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

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey is a professor at Fairbank University in Alaska. He has just completed a three-year study that cost the truthers 300,000 dollars. He going to be realising his scientific data for any mainstream engineer and architect to peer review. They're going to be full transparency about this. If he's wrong then we find out about it. He will have a scientific computer simulation of how the building fell.

To put context on this

He's one civil engineer paid by conspiracy theorists to conduct a study to "prove a negative". His report is overdue by nearly 2 years and his initial results are highly questionable

On the other side are the findings of a lot of structural engineers, supported by the entire recognised engineering and architectural community (AIA, ASCE, etc)

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To put context on this

He's one civil engineer paid by conspiracy theorists to conduct a study to "prove a negative". His report is overdue by nearly 2 years and his initial results are highly questionable

On the other side are the findings of a lot of structural engineers, supported by the entire recognised engineering and architectural community (AIA, ASCE, etc)

It does not matter because his work can be replicated and verified and if wrong debunked by real people with real credentials.

Highly questionable to who people on the JREF forum? They are debunkers who are not engineers or architects. They were challenged by the truthers to debate the physics of the towers collapse by real scientists and they backed off and could find one scientist on their forum. They find imaginary flaws in everything the truthers find even if they are wrong.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey study is going to prove NIST wrong or it won't. Why I like about this study is can be reviewed scientifically by mainstream bodies that you support. NIST refused to release their data for open peer review.

The NIST was made up of lots of Hulseys all coming to the same conclusion, backed by other Hulseys, and supported by recognized groups representing the consensus of hundreds of thousands of Hulseys

I have to explain it like that because you repeatedly show you can't understand (or refuse to understand) basic concepts

The findings of the NIST have been peer reviewed, it's been covered in this thread

Again I point out the first post of this thread

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

I am waiting for you or anyone to start presenting and supporting your theories with proper evidence

mikekerry

In fairness there is over 3k of these guys

https://www.ae911truth.org
Is there a similar signature of people with another website with the official story ?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The NIST was made up of lots of Hulseys all coming to the same conclusion, backed by other Hulseys, and supported by recognized groups representing the consensus of hundreds of thousands of Hulseys

I have to explain it like that because you repeatedly show you can't understand (or refuse to understand) basic concepts

The findings of the NIST have been peer reviewed, it's been covered in this thread

Again I point out the first post of this thread

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

I am waiting for you or anyone to start presenting and supporting your theories with proper evidence

NIST was given the task to prove fire collapsed the building. Its the reason they lied so much in their study.

Their work has not been peer-reviewed. I think I have proven this already in this thread. I produced a letter from NIST stating their data will not be released due to public safety concerns. Nobody can verify their work. This is the main reason the truthers had to do their own study.

Dohnjoe

mikekerry wrote: »

In fairness there is over 3k of these guys

https://www.ae911truth.org
Is there a similar signature of people with another website with the official story ?

It's a group of people from the internet

The head of this group is Richard Gage (who makes a yearly salary from being a conspiracy theorist) he's a member of the AIA, the American Institute of Architects. 90,000 members. They have fully distanced themselves from his views.

The ACSE, The American Society of Civil Engineers, is 152,000 members. Not only do they officially support the findings, they took part in the investigations

3,000 is small fry. And that was total sign-ups from years back, I wonder how many are left now.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST was given the task to prove fire collapsed the building. Its reason they lied so much in their study.

Their work has not been peer-reviewed. I think I have proven this already in this thread I produced a letter from NIST where the claiming they could not release their data due to public safety concerns. Nobody can verify their work. This is the main reason the truthers had to do their own study.

I'll ask again

What is your theory, and what is the credible (and direct evidence) for your theory?

The towers were blown up by who? how many planted the explosives?

Every time you dodge this is evidence you can't answer these questions

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a group of people from the internet

The head of this group is Richard Gage (who makes a yearly salary from being a conspiracy theorist) he's a member of the AIA, the American Institute of Architects. 90,000 members. They have fully distanced themselves from his views.

