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]

mikekerry wrote: »

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

Maybe wait till the bodies are cold before using the tragedy to defend a paranoid fantasy?

Dohnjoe

mikekerry wrote: »

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

Buildings go on fire all the time and don't collapse, what is your point?

Timberrrrrrrr

mikekerry wrote: »

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

What would that have to do with 911? You do know that building was constructed in a totally different way using different materials right?

The Nal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What would that have to do with 911? You do know that building was constructed in a totally different way using different materials right?

And it wasnt hit by an airliner traveling at 450mph carrying 38,000 litres of jet fuel.

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

And it wasnt hit by an airliner traveling at 450mph carrying 38,000 litres of jet fuel.

Yeah but *flips over trump card* WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane

The Nal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah but *flips over trump card* WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane

No but it was by a big part of a building that was.

Amusing still seeing the "pull it" quote being dished out as evidence after all these years.

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

No but it was by a big part of a building that was.

Amusing still seeing the "pull it" quote being dished out as evidence after all these years.

He also said the phrase to the fire department commander. Apparently in truther-world firefighters also perform secret building demolition services (everything is so convenient)

The term "pull" in the demolition industry generally refers to pulling down (smaller buildings) with wires, it's in the video I posted on WTC 6 in this thread

Neither Larry S nor the fire commander are in the demolition industry and the building wasn't pulled down with wires

[Deleted User]

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He also said the phrase to the fire department commander. Apparently in truther-world firefighters also perform secret building demolition services (everything is so convenient)

Well the exact phrase is:

I remember getting a call from the, er, 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 we watched the building collapse.

Apparently, the firefighter commander was the one who decided to pull WTC7, thus is the mastermind behind the attacks.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Apparently, the firefighter commander was the one who decided to pull WTC7, thus is the mastermind behind the attacks.

Thank god they kept it all under wraps and didn't openly and casually discuss their secret plot on national TV

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

And it wasnt hit by an airliner traveling at 450mph carrying 38,000 litres of jet fuel.

Jet fuel ignited in the big fireball when the planes hit the building. What's left burned up in 10 to 15 minutes.

Both Towers were built to absorb multiple plane hits at the same time.

9/11 debunkers ignore Vincent Demartini statement in the year 2000. He was the construction manager for both towers. He claimed commercial sized planes hitting the towers will have no impact or cause no damage to the main steel core.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

No but it was by a big part of a building that was.

Amusing still seeing the "pull it" quote being dished out as evidence after all these years.

The first sentence what you saying there?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He also said the phrase to the fire department commander. Apparently in truther-world firefighters also perform secret building demolition services (everything is so convenient)

The term "pull" in the demolition industry generally refers to pulling down (smaller buildings) with wires, it's in the video I posted on WTC 6 in this thread

Neither Larry S nor the fire commander are in the demolition industry and the building wasn't pulled down with wires

In the truther world evaporated steel and pulverised concrete are not natural phenomenons. You can not pulverise concrete and evaporate steel in a natural collapse. There would be huge chunks of concrete falling down. What you actually saw on TV was concrete pulverising in mid-air into dust from a high energy source. The evaporated steel is a fingerprint to how hot the steel got and they're not a chance in hell offices fires and jet fuel can evaporate steel. You need over 2000 celsius temp for this to occur.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

9/11 debunkers ignore Vincent Demartini statement in the year 2000. He was the construction manager for both towers. He claimed commercial sized planes hitting the towers will have no impact or cause no damage to the main steel core.

lol. "I believe", "probably".

What a quote mine!

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Buildings go on fire all the time and don't collapse, what is your point?

The whole point is steel beamed high rise buildings don't just collapse at freefall speeds, symmetrically and into its own footprint from a fire.

There not one example the debunkers can show online to prove this fairy tale.

NIST what you to believe one girder falling from a seat on Floor 13 caused a progressive collapse. Why do demolition experts bother when all it takes to bring down a building is a place an explosive on one column the entire building will fall. It's nonsense and only fools believe it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Both Towers were built to absorb multiple plane hits at the same time.

