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

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They believe in wild theories that not supported by evidence. If Nukes went off, why was there no nuclear fallout? The Energy weapons was used is stupid because how do you cover up something like this happening on live TV? And Dr Judy theory does not make lot of sense. The interview she had done about her theory was enlighting. She could not address basic questions about her theory.

Lol
So exactly the same as you and your theory.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What caused the steel to melt then?

The building didn't fall due to "melted steel"

They believe in wild theories that not supported by evidence. If Nukes went off, why was there no nuclear fallout? The Energy weapons was used is stupid because how do you cover up something like this happening on live TV? And Dr Judy theory does not make lot of sense.

You've repeatedly demonstrated that you believe in "wild" unique theories unsupported by evidence that you literally make up in your head as a thread progresses

Example, so far your personal theory involves Larry S, Saudi royals, Saudi officials, CIA Muhajadeen (not Al Qaeda), Rumsfeld, unspecified generals, unspecified businessmen, unspecified members of NORAD, unspecified NIST investigators, possibly Bush, possibly Cheney

"So far"

What building you referring to?

WTC 5, what caused it to collapse?

Did Larry Silverstein have it blown up?

Did Larry S blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The building didn't fall due to "melted steel"

You've repeatedly demonstrated that you believe in "wild" unique theories unsupported by evidence that you literally make up in your head as a thread progresses

Example, so far your personal theory involves Larry S, Saudi royals, Saudi officials, CIA Muhajadeen (not Al Qaeda), Rumsfeld, unspecified generals, unspecified businessmen, unspecified members of NORAD, unspecified NIST investigators, possibly Bush, possibly Cheney

"So far"

WTC 5, what caused it to collapse?

Did Larry Silverstein have it blown up?

Did Larry S blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Melted steel was found in the WTC7 wreckage point number 1 cannot be disputed

Point number 2.
FEMA claims it was due to the process of high heat and sulphur. Which they acknowledge on their own report, they could solve the origin of the sulphur. They recommended further studies to be done.

Point number 3
NIST did not talk about this discovery. They even said there was no melted steel found. Curious statement when FEMA in their own report had pictures of melted steel and discussed what they found scientifically

Point number 4
If fires truly were melting steel would you want to know what caused that for sure? Whereas the consideration for building safety?

Point number 5
When the steel high rise building collapse due to fire ( as we know a rare unusual event) and it happens on 9/11 and building comes down in a way that similar to controlled demolition. You have to look at alternative reasons to what caused the building to collapse. NIST even acknowledges they did no testing to show if explosives were used.

WTC5 did not collapse.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol
So exactly the same as you and your theory.

You had 15 alleged hijackers getting Visas through the CIA station in Jeddah Saudi Arabia. They did not just sneak in they went through the proper channels. Are you saying not even one of them was suspected as a terrorist, bull****?

We know for a fact US intelligence was tracked these guys through the Able Danger program, including Mohammed Atta. The Pentagon later denies this program was watching two of the three 9/11 cells. The men involved in this program have gone on record screaming cover-up.

We know for a fact CIA kept intelligence from the FBI for reasons still unclear today. FBI agents are still sour by this today. Why was the CIA protecting 9/11 terrorists? This question is still unanswered 17 years later.

We know for a fact when the 9/11 hijackers arrived in the United States, they met with Saudi government officials. We know from records Prince Bandar was in contact with the alleged ringleader and planner of 9/11 Abu Zubaydah, one week before 9/11 and we reconnected with him a week later. What did these men discuss?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Melted steel was found in the WTC7 wreckage point number 1 cannot be disputed

Cool, "melted steel" has nothing to do with the cause of the collapse

WTC5 did not collapse.

What caused it to partially collapse? bombs? gas explosions? mini-nuke? silent explosives?

or fire?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You had 15 alleged hijackers getting Visas through the CIA station in Jeddah Saudi Arabia. They did not just sneak in they went through the proper channels. Are you saying not even one of them was suspected as a terrorist, bull****?

We know for a fact US intelligence was tracked these guys through the Able Danger program, including Mohammed Atta. The Pentagon later denies this program was watching two of the three 9/11 cells. The men involved in this program have gone on record screaming cover-up.