The ACSE, The American Society of Civil Engineers, is 152,000 members. Not only do they officially support the findings, they took part in the investigations

3,000 is small fry. And that was total sign-ups from years back, I wonder how many are left now.

The board of directors or the heads of ASCE agree with the government position. When you claim every member of ASCE agrees with NIST you lying. I bet the majority have never even read the NIST report. It was only downloaded 800 times on ASCE forum. How many of the members just downloaded it out of curiosity?

mikekerry

Dohnoe the moon landing and Boston bombings have nothing to do with this thread. They are separate events.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'll ask again

What is your theory, and what is the credible (and direct evidence) for your theory?

The towers were blown up by who? how many planted the explosives?

Every time you dodge this is evidence you can't answer these questions

If you watch the WTC7 news video you can see what happened and you hear what happened.

The building was perfect not a sign of anything occurring happening outside the building. No broken windows or dust plumes on top floors or wall movement. Suddenly you hear a massive boom on video, the shock wave was heard on audio recorded blocks away by a reporter with a mic. The left side core columns buckled and floors starting crashing down on the left side, the reason you see the Penthouse come through the roof. Then the building starts to come fully down a number of seconds later and you can see the rest of the core columns buckle on the right side when coming down, a line of windows started smashing out from the bottom up to the top.

The boom is heard at 1 second in turn up to volume easily heard. NIST claim no noise heard at all during a collapse.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you watch the WTC7 news video you can see what happened and you hear what happened.

When people ask about 911 in this thread you fill them with lies, disinformation and out-of-context whataboutery

You assert that it was a controlled demolition, yet when I (or anyone) asks you about it you dodge and divert like a politician, you use every deceptive trick in the book not to answer straightforward questions

On top of that it has to be a strong alternative theory because you are contradicting something that is accepted as historical fact, then again you are a Holocaust denier because you believe you "know more" than world historians on the issue

You are asserting it's a controlled demolition:

1. Who planted the explosives? names?

2. Were they the same people that planted the explosives in all of the buildings or different groups?

3. What times, and what parts of the buildings did they rig up? were these explosives "fire proof" to resist the fires?

4. Were there "different" explosives in the buildings or the same type used?

That's just getting started

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

When people ask about 911 in this thread you fill them with lies, disinformation and out-of-context whataboutery

You assert that it was a controlled demolition, yet when I (or anyone) asks you about it you dodge and divert like a politician, you use every deceptive trick in the book not to answer straightforward questions

On top of that it has to be a strong alternative theory because you are contradicting something that is accepted as historical fact, then again you are a Holocaust denier because you believe you "know more" than world historians on the issue

You are asserting it's a controlled demolition:

1. Who planted the explosives? names?

2. Were they the same people that planted the explosives in all of the buildings or different groups?

3. What times, and what parts of the buildings did they rig up? were these explosives "fire proof" to resist the fires?

4. Were there "different" explosives in the buildings or the same type used?

That's just getting started

I just showed you why it was a controlled demolition. You can hear the sonic boom/echo of the explosives going off. They were timed to go off simultaneously in one go. They were set across the building. The boom is so loud the reporter microphone catches it and this reporter is blocks away from the WTC7 building.

NIST claims the entire east floor section had collapsed before the Penthouse fell from bottom to the top. No broken windows dust plumes no visual sign that proves their claim fire collapse had just happened.

The collapse happened very fast. NIST progressive collapse would have taken way longer to happen.

[Deleted User]

I'm also still curious about the fire department chief who Larry said was the master mind behind it all.

Cheerful rants on about other people, yet has never mentioned this guy even when his favourite piece of bullet proof evidence points towards this fire chief.

He's never even bothered to look up his name...

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can hear the sonic boom/echo of the explosives going off. .

That's not what a sonic boom is...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I'm also still curious about the fire department chief who Larry said was the master mind behind it all.

