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

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It a fact not an opinion.

We THINK it happened this way because waffle waffle waffle...unsubstantiated claims followed by more waffle.

Fixed that for you.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You believe in fairy tales, and don't know math and physics, so and have to point out the error of your ways.

But again cheerful, that's not true.
You demonstrated your utter lack of knowledge in physics and maths in the previous page.
No one believes your petty, childish "No, you are" tactic.
It's silly that you think that it's effective.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You claimed as fact he was the perpetrator, now you are backtracking and claiming he's a "suspect". Similar to when you claimed as fact that all 3 buildings were blown up, but backtracked when pushed to explain that. Likewise claiming a missile, then a military jet hit the Pentagon

Lies and backtracking covered up with copious amounts of waffle

A smart conspiracy theorist (aka bull**** merchant) sits on the fence. They do this so they don't have to commit to a theory, which means they don't have to support it (because they know they can't)

I believe he had prior knowledge the attack was coming.. There a good reason to believe this. Did he send the men there to prepare the building for WTC7? It possible, but I have no hard evidence he the one who organised this behind the scenes.

You believe in nonsense pull it meant firefighters told to get out of building 7. I have shown you already why this is a fairy tale. You tell me why Silverstein spokesperson lied for him?

I still believe all three buildings were controlled demolition. Never changed my mind on it. I said if WTC7 by miracle collapsed due to fire then that changes my position on things. It proves then fire can collapse a steel high rising building, symmetrically, at freefall speeds.

I never claimed a missile, I said plane of another type could have hit the Pentagon. We don't have clear footage of this plane and that I feel is very odd since we know cameras are located on the roof of the Pentagon and on the Pentagon firehouse wall.

There a couple of reasons why I don't entirely distrust the official account about the Pentagon.
You can change planes easily or swap them out and use a different plane to hit the Pentagon. The main problem is what do you do with the passengers? This something that conspiracy theorists and even I admit can't be sidestepped easily. They were living breathing humans beings that boarded the plane or the plane was empty with no passengers? Some do claim the plane was taken somewhere else and they got murdered there but then there no evidence to substantiate this right now.

Passengers are the only reason I believe a plane belonging to American airlines hit the Pentagon. Still does not explain the secrecy with videos, and why people saw the plane hitting the Pentagon on the opposite side of the freeway (northside)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You believe in nonsense pull it meant firefighters told to get out of building 7. I have shown you already why this is a fairy tale. You tell me why Silverstein spokesperson lied for him?

You believe he admitting to blowing up his own building in a live TV interview and no one in the world noticed this except you and some conspiracy theorists

Or

You and some conspiracy theorists have taken one phrase out of context and that is ALL the evidence you need to 100% believe he secretly blew up his own building

That is the level of sheer stupidity we are dealing with here

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You believe he admitting to blowing up his own building in a live TV interview and no one in the world noticed this except you and some conspiracy theorists

Or

You and some conspiracy theorists have taken one phrase out of context and that is ALL the evidence you need to 100% believe he secretly blew up his own building

That is the level of sheer stupidity we are dealing with here

WTC7 collapsed without warning. There was no way anyone could have predicted this beforehand. There no evidence of collapse anywhere in the building prior to 5.20pm.

You need a crystal ball or person who sees the future to predict a fire would expand one girder at column 79 at 5.15 to 5.20pm and they would cause a cascading effect across all floors.

If you can't see this was predicted ahead of time and can't wrap your mind around it people knew this was going to happen, well that's your problem.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

WTC7 collapsed without warning. There was no way anyone could have predicted this beforehand. There no evidence of collapse anywhere in the building prior to 5.20pm.

You need a crystal ball or person who sees the future to predict a fire would expand one girder at column 79 at 5.15 to 5.20pm and they would cause a cascading effect across all floors.

If you can't see this was predicted ahead of time and can't wrap your mind around it people knew this was going to happen, well that's your problem.

So obviously, they would tell the BBC to announce it early.
And then tell Larry to admit it on camera.

Genius.
Excellent theory that isn't at all insane and childish and pathetic.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So obviously, they would tell the BBC to announce it early.
And then tell Larry to admit it on camera.

Genius.
Excellent theory that isn't at all insane and childish and pathetic.

BBC picked up a news story from Reuters building 7 had collapsed. They reported it even though the building was in the background on TV feed and did not fall for another 25 minutes.

Enquires were made and Reuters said they got the info from a local station in New York and their source they refused to reveal it.

Larry claims are untrue there were no firefighters inside the building after 1 pm So why did his Spokesperson lie only they know.

Why did Larry say this when there no fire effort taking place? Why would the fire chief feel the need to tell him about efforts that were not taking place? Either he bull****ting or fibbing about an event that never happened or let it slip the building was pulled down.

Larry statement
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

BBC picked up a news story from Reuters building 7 had collapsed. They reported it even though the building was in the background on TV feed and did not fall for another 25 minutes.

Enquires were made and Reuters said they got the info from a local station in New York and their source they refused to reveal it.