They were designed so they could potentially survive an accidental plane strike

Not a fuel laden airliner flying into them purposefully at full speed - which is a very different thing

This is called "context". A completely alien concept to you (along with "evidence", "critical thinking", "consensus" and other concepts you repeatedly struggle with)

In the truther world evaporated steel and pulverised concrete are not natural phenomenons.

Watch this..

Was the fire chief commander involved in blowing up WTC 7?

You are forced to say yes (because of your claim about Larry S) But you don't know how he was involved, and you definitely know you can't support it, so your mind will "speculate" on it and fill the sentence with waffle (now you'll have to abort that and ignore it)

Observe

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They were designed so they could potentially survive an accidental plane strike

Not a fuel laden airliner flying into them purposefully at full speed - which is a very different thing

This is called "context". A completely alien concept to you (along with "evidence", "critical thinking", "consensus" and other concepts you repeatedly struggle with)

Watch this..

Was the fire chief commander involved in blowing up WTC 7?

You are forced to say yes (because of your claim about Larry S) But you don't know how he was involved, and you definitely know you can't support it, so your mind will "speculate" on it and fill the sentence with waffle (now you'll have to abort that and ignore it)

Observe

You not listening to the man who actually oversaw the building of twin towers. He said multiple plane hits to just one tower would not collapse the building. You prefer to believe the US government fantasy office fires collapsed the twin towers at free fall speeds.

No office fire has ever evaporated steel and pulverised concrete in mid-air.

Larry Silverstein leased the twin towers and WTC7 2 months before 9/11 for 99 years. He leased the buildings from New York Authority. Then on 9/11 he, his daughter and son don't show up for work. This is evidence Silverstein was aware of something big was about to go down.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You not listening to the man

I am. You aren't able to process what he is saying or the context

You prefer to believe the US government fantasy office fires collapsed the twin towers at free fall speeds.

That's exactly what happened, twice, in front of our very eyes, filmed from every angle

Unless you can alternatively explain what happened with credible evidence, the part you constantly avoid

Larry Silverstein leased the twin towers and WTC7 2 months before 9/11 for 99 years. He leased the buildings from New York Authority. Then on 9/11 he, his daughter and son don't show up for work. This is evidence Silverstein was aware of something big was about to go down.

Was the fire chief commander in on this conspiracy you have made up, yes or no?

No waffle, no deflection, just yes or no

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You not listening to the man who actually oversaw the building of twin towers.

Here's the lead engineer, not the building manager

"Leslie E. Robertson, The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers, spring 2002 wrote: "It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am. You aren't able to process what he is saying or the context

That's exactly what happened, twice, in front of our very eyes, filmed from every angle

Unless you can alternatively explain what happened with credible evidence, the part you constantly avoid

Was the fire chief commander in on this conspiracy you have made up, yes or no?

No waffle, no deflection, just yes or no

This government myth was exposed by the New York Times in 2001.

Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during
the attacks.

Dr Barnett exposed the conspiracy and truthers have been saying this for well over a decade.

His statement to the New York Times in NOV 2001..

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.[/B

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here's the lead engineer, not the building manager

"Leslie E. Robertson, The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers, spring 2002 wrote: "It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

"Leslie E. Robertson by the way who said in 2002 a fireman showed him a river of molten steel and he saw it. NIST denies anyone saw it or anyone even made this claim on video.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html

But this article contradicts you..

They believe WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell due to plane strike and fire (contradicting you) and were unsure about WTC 7 because it was only a month and a half after the attacks

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

But this article contradicts you..

They believe WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell due to plane strike and fire (contradicting you) and were unsure about WTC 7 because it was only a month and a half after the attacks

Dr Barnett is highlighting this anomaly they found.

You don't realise evaporated steel requires a temp of 2856 °C, that turning the steel into a gas vapour. Melted steel and Iron you need a temp of 1500c.