Cheerful rants on about other people, yet has never mentioned this guy even when his favourite piece of bullet proof evidence points towards this fire chief.

He's never even bothered to look up his name...

Why you obsessed with this fire chief?

Silverstein claims he had a conversation with a fire commander and Daniel A Nigro denied having this conversation, he was alleged to be fire commander who spoke with him. Like I told you yesterday he would not reveal who he talked to.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why you obsessed with this fire chief?

Silverstein claims he had a conversation with a fire commander and Daniel A Nigro denied having this conversation, he was alleged to be fire commander who spoke with him. Like I told you yesterday he would not reveal who he talked to.

Because Larry said that this fire chief was the one who made the decision to blow up WTC7.

Of course people would deny having that conversation. Unlike Larry, most people wouldn't just blurt out secrets for no reason.

So this Daniel A Nigro must be the mastermind.
Right?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what a sonic boom is...

Is echo ok for Kingmob?

I was referring to the sound and energy heard.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/inslj19&div=7&id=&page=

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Is echo ok for Kingmob?

I was referring to the sound and energy heard.

Yes, and as always you misuse terms you don't understand to try and sound more informed than you are.
Explosions are not sonic booms.

Also, lol "sound and energy heard?"
How do people hear energy?:rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just showed you why it was a controlled demolition. You can hear the sonic boom/echo of the explosives going off. They were timed to go off simultaneously in one go. They were set across the building. The boom is so loud the reporter microphone catches it and this reporter is blocks away from the WTC7 building.

NIST claims the entire east floor section had collapsed before the Penthouse fell from bottom to the top. No broken windows dust plumes no visual sign that proves their claim fire collapse had just happened.

The collapse happened very fast. NIST progressive collapse would have taken way longer to happen.

Impossible to demolish a building this way, please show evidence of any building being demolished by controlled explosion where all of the charges were detonated simultaneously.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and as always you misuse terms you don't understand to try and sound more informed than you are.
Explosions are not sonic booms.

Also, lol "sound and energy heard?"
How do people hear energy?:rolleyes:

You don't know physics and maths we proved this already. You did not know molten steel when melted is mostly Iron. We have had many problems already with your lack of knowledge and not going to have another tiresome debate with you again when you don't understand something.

Explosion is energy= heard. You did not look at the link I posted

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Impossible to demolish a building this way, please show evidence of any building being demolished by controlled explosion where all of the charges were detonated simultaneously.

I have a feeling they used something like what discussed here in 2002. If this was deep cover operation they're going to use exotic military stuff. You want the signal to travel fast to each point with no delay fibre optics is the best way to do it. Its expensive setup but a clever one.
http://parazite.nn.fi/roguesci/index.php/t-1632.html

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't know physics and maths we proved this already.

No you didn't. Only in your delusions is that the case. You showed yourself to be utterly ignorant. You are childishly trying to mirror what we have shown about you. And for some reason you think it somehow makes it true.
This is either sheer stupidity or mental illness.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Explosion is energy= heard. You did not look at the link I posted

Lol, what?
Explosion is energy= heard?

Do you mean sound?

Also, again you are dodging talking about the mastermind of the whole conspiracy as exposed by Larry's confession.
Why are you avoiding him?
He's was the one who decided to destroy WTC7 contradicting the rest of your conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No you didn't. Only in your delusions is that the case. You showed yourself to be utterly ignorant. You are childishly trying to mirror what we have shown about you. And for some reason you think it somehow makes it true.
This is either sheer stupidity or mental illness.

Lol, what?
Explosion is energy= heard?

Do you mean sound?

Also, again you are dodging talking about the mastermind of the whole conspiracy as exposed by Larry's confession.
Why are you avoiding him?
He's was the one who decided to destroy WTC7 contradicting the rest of your conspiracy.

Nope, not sound. The explosion is both noise and energy. You hear it.

I already said sound. Answered the last post on this.

I better clarify because it's you kingmob and I know another question will come.. Noise is sound we don't like. An explosion is sound we don't like to hear.