Larry claims are untrue there were no firefighters inside the building after 1 pm So why did his Spokesperson lie only they know.

Why did Larry say this when there no fire effort taking place? Why would the fire chief feel the need to tell him about efforts that were not taking place? Either he bull****ting or fibbing about an event that never happened or let it slip the building was pulled down.

Larry statement
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse

Yup, so obviously he admitted to being involved and exposed the entire conspiracy on camera.
Makes perfect sense.
Totally believable.
Definitely not blatantly silly.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

WTC7 collapsed without warning. There was no way anyone could have predicted this beforehand.

No one predicted anything. Media outlets made many mistakes throughout the day.

You've seized on one of these and decided it wasn't a mistake based on thought processes that would get someone institutionalized

Likewise you've decided a man blew up a building based entirely on your faulty interpretation of what he said on national TV. I've read lizard-people-rule-the-earth threads and you are getting very close to that kind of thinking

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, so obviously he admitted to being involved and exposed the entire conspiracy on camera.
Makes perfect sense.
Totally believable.
Definitely not blatantly silly.

Remember this statement pre NIST investigation Who knows what he was thinking when he made this statement.. The silly part is claiming firefighters were trying to rescue the building and were inside the building and needed saving.

Efforts that day were to fight fires at WTC6 and WTC5

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Remember this statement pre NIST investigation Who knows what he was thinking when he made this statement.. The silly part is claiming firefighters were trying to rescue the building and were inside the building and needed saving.

Efforts that day were to fight fires at WTC6 and WTC5

Yup. It's perfectly reasonable that a guy would admit to being involved in the conspiracy on camera to a film crew.
That's exactly what would happen.
Not a asinine notion at all.

You have very good theories that make sense.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No one predicted anything. Media outlets made many mistakes throughout the day.

You've seized on one of these and decided it wasn't a mistake based on thought processes that would get someone institutionalized

Likewise you've decided a man blew up a building based entirely on your faulty interpretation of what he said on national TV. I've read lizard-people-rule-the-earth threads and you are getting very close to that kind of thinking

It based on what came next. We saw the building fall like down into its own footprint. It came down symmetrically in freefall collapse. We even heard the noise and the boom on video, Right under the Penthouse is the central core. You even see the kink on the left that line of key columns breaking. And it just takes about 4 to 5 seconds to go from rest to full collapse.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

And it just takes about 4 to 5 seconds to go from rest to full collapse.

But cheerful, we just had a big thing where you figured out that for a ball to fall from the roof it would take 6.2 seconds.
You are now saying the building fell faster than free fall.

****ing. Hilarious.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But cheerful, we just had a big thing where you figured out that for a ball to fall from the roof it would take 6.2 seconds.
You are now saying the building fell faster than free fall.

****ing. Hilarious.

Stop commenting about things you don't understand. When the Penthouse fell down into the building and kink developed. The building did not start moving at all corners for another 4 to 5 seconds. If you just go by the Penthouse fallingl 6 to 7 seconds.

Freefall observations are not the same ( Freefall was observed over 100 feet 2.25 seconds about 8 to 10 floors in stage 2 of NIST report) Observation made when the floors came down from the top to bottom (final collapse)

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Stop commenting about things you don't understand. When the Penthouse fell down into the building and kink developed. The building did not start moving at all corners for another 4 to 5 seconds. If you just go by the Penthouse fallingl 6 to 7 seconds.

Freefall observations are not the same ( Freefall was observed over 100 feet 2.25 seconds about 8 to 10 floors in stage 2 of NIST report) Observation made when the floors came down from the top to bottom (final collapse)

All of this is just word salad.
You really need to work on your grammar and reading skills.

Regardless, you now claim that the building fell faster than free fall.
Which is impossible unless there's a force pushing down from above...
Like say... some kind of laser... from space...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

All of this is just word salad.
You really need to work on your grammar and reading skills.

Regardless, you now claim that the building fell faster than free fall.
Which is impossible unless there's a force pushing down from above...
Like say... some kind of laser... from space...

You just don't understand the NIST report. You come every day to just comment on other peoples opinion, it is just sloppy and lazy. Anyone can do this it takes no effort to attack someone opinion.

When you don't understand something you get upset and have a hissy fit. Why do I know more about the NIST report? You are a supporter of the fire collapsing theory then get to know it.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Anyone can do this it takes no effort to attack someone opinion.

As opposed to copy pasting contradictory conspiracy theories that make zero sense?
The only things I don't understand are your terrible, often incoherent writing style and why you believe your own nonsense when you know it's stupid.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You just don't understand the NIST report. You come every day to just comment on other peoples opinion, it is just sloppy and lazy. Anyone can do this it takes no effort to attack someone opinion.

When you don't understand something you get upset and have a hissy fit. Why do I know more about the NIST report? You are a supporter of the fire collapsing theory then get to know it.

So now you have admitted that what you post is just your opinion then maybe you can stop posting it as fact!