If you finding steel that has evaporated or melted you can't ignore this anomaly. There not a chance in hell an office fire can get this hot.

Truthers are right to demand answers.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Truthers are right to demand answers.

They aren't demanding answers they are demanding a conspiracy. They will go to any lengths of crank-science, waffle and nonsense to get there. They will lie (like you), take quotes out of context (like you), engage in whataboutery, selective understanding

Every sneaky dishonest technique to arrive at a thousand different conspiracies

There's a reason this debate isn't on engineering or scientific or history forums

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They aren't demanding answers they are demanding a conspiracy. They will go to any lengths of crank-science, waffle and nonsense to get there. They will lie (like you), take quotes out of context (like you), engage in whataboutery, selective understanding

Every sneaky dishonest technique to arrive at a thousand different conspiracies

There's a reason this debate isn't on engineering or scientific or history forums

They're looking at the evidence in its entirety, unlike NIST. They also don't pick and choose the evidence they like.

Truthers don't ignore witnesses accounts of finding molten steel in the rubble.

That's cop-out because they're not one steel high rise building they can point to that fell at freefall speeds, symmetrically, due to fire pre 9/11 and after.

What you get from most mainstream Engineer forums is a personal opinion. You even attempted to get some answers and you got no response.

History forum?

Scientific forum, which one?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They aren't demanding answers they are demanding a conspiracy.

They are called truthers for a reason. They looking for the truth.

Truthers got history on their side. They have a right to question the official narrative.

Why do we have anomalies if fire was truly the cause of the collapse? Steel high rising buildings have been on fire before and never collapsed. There nothing special about the WTC7 fire on 9/11?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They're looking at the evidence in its entirety, unlike NIST. They also don't pick and choose the evidence they like.

You claim that there's no way WTC 1 and 2 fell due to airliners/fire then highlight two men in an article who believe that is exactly how the towers fell

Within the same page

It''s right there in the article in just pasted in the thread

"Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers"
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html

How can you miss that?

Yet here is your quote a few posts beforehand

You prefer to believe the US government fantasy office fires collapsed the twin towers at free fall speeds.

Here's another quote from you

Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during
the attacks.

The ASCE and FEMA believe the towers fell due to fire (and strikes by planes) and that WTC 7 fell due to fire

You have reached the (mental) stage of quoting people who contradict you.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You claim that there's no way WTC 1 and 2 fell due to airliners/fire then highlight two men in an article who believe that is exactly how the towers fell

Within the same page

It''s right there in the article in just pasted in the thread

"Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers"
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html

How can you miss that?

Yet here is your quote a few posts beforehand

Here's another quote from you

The ASCE and FEMA believe the towers fell due to fire (and strikes by planes) and that WTC 7 fell due to fire

You have reached the (mental) stage of quoting people who contradict you.

New York Times- direct quote from Dr Barnett

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said.

This is not out of context
But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

He saying the temp was impossible and could not explain it.

ASCE and FEMA work for the US government are you expecting them to say something different?

Cheerful Spring

The official narrative falls apart when you find melted steel and evaporated steel in the rubble pile. Popular Mechanics claimed the steel sagged and weakened and then buckled. They ignore the steel melted part and evaporated and concrete in mid-air turned to dust. Why would concrete pulverise in mid-air and blow out in all directions?

They also ignore there no fires on most of the floors beneath. They're going to be a natural slowdown in fall rate when undamaged floors meet each other when pancaking. The twin towers however just came down at freefall speeds.

NIST does not explain how that's even possible in their Twin Towers study, They just avoid talking about it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

New York Times- direct quote from Dr Barnett

This is a man who believes/supports the official story

Why are you quoting him to back your conspiracy?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is a man who believes/supports the official story

Why are you quoting him to back your conspiracy?

Office fires don't get hot enough to evaporate steel. Dr Barret knows this to be true and I know it to be true, you don't.

He got a nice career to protect and he probably has a family to support. The Truthers are not going to pay his bills for him. So it not really a surprise he does not complain much about the official story.