Dodging how I answered you and gave you the name of fire commander? What you want me to do phone up Larry and ask him?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nope, not sound. The explosion is both noise and energy. You hear it.

I already said sound. Answered the last post on this.

Yes, I know, that's why your statement makes no sense.

How do you hear energy if it isn't sound?
:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dodging how I answered you and gave you the name of fire commander? What you want me to do phone up Larry and ask him?

I want you to explain how him being the mastermind behind the whole conspiracy fits with the rest of your conspiracy. You've never mentioned him before I brought him up, yet he is the one making all the decisions.

So do you believe this fire chief is the mastermind?
If not, why are you rejecting what Larry said?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I want you to explain how him being the mastermind behind the whole conspiracy fits with the rest of your conspiracy. You've never mentioned him before I brought him up, yet he is the one making all the decisions.

So do you believe this fire chief is the mastermind?
If not, why are you rejecting what Larry said?

Nope, not doing it not debate sound and energy and explosion with you I refuse to:)

Whos the mastermind? This is your own delusion.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nope, not doing it not debate sound and energy and explosion with you I refuse to:)

Because yet again, they are terms you don't understand and you only used in an attempt to sound smart.
Again, such an attempt has made you look like a joke.
Maybe you should stop doing it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Whos the mastermind? This is your own delusion.

Larry said the fire chief he was talking to was the one who made the decision.
You pointed to the person in charge.
Thus he has to be the mastermind.

Do you not believe so?
If not, why then are you rejecting Larry's confession?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Because yet again, they are terms you don't understand and you only used in an attempt to sound smart.
Again, such an attempt has made you look like a joke.
Maybe you should stop doing it.

Larry said the fire chief he was talking to was the one who made the decision.
You pointed to the person in charge.
Thus he has to be the mastermind.

Do you not believe so?
If not, why then are you rejecting Larry's confession?

Larry bull****ting?
Revealed why multiple times
You just formed a new theory out of thin air the fire chief was involved and never said he was. This is why I always tell you your posts are disjointed you confuse me.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Larry bull****ting?
Revealed why multiple times
You just formed a new theory out of thin air the fire chief was involved and never said he was.

Wait... Why would he confess to being part of the conspiracy, then make up stuff about that?
Why would he lie and tell the truth?

If he was bull****ting about talking to the fire chief then he was bull****ting about the entire story, including the "pull it" stuff.

So the evidence you use to prove he was involved is just bull****?

This is why you've been avoiding talking about it.

How do you know that he's bull**** about talking to the fire chief, but being completely truthful about the other parts?
Why would he lie about the fire chief, but not lie about it being demolished?
Which parts of his confession are true and which are lies and how do you know?
How do you know for a fact that the fire chief isn't involved and isn't the one who decided to demolish the building as per Larry's statement?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is why I always tell you your posts are disjointed you confuse me.

Lol, again you are mirroring and parroting like a child.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Wait... Why would he confess to being part of the conspiracy, then make up stuff about that?
Why would he lie and tell the truth?

If he was bull****ting about talking to the fire chief then he was bull****ting about the entire story, including the "pull it" stuff.

So the evidence you use to prove he was involved is just bull****?

This is why you've been avoiding talking about it.

Lol, again you are mirroring and parroting like a child.

Why don't you ask him? Fire chief has no name, he refuses to reveal it.

Do you think firechief rigged the building with a few firefighters on 9/11? It's dumb disjointed speculation

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why don't you ask him? Fire chief has no name, he refuses to reveal it.

I'm asking you, as it's your bat**** theory.
You believe he confessed on camera.
You also believe that he was lying in that confession.
This is a contradiction.

Which bits were true and which are false and how do you know?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you think firechief rigged the building with a few firefighters on 9/11? It's dumb disjointed speculation

Nope. I don't believe that's the case.
However, it is in line with the very silly stuff you believe as you stated the WTC could be rigged up by 8 guys on a weekend.