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: »

This is a thread specifically about alternative theories, you have admitted you can't support any with credible evidence. You can't answer the most basic questions on your own theory, you have no witnesses, no suspects, no credible physical evidence. Nothing. Therefore by definition you have a weak or non-existent theory. You have a weak argument in relation to this thread.

But i did ... Controlled demolition .. supported by eye witnesses who are experts in controlled demolition

I noticed you are now moving to the phrase "widely accepted theory" only in regards to NIST

I can say the same for the controlled demolition theory

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you are going to play games, semantics and be pedantic pretending that the main theory which is in print everywhere is somehow not the main theory.. yeah

Au contraire ... if anything I am looking for clarity

How can you ask for a theory supported by credible solid evidence when the official theory you support is lacking exactly that

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You can't believe a hijackers passport survived and was picked up in the street. It's "impossible" to you based on your incredulity. This is despite knowing that other perishable and delicate items survived from the planes.

I find it suspect yes, that a passport belonging to the hijackers is found within an hour but all the black boxes are completely destroyed ... does it prove anything? .. nope ... suspicious? yes

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Likewise, WTC 7 coming down "looks like" a controlled demolition to you. Therefore it is.

Wrong again ... Experts who are blowing up buildings for a living claimed it was controlled demolition ... I tend to agree ... see the difference ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No one can debate with faulty logic like that, let alone convince them of something.

What is faulty in my logic that the NIST report lacks the solid evidence backing up their theory ? ... what is faulty in my logic that you cannot demand (if you want an honest open debate) more evidence for alternative theories then what is available for the official narrative ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

What conspiracy would that be in regards to the BBC reporter ?

You believe that the plotters behind the attacks fed a false report to a local news station, who fed it to Reuters who then fed it to the BBC.
You believe that they did this because they wanted to make people expect the building to fall down as it being a shock would draw too much questioning to the conspiracy.

If this is not what you believe, please detail:
1. What you believe is the case and how it supports your belief in the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
2. Explain why you don't believe Cheerful Spring's version of events.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I find it suspect yes, that a passport belonging to the hijackers is found within an hour but all the black boxes are completely destroyed ... does it prove anything? .. nope ... suspicious? yes

To clarify, could you explain what you think is the real explanation here?
Was it planted?
Were the other items that survived the planes also faked or do you believe them to be real?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

You believe that the plotters behind the attacks fed a false report to a local news station, who fed it to Reuters who then fed it to the BBC.
You believe that they did this because they wanted to make people expect the building to fall down as it being a shock would draw too much questioning to the conspiracy.

Can you point out where I state the above ? ...please

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

To clarify, could you explain what you think is the real explanation here?
Was it planted?
Were the other items that survived the planes also faked or do you believe them to be real?

I dont know what the real explanation is .... For someone to find something suspect one doesn't need a clarification for that fact ... you know that right ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Can you point out where I state the above ? ...please

I didn't say you did say that.
I assumed that you agreed with Cheerful's explanation, as when I asked you if you did believe him, you ignored the question.

But since you don't agree with his explanation, please answer the second part of that post:

If this is not what you believe, please detail:
1. What you believe is the case and how it supports your belief in the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
2. Explain why you don't believe Cheerful Spring's version of events.

weisses wrote: »

dont know what the real explanation is .... For someone to find something suspect one doesn't need a clarification for that fact ... you know that right ?

Well yes, you do need a clarification for that fact, as suspicion without any rational backing is paranoia.

Again:
Were the other items that survived the plane faked? Or are they real?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But since you don't agree with his explanation

Where did I state the above ?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Well yes, you do need a clarification for that fact, as suspicion without any rational backing is paranoia.

Definition of suspicion (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : the act or an instance of suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence : MISTRUST

Your paranoia will probably refute the definition

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Where did I state the above ?

Ok, so we're back to you agreeing with his version of events?

It would be much easier if you stop being evasive and coy and outline your position.
Until you do, I will operate under the assumption that you do share his belief.

weisses wrote: »

Your paranoia will probably refute the definition

Great!
So:
Were the other items that survived the plane faked? Or are they real?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

That is a link to a page, not a post. And I have checked that page. It does not contain an answer for any of the questions I have asked you as far as I can see.

If you are having difficulty, it might be easier and faster to just restate your answers directly to the quoted questions.

Again for convenience and clarity:
1. Why did the BBC report the building fell when it hadn't?
(Your answer cannot be that they just didn't or couldn't check, as you previously rejected this notion as impossible.)