We know for a fact CIA kept intelligence from the FBI for reasons still unclear today. FBI agents are still sour by this today. Why was the CIA protecting 9/11 terrorists? This question is still unanswered 17 years later.

We know for a fact when the 9/11 hijackers arrived in the United States, they met with Saudi government officials. We know from records Prince Bandar was in contact with the alleged ringleader and planner of 9/11 Abu Zubaydah, one week before 9/11 and we reconnected with him a week later. What did these men discuss?

You haven't supported or even fully outlined your ever-changing theory yet

You maintain the Larry S (along with a very long list of "accomplices") carried out 911

So did he blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2 as well as WTC 7?

Or details not matter when it comes to your personal unique theories?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Cool, "melted steel" has nothing to do with the cause of the collapse

What caused it to partially collapse? bombs? gas explosions? mini-nuke? silent explosives?

or fire?

Thats a fire (WTC5) now compare that to WTC7. WTC5 did not collapse, full stop. Show me one picture of the structure collapsing, please

You can't say that because the melted steel has never got explained. FEMA is correct high temp + sulphar melted the steel. When and how did this happen? By all accounts, WTC7 hottest fire was 400c in the afternoon.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

WTC5 did not collapse, full stop

WTC 5 partially collapsed. From the 9th floor to the 4th floor.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

WTC 5 partially collapsed. From the 9th floor to the 4th floor.

Show the damage then. Partial collapse can happen I already stated that's possible. The difference how does a full 47-floor building go from a position of rest to full collapse and there no visual sign of that. NIST is claiming the floors, steel, and girders, furniture everything you can think off inside the building came down before the building started to full collapse. What happened to the dust where did that go if that was truly happening? The only windows that broke were when the Penthouse came through the roof. More Windows then broke when the full collapse began to happen.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Partial collapse can happen I already stated that's possible.

So according to you, a steel-framed structure can only partially collapse due to fire but not fully collapse?

If yes, explain

Waiting for basic answers on your theory

You maintain the Larry S (along with a very long list of "accomplices") carried out 911

So did he blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2 as well as WTC 7?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So according to you, a steel-framed structure can only partially collapse due to fire but not fully collapse?

If yes, explain

Waiting for basic answers on your theory

You maintain the Larry S (along with a very long list of "accomplices") carried out 911

So did he blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2 as well as WTC 7?

You have to show me what floors collapsed. Least provide evidence of your claim a picture. Did it have same floor layout as WTC7? Was there something else placed on these floors that caused the floors to buckle there. Claiming just fires did it does explain what truly happened and its simplistic thinking.

The difference with WTC7 NIST is pulling a fast one claiming the girder at column 79 collapsed as it was unsupported with no shear studs and fasteners and web plate. If fires truly buckled the steel and collapsed why did they lie and manipulate facts about the connections? You don't address that at all.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have to show me what floors collapsed. Least provide evidence of your claim a picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center

I'll ask again

a steel-framed structure can only partially collapse due to fire but not fully collapse?

If yes, explain

Also still waiting for answers to basic questions

You maintain the Larry S (along with a very long list of "accomplices") carried out 911

So did he blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2 as well as WTC 7?

I can keep doing this all day

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You had 15 alleged hijackers....

Lol, that's not a response to my post, that's just ranting.

You are exactly as guilty of the things you accuse other theorists of.

Do you honestly not see that or are you totally delusional?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center

I'll ask again

a steel-framed structure can only partially collapse due to fire but not fully collapse?

If yes, explain

Also still waiting for answers to basic questions

You maintain the Larry S (along with a very long list of "accomplices") carried out 911

So did he blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2 as well as WTC 7?

I can keep doing this all day

95 per cent of the damage was done when the towers collapsed against the building. There was a localised collapse at the right west corner due to fire and debris damage. Again you did look not this up and just assumed fire by itself collapsed floors.

Yes there no evidence a localised fire can bring down 47 floors and collapse the building.

It the reason NIST left the girder unsupported at column 79. Their calculations likely showed the shear studs, and fasteners and web plate would not allow the girder to expand enough to slid off and fall ( with a fire) What they decided to do is remove the connections elements and allow the girder to come down and then everything fitted in neatly.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

95 per cent of the damage was done when the towers collapsed against the building. There was a localised collapse at the right west corner due to fire and debris damage. Again you did look not this up and just assumed fire by itself collapsed floors.