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

As opposed to copy pasting contradictory conspiracy theories that make zero sense?
The only things I don't understand are your terrible, often incoherent writing style and why you believe your own nonsense when you know it's stupid.

It is only stupid to people who are not bright and don't think for themselves. Again conspiracies are real. They always have fools believing the official story. You are one of those people they call sheep.

I have brain cells left and can see when something bull****. If writing style is prove of intelligence god help us because you guys are not good examples.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It based on what came next.

Repeating or rephrasing nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsense

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It is only stupid to people who are not bright and don't think for themselves. Again conspiracies are real. They always have fools believing the official story. You are one of those people they call sheep.

But cheerful, you don't ask questions. You avoid them like the plague as you can only parrot what you read on crank websites.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It is only stupid to people who are not bright and don't think for themselves. Again conspiracies are real. They always have fools believing the official story. You are one of those people they call sheep.

Nope, you are. Thats the irony. Theres far more money to be made as a conspiracy theorist. Hence why theres so many. Books, movies, websites all churning money. All targeted at people like you who believe stories with little or in most cases no evidence, then visit the websites, read the books and buy the movies. Making money for liars and lunatics.

Conspiracies do exist of course. No ones questioning that. But not in this case.

Whatever about JFK, I genuinely find 9/11 conspiracies hilarious. Last few pages have been comedy gold.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Nope, you are. Thats the irony. Theres far more money to be made as a conspiracy theorist. Hence why theres so many. Books, movies, websites all churning money. All targeted at people like you who believe stories with little or in most cases no evidence, then visit the websites, read the books and buy the movies. Making money for liars and lunatics.

Conspiracies do exist of course. No ones questioning that. But not in this case.

Whatever about JFK, I genuinely find 9/11 conspiracies hilarious. Last few pages have been comedy gold.

Why do you find 9/11 conspiracies hilarious?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But cheerful, you don't ask questions. You avoid them like the plague as you can only parrot what you read on crank websites.

Architects and Engineers truth movement are not cranks. You find they are highly qualified professionals and have outstanding credentials in their field of work. Some of them went to the top schools in America. You are ignoring pre 9/11 no high rise steel building fell to fire ever What do you think it all changed on 9/11

Remember WTC7 was not hit by a plane and only small fires were burning on a few floors?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why do you find 9/11 conspiracies hilarious?

Read this thread. People actually believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon (despite all the eye witnesses seeing one do so) and it was actually a missile and the real plane landed elsewhere and the passengers were either killed or put into some forced witness protection.

lol

Ipso

And what had WTC to do withbthe Iraq war, wasn’t 911 a false flag to promote the project for a new american century?
Wouldn’tnthe twin towers coming down not be enough and you wouldn’tnhave to plant explosives and be caught out by super troofers?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Read this thread. People actually believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon (despite all the eye witnesses seeing one do so) and it was actually a missile and the real plane landed elsewhere and the passengers were either killed or put into some forced witness protection.

lol

Do you believe NIST got it right when they said fire collapsed the building and please explain why you believe this?

Cheerful Spring

Ipso wrote: »

And what had WTC to do withbthe Iraq war, wasn’t 911 a false flag to promote the project for a new american century?
Wouldn’tnthe twin towers coming down not be enough and you wouldn’tnhave to plant explosives and be caught out by super troofers?

Project for the New American Century.

Signatories to Statement of Principles
Elliott Abrams[5]
Gary Bauer[5]
William J. Bennett[5]
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[5]
Dick Cheney[5]
Eliot A. Cohen[5]
Midge Decter[5]
Paula Dobriansky[5]
Steve Forbes[5]
Aaron Friedberg[5]
Francis Fukuyama[5]
Frank Gaffney[5]
Fred C. Ikle[5]
Donald Kagan[5]
Zalmay Khalilzad[5]
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[5]
Norman Podhoretz[5]
J. Danforth Quayle[5]
Peter W. Rodman[5]
Stephen P. Rosen[5]
Henry S. Rowen[5]
Donald Rumsfeld[5]
Vin Weber[5]
George Weigel[5]

Let's read what the main aims were.

PNAC's first public act was to release a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). It described the United States as the "world's pre-eminent power," and said that the nation faced a challenge to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." In order to achieve this goal, the statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of "political and economic freedom abroad." It said the United States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values," and preserve and extend "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Calling for a "Reaganite" policy of "military strength and moral clarity," it concluded that PNAC's principles were necessary "if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."[5]

If you break it down this just means fighting regimes who are hostile to the US and its allies and to do this we need to increase our military budgets.

None of this possible if 9/11 did not happen. They even had the balls to write this in 1998.

Quote
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

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

Ipso

So why the hell would they go to all the trouble of blowing up WTC 7 and why was it needed to invade Iraq?

mikekerry

huge fire here mixed with chemicals.
the building looks like it's still standing
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/huge-fire-in-bangladesh-capital-kills-at-least-70-people-37838261.html