2. Why would the plotters give people evidence for the conspiracy when planting the story early is a dead giveaway?

3. Why did they want people to expect a collapse that was apparently impossible? What benefit does it give them?

Yes, it does answer your question.

I told you BBC got a report from Reuters WTC7 had fully collapsed. Reuters is a respected news outlet so the BBC broadcast this information. There no conspiracy there.

What dead giveaway are you talking about? Since we don't know who told the local news station the building collapsed we are at a dead end. It very unusual to claim a building collapsed when it hasn't yet. Are you claiming this local news station broadcast a fake story and did not verify who made this claim?

They wanted people to believe the collapse was going to happen and was due to fire damage. The report did not get broadcast early in the day, it got broadcast near 5 pm and building collapsed 5.40pm, I believe have to check that again. If that report about a collapse was earlier in the day I find it less suspicious.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, it does answer your question.

I told you BBC got a report from Reuters WTC7 had fully collapsed. Reuters is a respected news outlet so the BBC broadcast this information. There no conspiracy there.

Ok. But you claimed earlier that it was impossible that the BBC wouldn't check if the the building had collapsed when you were faced the the real explanation.
So that can't be the case.
It also runs into the problem of Reuters doing the same.
Why didn't they check? Why would the repeat an untrue story?
You claimed they weren't part of the conspiracy, so that can't be the explanation either.

You have not addressed this problem before, please do so now.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Y
What dead giveaway are you talking about? Since we don't know who told the local news station the building collapsed we are at a dead end. It very unusual to claim a building collapsed when it hasn't yet.

But you are claiming the BBC reporting the collapse early is evidence for your conspiracy theory, thus a give away.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Y
They wanted people to believe the collapse was going to happen and was due to fire damage. The report did not get broadcast early in the day, it got broadcast near 5 pm and building collapsed 5.40pm, I believe have to check that again. If that report about a collapse was earlier in the day I find it less suspicious.

But this is self contradictory.

And why would reporting the collapse early make their story more convincing?
Why if it's more convincing early in the day, did they not just do that?
Why does it coming earlier in the day make it more convincing?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so we're back to you agreeing with his version of events?

Nope

Like I said I did not follow the discussion between the two of you, I merely asked How would they know the building was coming down in the first place ?

Which you didnt have the anwser too .... Me neither

Im not being evasive at all ... Its you who is claiming that I believe all kinds of things I never discussed ...

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Nope

Great, so you disagree with his conspiracy theory.
Why?
Is it not convincing to you?

weisses wrote: »

I merely asked How would they know the building was coming down in the first place ?

Which you didnt have the anwser too .... Me neither

Ok.
So where did I say they knew the building was coming down?
Where did anyone other than you say this?

And again, since you aren't being evasive:
Where the other items that survived the plane fake or real?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Great, so you disagree with his conspiracy theory.
Why?
Is it not convincing to you?

They had foreknowledge building 7 was coming down ... there are many eyewitness accounts (firefighters) who state this

For the rest (I will state this again) I did not follow your discussion so I have no opinion on either argument

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
So where did I say they knew the building was coming down?
Where did anyone other than you say this?

You didn't ... nor did i suggest you did

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

They had foreknowledge building 7 was coming down ... there are many eyewitness accounts (firefighters) who state this

Ok...?
Who are "they"?

weisses wrote: »

For the rest (I will state this again) I did not follow your discussion so I have no opinion on either argument

Then maybe you should follow the discussion before butting in an asking an irrelevant question about something no one believes is the case?

Weren't you moaning about people doing that earlier?

But honestly, I don't think that's true.
You disagree with cheerful's theory because you know it's silly.
You just don't want to state that.

weisses wrote: »

You didn't ... nor did i suggest you did

Ok. So your question was a waste of your time...

Now onto a point you do believe:
Were the other items from the plane fake or real?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok...?
Who are "they"?

Uhh the first resonders on scene

King Mob wrote: »

Then maybe you should follow the discussion before butting in an asking an irrelevant question about something no one believes is the case?

So no one believes bbc reported wtc7 as being collapsed before it happened ?

Some mental gymnastics there king mob .... maybe next time answer the question before going on a mission of assumptions and believes.

So how did they know building 7 would collapse prior of it happening ?

Valid question yes ??

weisses

King Mob You entertain the possibility 9/11 was allowed to happen .... That implies there were people with foreknowledge

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

So no one believes bbc reported wtc7 as being collapsed before it happened ?

Some mental gymnastics there king mob .... maybe next time answer the question before going on a mission of assumptions and believes.

