't after people have twigged he just feeds on attention.
And cause he's not able to form an independent opinion: post a youtube video.
It's almost like having an original thought.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

.

The mainstream news in the US are shills for the US government. So we never going to get the truth from them.

So why has Trump declared war on the media?

Is this where you decide to go full deep state Alex Jones just to distance yourself from Alex Jones?

The Nal

The main stream media have done nothing but expose the current government, help to leak information and are basically at war with the current White House.

The main stream media uncovered Watergate, were all over the Iran/Contra affair and now employ Oliver North as a commentator. They have uncovered and reported on Clintons Lewinski affair, Grover Clevelands illegitimate son, the Petticoat affair and Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, both of which were about was 200 years ago. All of the above reported on and exposed under extreme pressure not to do so from the US government. Literally, hundreds of years of main stream media exposing the US government.

Thats to name but a few. Heres a list, which is incomplete. All reported on by the mainstream media. Shills for the US government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

storker

The Nal wrote: »

The main stream media have done nothing but expose the current government, help to leak information and are basically at war with the current White House.

I tend to think that when someone or some organisation is annoying both sides equally, they're probably getting the balance right.

(Cf. the EU, which is considered too left-wing by the Tory party, and too right-wing by Labour.

)

Ipso

Conspiracy theorists are the original hipsters, the media is too mainstream for them.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

This has nothing to do with 9/11. Zero, nada.

No one denies governments engage in covert acts and deception.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/30/us/white-house-crisis-evidence-points-big-saudi-role-iranian-contra-arms-deals.html

Prince Bandar was funding the Iran-Contra affair. He involved in all the shady stuff for last 30+ years.

Prince Bandar funded and facilitated the 9/11 attacks.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So why has Trump declared war on the media?

Is this where you decide to go full deep state Alex Jones just to distance yourself from Alex Jones?

That's trump. He, not even politician his a reality host an outsider. Why do you think the establishment hates him his not one of them.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

The main stream media have done nothing but expose the current government, help to leak information and are basically at war with the current White House.

The main stream media uncovered Watergate, were all over the Iran/Contra affair and now employ Oliver North as a commentator. They have uncovered and reported on Clintons Lewinski affair, Grover Clevelands illegitimate son, the Petticoat affair and Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, both of which were about was 200 years ago. All of the above reported on and exposed under extreme pressure not to do so from the US government. Literally, hundreds of years of main stream media exposing the US government.

Thats to name but a few. Heres a list, which is incomplete. All reported on by the mainstream media. Shills for the US government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

Bush frightened everyone after 9/11. You either with us or against us he said! I think reporters were afraid to investigate 9/11 and be labelled unAmerican. America did a lot of bad **** to people after 9/11. Rendition flights, torture, holding people without trial. The patriotic act is actually no different to the Nazi enabling act. You could go on all day about it, but people seem to ignore this behaviour because its America. It was Wikileaks who exposed the scandals if I remember correctly not official media in the US.

I never said official media never exposed government corruption in the past. You looking to the past to claim the same standards apply always. I don't think that was the case with 9/11.

Since its relevant to our discussion.

The Watergate scandal was exposed by two reporters at the Washington Post. The media did not join in and go after Nixon until some time later. By the way, an insider approached the reporters and gave them inside information so they did not find this all out on there own.

E Howard Hunt who was CIA and was involved in organising the Watergate breakin claimed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. He even listed some of those people involved before he died.

storker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Bush frightened everyone after 9/11. You either with us or against us he said!

This is not proof of anything.

I think reporters were afraid to investigate 9/11 and be labelled unAmerican. America did a lot of bad **** to people after 9/11.

What you think doesn't amount to proof either.

Rendition flights, torture, holding people without trial. The patriotic act is actually no different to the Nazi enabling act. You could go on all day about it, but people seem to ignore this behaviour because its America.

In the context of 9/11, it's ignored because it...wait for it...doesn't prove anything. Are you seeing a pattern here yet?

The Watergate scandal was exposed by two reporters at the Washington Post. The media did not join in and go after Nixon until some time later. By the way, an insider approached the reporters and gave them inside information so they did not find this all out on there own.

The Washington post stood by the story because the editor was sufficiently satisfied by what the reports had uncovered to deem it worth the considerable risk. Remember that Woodward and Bernstein had an inside source. Where is the inside source that is informing the 911 movement? Where is the newspaper prepared to stand over the conspiracy claims? What risk is run by uploading a Youtube video or hosting a 911 Conspiracy website? To liken 911 conspiracy fans with Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee is to stick two fingers up to real investigative journalism.

E Howard Hunt who was CIA and was involved in organising the Watergate breakin claimed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. He even listed some of those people involved before he died.

This is a claim, and what he said was a claim if he said it, because even the claim that he made the claims has not been verified. See if you can work out how this fails to qualify as proof.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Bush frightened everyone after 9/11. You either with us or against us he said! I think reporters were afraid to investigate 9/11 and be labelled unAmerican. America did a lot of bad **** to people after 9/11. Rendition flights, torture, holding people without trial. The patriotic act is actually no different to the Nazi enabling act. You could go on all day about it, but people seem to ignore this behaviour because its America. It was Wikileaks who exposed the scandals if I remember correctly not official media in the US.

Horse**** again

Abu Ghraib and extraodinary rendition were broken and reported by US press and other outlets. Like it or not, the "Nazi enabling act" was supported by a majority of Americans, but democracy, what can you do. The US president can't even bar one journalist from his own press conference. Everything you come out with seems to be shaped by this ridiculous anti-establishment conspiracy narrative

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The official investigation concluded that the building fell due to fire

I lost count asking for the relevant info ?