Nope, I read the FEMA report, which stated that further collapse was caused by fire

"Ensuing fires that burned unchecked in the building caused a localized collapse from the 9th floor to the 4th floor"

Unsurprising. There are many examples of partial collapse of steel structures due to fire.

Yes there no evidence a localised fire can bring down 47 floors and collapse the building.

It happened according to everyone but you and a bunch of conspiracy theorists /isolated "experts" who can't alternatively explain how it fell

Losing count here, how did WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall? were they blown up by Larry S also?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, I read the FEMA report, which stated that further collapse was caused by fire

"Ensuing fires that burned unchecked in the building caused a localized collapse from the 9th floor to the 4th floor"

Unsurprising. There are many examples of partial collapse of steel structures due to fire.

It happened according to everyone but you and a bunch of conspiracy theorists /isolated "experts" who can't alternatively explain how it fell

Losing count here, how did WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall? were they blown up by Larry S also?

This report
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf

Somehow a few floors collapsing or localised collapse is the same as entire building coming down :rolleyes:

Why did WTC5 not fall down then if when a few floors fell? What stopped it from falling down, you seem to know more than I do, what your erxplantation>

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This report
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf

Yup. According to you, is it possible that fire can partially collapse a steel-framed structure

If so, how?

Explain the processes involved

And to repeat my question that you keep avoiding

how did WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall? were they blown up by Larry S also?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup. According to you, is it possible that fire can partially collapse a steel-framed structure

If so, how?

Explain the processes involved

And to repeat my question that you keep avoiding

how did WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall? were they blown up by Larry S also?

I did 10 minutes of research and found out quickly why this localised part of the building collapsed. Maybe you should have done the same?

An official report.
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.sfpe.org/resource/resmgr/fpe_journal_archives/2009/JFPE_2009_4_1.pdf

I highlighted this info to prove my point.

I decided to have quick look around about Gerber Framing and discovered this.

https://csengineermag.com/article/gerber-girders-from-forensic-investigation-to-repairs/

Gerber framing is known to collapse when fires happen. WTC7 had no Gerber framing.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did 10 minutes of research and found out quickly why this localised part of the building collapsed. Maybe you should have done the same?

So if WTC 7 had Gerber Girders then it could have collapsed due to fire? correct?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So if WTC 7 had Gerber Girders then it could have collapsed due to fire? correct?

With WTC5 some of the floors partially collapsed due to failures of the Gerber framing. The building did not collapse.

Its likely yes floors would collapse, entire building collapsing no.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Its likely yes floors would collapse, entire building collapsing no.

So fire can never cause a steel-framed structure to entirely collapse?

Why do you answer some of my questions but never others? e.g.

how did WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall? were they blown up by Larry S also?

Why is asking about your own theory like kryptonite to you? It's almost as if you know it's not the slightest bit true but you keep up this bizarre act

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So fire can never cause a steel-framed structure to entirely collapse?

Why do you answer some of my questions but never others? e.g.

how did WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall? were they blown up by Larry S also?

Why is asking about your own theory like kryptonite to you? It's almost as if you know it's not the slightest bit true but you keep up this bizarre act

You claiming fire caused a modern steel framed 47-floor building to fall down completely. Show me examples of this happening in the last 50 years in Europe and America.

And stop trying to deflect. Stick to WTC7 and what happened there.

Do you believe NIST is correct about how the collapse started, and please provide answers to why you believe it? I don't want links I want your opinion.

[Deleted User]

Show us examples of a skyscraper being demolished in secret using magic nano-thermite.

Or go back and answer a simple physics problem using basic math.

You are showing yourself up as a complete hypocrite.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You claiming fire caused a modern steel framed 47-floor building to fall down completely. Show me examples of this happening in the last 50 years in Europe and America.

Ridiculous. I could turn around and ask you to provide examples of tall buildings being secretly blown up.