Lol, Where did I say that?

weisses wrote: »

So how did they know building 7 would collapse prior of it happening ?

Valid question yes ??

Not really as no one is arguing that they did except you and cheerful and other conspiracy theorists.
I certainly don't believe the BBC knew the building would collapse before it did.
So I can't really answer a question about a position I don't hold.

Now again I have to repeat a simple question to you, which is odd since you said you said you aren't being evasive.

Were the other items from the plane fake or real?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

King Mob You entertain the possibility 9/11 was allowed to happen .... That implies there were people with foreknowledge

Again, nope. You are misrepresenting me.

And my position about the bare bones conspiracy theory (which you don't believe) does not allow for silly notions like them getting the BBC to report the building collapsing before it did or the idea of WTC 7 being demolished at a set time with everyone knowing it.

Or the notion of the plotters faking passports and dozens of other items for that matter.

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

They had foreknowledge building 7 was coming down ... there are many eyewitness accounts (firefighters) who state this

Correct. Kingmob just doesn't understand that.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Correct. Kingmob just doesn't understand that.

You realise weisses doesn't believe your conspiracy theory, right?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

How can you ask for a theory supported by credible solid evidence when the official theory you support is lacking exactly that

Only according to you and 911 truthers (including isolated experts and cranks)

Likewise the Sandy Hook investigation is not credible according to Sandy Hook 911 truthers.

This thread is for alternative theories. I have to keep pointing this out because no one is presenting any. The only recourse is proof by denial, which is the same as any other truthers. All 911 threads are trainwrecks in this regard.

If you can't understand or grasp this concept, again, take it to any engineering, architectural, history, etc forum. You don't do that because

a) you'll be told to ****off
b) you'll be told things you don't like (like the NIST findings are correct)

As long as you continue to dodge this and try to goad people into proving something to you that you'll never accept - I'll gladly keep pointing it out

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

You realise weisses doesn't believe your conspiracy theory, right?

Conspiracy theorists can literally have two completely contradictory "theories", yet will somehow agree with each other. Theories they will flipflop on, morph or change at the drop of a hat.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, Where did I say that?In the

Then maybe you should follow the discussion before butting in an asking an irrelevant question about something no one believes is the case?

My question was about how did they know .. the bolded part is your response

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, nope. You are misrepresenting me.

You said

King Mob wrote: »

I've said a few times that the basic premise of the conspiracy theory isn't far fetched.
It's entirely possible that elements of the US government allowed or helped or ordered terrorists to fly planes into buildings.

Stop embarrassing yourself

So according to you its entirely possible 9/11 was allowed to happen ..which means there was foreknowledge ... simples

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Only according to you and 911 truthers (including isolated experts and cranks)

over 2000 engineers etc ...US officials etc etc

Keep on misrepresenting ...

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This thread is for alternative theories. I have to keep pointing this out because no one is presenting any.

I presented one ... controlled demolition

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you can't understand or grasp this concept, again, take it to any engineering, architectural, history, etc forum. You don't do that because

a) you'll be told to ****off
b) you'll be told things you don't like (like the NIST findings are correct)

Try and look up the definition of evidence and theory ... add in hypothesis

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As long as you continue to dodge this and try to goad people into proving something to you that you'll never accept - I'll gladly keep pointing it out

All I ask for is the evidence that supports your theory ....

Should be easy enough

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

You realise weisses doesn't believe your conspiracy theory, right?

You do realize you are posting nonsensical ramblings right ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

My question was about how did they know .. the bolded part is your response

And it's irreverent because no one is arguing that the BBC had foreknowledge.

weisses wrote: »

So according to you its entirely possible 9/11 was allowed to happen ..which means there was foreknowledge ... simples

Yup. Possible. Doesn't mean I believe it's true. I don't believe it's true.
It being "possible" doesn't mean it's likely or that I "entertain it" on any level.
I just suggested that it's more believable and less idiotic than the version of the conspiracy theory you believe.

Also, again irrelevant, as the version I discuss there is incompatible with the notion that the BBC reported the collapse early cause the plotters told them to. Or that any building was demolished at a set time like you believe.

You are only bringing this up because you're desperate to score points.
And it's terribly cute you've saved that post into your favourites...

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

You do realize you are posting nonsensical ramblings right ?

Lol, so you haven't been reading his posts then...?:rolleyes:

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, so you haven't been reading his posts then...?:rolleyes:

No its about you stating I don't believe his CT when I never mentioned it.