Can you provide the solid evidence that building 7 collapsed due to fires ??

I noticed you are so evidence based .... then provide it when asked for it !

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Can you provide the solid evidence that building 7 collapsed due to fires ??

I noticed you are so evidence based .... then provide it when asked for it !

This has been answered many times. The NIST (and other investigations) support the theory. It's corroborated, science-based, credible evidence. It's backed by consensus, it's findings have been implemented by industry. It's overwhelmingly accepted. Open any encyclopedia, credible information site, relevant history book, etc it's all right there

Can I provide credible evidence that WTC 7 fell down due to fire? sure

Can you accept it? nope. You've repeatedly demonstrated that.
Are you willing to seek out the information on proper sites? nope, you've demonstrated you go to conspiracy sites
Are you willing to go to actual engineers, architects, etc for information? nope
Do you have a theory? yup
Can you support that theory in any way? nope
Do you require evidence to believe that theory? nope

There's so much whack and contradiction in this debate I don't know where to start.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This has been answered many times. The NIST (and other investigations) support the theory. It's corroborated, science-based, credible evidence. It's backed by consensus, it's findings have been implemented by industry. It's overwhelmingly accepted. Open any encyclopedia, credible information site, relevant history book, etc it's all right there

Can I provide credible evidence that WTC 7 fell down due to fire? sure

Can you accept it? nope. You've repeatedly demonstrated that.
Are you willing to seek out the information on proper sites? nope, you've demonstrated you go to conspiracy sites
Are you willing to go to actual engineers, architects, etc for information? nope
Do you have a theory? yup
Can you support that theory in any way? nope
Do you require evidence to believe that theory? nope

There's so much whack and contradiction in this debate I don't know where to start.

The truth movement won a small battle.

Sept. 11th Legal Breakthrough: U.S. Attorney For The Southern District Of New York Agrees To Comply With Federal Law Requiring That He Submit Evidence Of Still-Unprosecuted Federal Crimes At Ground Zero On 9/11 To A Special Criminal Grand Jury

It looks like the truther evidence will be listened to in a court of law.

Mainstream news silent about this of course.

Cheerful Spring

http://conspiracynews.in/for-the-first-time-since-9-11-federal-govt-takes-steps-to-prosecute-the-use-of-explosives-to-destroy-wtcs/

In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Centers.
The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).

After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that they will comply with the law.
“We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman stated.

This letter from the U.S. Attorney was signed by Michael Ferrara and Ilan Graff, Chiefs, Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It looks like the truther evidence will be listened to in a court of law.

I believe it's a letter confirming that the evidence has been submitted to a "special Criminal Grand Jury"

Chances are high they will reject it (I don't know all the legal ins and outs). I would love to see this go to an actual court.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Can I provide credible evidence that WTC 7 fell down due to fire? sure

Then provide it here on thread for all to see, for me to disagree with proper scientific evidence based reports I need to see it right ?

Stop dodging

I know NIST supports the theory ... they created it ..... Now we need the solid credible evidence that supports said theory

None of you skeptics on this thread have provided any solid evidence that supports the theory ....

You are masters of deflection I have to give you that

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I believe it's a letter confirming that the evidence has been submitted to a "special Criminal Grand Jury"

Chances are high they will reject it (I don't know all the legal ins and outs). I would love to see this go to an actual court.

Yep, they be shown the evidence.

They could be setting the truth movement up for a fall or we could finally be seeing transparency on this issue. We have to wait and see. Not jumping up and down claiming its victory yet, till I know what happens.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Then provide it here on thread for all to see, for me to disagree with proper scientific evidence based reports I need to see it right ?

It's been provided in the thread already.

Q&A
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610

I know NIST supports the theory ... they created it ..... Now we need the solid credible evidence that supports said theory

A previous investigation determined the building fell due to fire. The NIST investigation reinforced those findings and went into more detail

None of you skeptics on this thread have provided any solid evidence that supports the theory ....

Yeah we have, it's called the NIST report. It supports the overwhelmingly accepted theory that WTC 7 fell due to fire. It's industry accepted. What are you talking about?

You are masters of deflection I have to give you that

Deflecting from what?

The main theory is that WTC 7 fell due to fire, that is widely accepted. It's supported by at least two investigations. There are no other theories with credible evidence, even you admit that.

This thread is for alternative theories with credible evidence - you can't provide any.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yep, they be shown the evidence.

They could be setting the truth movement up for a fall or we could finally be seeing transparency on this issue. We have to wait and see. Not jumping up and down claiming its victory yet, till I know what happens.

Taking bets

a) outright rejected for being utter twaddle
b) dumped by judge early in proceedings for being utter twaddle
c) eviscerated in court for being utter twaddle

It's proponents will then claim that the court/jury/judge/whatever are part of the "inside job cover-up" nonsense

The lawyers will make bank either way

Dohnjoe

The first post in this thread for individuals who clearly have difficulty understanding it

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

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Taking bets

a) outright rejected for being utter twaddle
b) dumped by judge early in proceedings for being utter twaddle
c) eviscerated in court for being utter twaddle

It's proponents will then claim that the court/jury/judge/whatever are part of the "inside job cover-up" nonsense

The lawyers will make bank either way

No that just sad.

You have prejudged the outcome already no surprise.

If nobody sees what happening then it a pointless exercise. I want to see the arguments and rebuttals that transparency.