Dohnjoe wrote: » It's been provided in the thread already. Q&Ahttps://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigationhttps://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610 A previous investigation determined the building fell due to fire. The NIST investigation reinforced those findings and went into more detail 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? 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.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » 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.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Again I'd love to see it actually go to court, but it's so unlikely to make it that far. If there is an angle of slander or something, then maybe, otherwise it's highly likely to be rejected
Dohnjoe wrote: » This is ithttps://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/ They are literally using the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 early as evidence.. I would give my right arm for this case to get to an actual court.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Why not. There no way anyone could have predicted a failure at column 79 (40minutes) before it occurred. That event is very suspicious as its reason NIST gave for why the floors gave way and collapsed across the width of the building. If that event did not happen then how does building 7 fall?
Dohnjoe wrote: » I want whatever you are smoking, seriously Imagine how this "evidence" would go down in a case The next piece of evidence; the BBC knew in advance of WTC 7 collapse Cross-examination: "You assert the BBC were informed of a plot to blow up the buildings, by whom? Truther: "We don't know" CE: "Why would the perpetrators of this plot warn the media?" Truther: "We don't know" CE: "If the building was going to fall, the media would report it falling, why would the plotters gain by releasing the information ahead of time to journalists?" Truther: "We aren't sure" CE: "We have the journalist here, the newsrunner, the transcripts, the editor at the time, they all support the fact that it was a simple mistake, there was a lot of speculation the building was going to fall, there was a lot of false reports on the day, what evidence do you have contrary to that?" Truther: "We don't, but don't you find it strange.." CE: "So you have no evidence to back this claim, a claim which makes no logical sense to either the plotters or the BBC, and you believe this is key evidence that the buildings were blown up? Truther: "Yes" ..
Cheerful Spring wrote: » That not the truther position.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Dohnjoe wrote: » I want whatever you are smoking, seriously Imagine how this "evidence" would go down in a case The next piece of evidence; the BBC knew in advance of WTC 7 collapse Cross-examination: "You assert the BBC were informed of a plot to blow up the buildings, by whom? Truther: "We don't know" CE: "Why would the perpetrators of this plot warn the media?" Truther: "We don't know" CE: "If the building was going to fall, the media would report it falling, why would the plotters gain by releasing the information ahead of time to journalists?" Truther: "We aren't sure" CE: "We have the journalist here, the newsrunner, the transcripts, the editor at the time, they all support the fact that it was a simple mistake, there was a lot of speculation the building was going to fall, there was a lot of false reports on the day, what evidence do you have contrary to that?" Truther: "We don't, but don't you find it strange.." CE: "So you have no evidence to back this claim, a claim which makes no logical sense to either the plotters or the BBC, and you believe this is key evidence that the buildings were blown up? Truther: "Yes" .. That not the truther position. Nobody, well I am not claiming the BBC are involved in this conspiracy. What I believe is possible. The information about a pending collapse was put out there to prepare the media for the eventuality. WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you try to make seem like this was going to happen and not odd that it occurred- don't worry folks nothing to see here!
King Mob wrote: » So who told the BBC? When did they tell them and who did they tell? What was their name? Why would the BBC then announce the collapse early? Did they not look out a window? Was the guy from the conspiracy unclear? Remember, you asked those exact questions when presented with the real explanation.
Dohnjoe wrote: » It's been provided in the thread already. Q&Ahttps://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigationhttps://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610
Dohnjoe wrote: » A previous investigation determined the building fell due to fire. The NIST investigation reinforced those findings and went into more detail
Dohnjoe wrote: » 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?
Dohnjoe wrote: » 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.
Dohnjoe wrote: » This thread is for alternative theories with credible evidence - you can't provide any.
King Mob wrote: » Ok, so who was the anonymous source? When did they tell them? Where's the copy of this report? Are routers involved in the conspiracy too? Why did routers and the BBC report on iy when they could see it wasn't true?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Reuters claim they got the information from a local news channel. But they have never revealed what local channel they referring to so people can check up on this and if the source was outside the news channel.
King Mob wrote: » Ok, which news channel? And which person at Reuters got this information? And who at Reuters passed this info on to whom at the BBC? Why did Reuters pass on the information that the Building had collapsed? Why did the BBC report that it had collapsed? Surely they both could tell that it obviously wasn't true? Why then would they not investigate where this obviously untrue information came from? Are Reuters part of the conspiracy?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » BBC looked into this and they claimed they got this information from Reuters. Reuters then made a statement the received information from a local news station WTC7 had collapsed and passed it on. Who gave the local news station this information about WTC7 collapse, is unknown.
King Mob wrote: » Ok. Source for all that? Please provide a link. Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story? Are they part of the conspiracy? Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy? Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html
weisses wrote: » That is a hypothesis ... they dont provide solid evidence .. You know that right ?
Which investigation was that ?
You do realize the nist report doesn't supply any solid evidence right ? That is the fact that is widely accepted
Its a theory ..and they created a computer model to support the theory ... Even you have to admit that computer model is flawed and inaccurate ... if not maybe spec-savers is the next port of call
You haven't either for the NIST theory ...other then copy pasting the NIST theory .... your hilarious
King Mob wrote: » Great! Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story? Are they part of the conspiracy? Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy? Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?
Dohnjoe wrote: » Why would the plotters send these details to the media? what's the point of it?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » They believed to be true obviously why else. No don't be silly. No don't be silly. They got information about a full collapse from an anonymous source. Who provided that information unknown. BBC was reporting about the 9/11 events, they thought the information was reliable
If the building was going to be controlled demolition at that specific time. You spread the story the building was going to collapse due to fire ahead of time. Then when it happens it not shocking it was expected.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » If the building was going to be controlled demolition at that specific time. You spread the story the building was going to collapse due to fire ahead of time. Then when it happens it not shocking it was expected.
Dohnjoe wrote: » What? You are speculating that the plotters "gave" information to journalists (that was wrong) that the building had collapsed (when it hadn't) in order to "not shock" people when the building would collapse later (contradicting the plotters info) - that makes no sense
Dohnjoe wrote: » It's a conclusion that's widely accepted (except by e.g. conspiracy theorists)
Dohnjoe wrote: » There's been two, FEMA and NIST
Dohnjoe wrote: » False
Dohnjoe wrote: » That's your personal opinion. I can't account for your understanding, interpretations and incredulity.
Dohnjoe wrote: » It's an event, it's not considered a mystery. If you believe something else happened, then let us know, but support it with credible evidence. Getting personal, snide or petty about it doesn't change that.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Yep, it does make sense. They knew it was coming down by controlled demolition. They got the public prepared for the event in real-time. So when people heard the building collapsed and did not, and then later it did, oh was expected to happen anyhow. Don't you claim this to be true? It makes sense when you look back now.
King Mob wrote: » But you now claim that this didn't convince anyone and is in fact evidence for the conspiracy theory. So the plotters in fact just handed evidence to you for no benefit. So no, it doesn't make sense to rational people. So why did the BBC report it when they could tell it wasn't true by looking out a window? It can't be that they just made a mistake or where just unable to fact check or they were just passing on a report they had received, as you contend that is impossible.
weisses wrote: » How would the know the building was coming down in the first place ?
weisses wrote: » Then provide the solid evidence .... I know the NIST report its not in there ... so lazy copy pasting of the report is not sufficient
It fell due to controlled demolition ..It had all the characteristics of one so that is the most logical conclusion.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