There are many examples of steel framed structures collapsing or partially collapsing due to fire - you ignore this because you've painted yourself into a corner with your made-up physics and speculation

When presented the fact that a steel framed structure collapsed due to fire, you just make up an alternative explanation with no evidence. You get away with this type of horse**** because this is a conspiracy theory forum, which is a "safe space" for that kind of stuff

And stop trying to deflect. Stick to WTC7 and what happened there.

You're in a thread titled "To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?" and all you've done is deflect

You haven't provided a shred of credible evidence. Your "theory" changes all the time. You make up stuff on the spot. You lie incessantly.

That's fine, this is your hobby

If not, you can start by providing us the names of people who planted the "silent explosives", what times they placed them, how many were involved

If you can't, then why should anyone take your convoluted bizarro personal theories seriously?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Ridiculous. I could turn around and ask you to provide examples of tall buildings being secretly blown up.

There are many examples of steel framed structures collapsing or partially collapsing due to fire - you ignore this because you've painted yourself into a corner with your made-up physics and speculation

When presented the fact that a steel framed structure collapsed due to fire, you just make up an alternative explanation with no evidence. You get away with this type of horse**** because this is a conspiracy theory forum, which is a "safe space" for that kind of stuff

You're in a thread titled "To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?" and all you've done is deflect

You haven't provided a shred of credible evidence. Your "theory" changes all the time. You make up stuff on the spot. You lie incessantly.

That's fine, this is your hobby

If not, you can start by providing us the names of people who planted the "silent explosives", what times they placed them, how many were involved

If you can't, then why should anyone take your convoluted bizarro personal theories seriously?

I stick to facts. You will make a list then of the buildings you claim fully collapsed? Still waiting for your answer do you believe NIST and why?

I provided evidence of the manipulation of facts by NIST.

I have provided evidence where NIST lied. The thread on here has documentation, video, graphics and drawings, and testimony from eyewitnesses. You seem unable to comprehend the information provided?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You will make a list then of the buildings you claim fully collapsed?

Why? you'll just reject/deny them all.

Multiple investigations found that WTC 7 fell due to fire
The investigation into WTC 1 and WTC 2 found they fell due to damage and ensuring fires
The investigation into Plasco found it fell due to fire

You claim all four fell due to explosions. What's anyone supposed to say to that? it's batshiat insane.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why? you'll just reject/deny them all.

Multiple investigations found that WTC 7 fell due to fire
The investigation into WTC 1 and WTC 2 found they fell due to damage and ensuring fires
The investigation into Plasco found it fell due to fire

You claim all four fell due to explosions. What's anyone supposed to say to that? it's batshiat insane.

You have no list, that why you don't post them.

Wrong I never said Plasco was a controlled demolition. Plasco the building fell down due to the number of combustibles stored in the building, plus gas and oil canisters used by residents to heat their apartments. Plus the building was structurally unsound.

They claim fires brought the buildings down because the alternative is something they can't imagine happening.

9/11 commercial airliners hit buildings in different cities. People seem to forget the day was crazy and insane.

It not insane theory when NIST lies about what people saw, and witnessed that day. That why I began to wonder why are they not telling the truth? Then we have lies about steel melting, noise levels heard, molten steel, freefall, and everything else.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

9/11 commercial airliners hit buildings in different cities. People seem to forget the day was crazy and insane.

What other high rise steel frame buildings other than WTC 1 and 2, in which other cities were directly impacted by commercial airliners on 9/11?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Y
It not insane theory when NIST lies about what people saw, and witnessed that day. That why I began to wonder why are they not telling the truth? Then we have lies about steel melting, noise levels heard, molten steel, freefall, and everything else.

Nope. It is insane.
You cannot answer any basic questions about your silly childish theory.
You cannot solve any of the contradictions without lying and dodging and contradicting yourself.

Again:
The space laser theory is far far more reasonable compared to your nonsense.
Everyone can see that.
You are the only exception.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

What other high rise steel frame buildings other than WTC 1 and 2, in which other cities were directly impacted by commercial airliners on 9/11?

You can make an excuse for WTC1 and WTC2.

How do you explain a 47-floor building coming down from a few random fires on a few floors on 9/11?

NIST did a 6-year study and after 6 years they did not even know the building underwent freefall? Explain how they did know? Why did David Chandler understand the collapse and NIST did not?

We have a video of NIST employees claiming in summer of 2008, freefall could not have happened.