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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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?

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

Larry said this.
They made the decision to pull it and we watched the building fall

Who made the decision to pull it. Larry says a fire commander. Then when asked to reveal the name he refuses to. Nigro said he did not phone him and he doe not know of anyone who did,

Do we have to have a name to prove Larry story?

I told you already in this thread there were no firefighters in the building to pull out or remove. This what Larry spokeperson claimed the pull it referred to.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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.

NIST claims one column buckling on one floor is what lead to the collapse of building 7. Yep if that was easy a few hours job done home for sandwiches and tea:)

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Larry said this.
They made the decision to pull it and we watched the building fall

Who made the decision to pull it. Larry says a fire commander. Then when asked to reveal the name he refuses to. Nigro said he did not phone him and he doe not know of anyone who did,

Do we have to have a name to prove Larry story?

I told you already in this thread there were no firefighters in the building to pull out or remove. This what Larry spokeperson claimed the pull it referred to.

Now you are deflecting again. I asked you very simple questions:
Which parts of Larry's confessions are true and which are false? And how do you know?
Why would he lie in some parts, but tell the truth in others?

Why do you immediately believe Nigro when he says he didn't talk to Larry? Why would he say he talked to him and expose himself as being part of the conspiracy?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST claims one column buckling on one floor is what lead to the collapse of building 7. Yep if that was easy a few hours job done home for sandwiches and tea:)

But again, what's what you said was the explanation for your conspiracy.
You said that it was 8 people over a weekend.

Yet, you say that a firechief getting a small group together to rig up the whole site is ridiculous.

So either you are being disgustingly dishonest, again.
Or you don't even know your own conspiracy theory, you are making it up on the fly, and don't care when you contradict yourself.

Personally, I think it's clear it's both of those answers.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Now you are deflecting again. I asked you very simple questions:
Which parts of Larry's confessions are true and which are false? And how do you know?
Why would he lie in some parts, but tell the truth in others?

Why do you immediately believe Nigro when he says he didn't talk to Larry? Why would he say he talked to him and expose himself as being part of the conspiracy?

If he just named the fire commander he spoke to we can stop accusing him of lying.. They both spoke on the phone he must know him. He said he phoned him.

There no evidence Nigro is a liar many of his friends died on 9/11. They are real heroes who risked their lives on 9/11

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But again, what's what you said was the explanation for your conspiracy.
You said that it was 8 people over a weekend.

Yet, you say that a firechief getting a small group together to rig up the whole site is ridiculous.

So either you are being disgustingly dishonest, again.
Or you don't even know your own conspiracy theory, you are making it up on the fly, and don't care when you contradict yourself.

Personally, I think it's clear it's both of those answers.

I said if nanothermite was the only explosive incendiary they used the job would be quick and not difficult probably would not need a big team. I said if explosives+ nanothermite was used it take more time and they plenty of time to do it pre 9/11. Also said if they used wireless connection to set off the charges then there no need for long wires across mutiple floors.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If he just named the fire commander he spoke to we can stop accusing him of lying.. They both spoke on the phone he must know him. He said he phoned him.

So why do you think he lied?
What benefit did that gain him?
Why did he tell the truth about being involved in a vast conspiracy, yet then also lie? That makes no sense.
Why not just lie and say he wasn't involved? Or just not say it was a controlled demolition?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There no evidence Nigro is a liar many of his friends died on 9/11. They are real heroes who risked their lives on 9/11

But he'd have to be involved in the conspiracy as well, as you've pointed to many times that the FDNY was involved. He also has never contradicted the real explanation for the collapse, so he must be directly involved as well.

On top of that, there have been many people who you accuse of being involved who also lost people. So you believe that having friends die doesn't stop people from being involved.
You are again contradicting yourself.

Also, a bit disgusting of you to praise firefighters of being heroes with one hand, while accusing them of involvement with the other.
But for a lying racist propagandist, it's par for the course.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I said if nanothermite was the only explosive incendiary they used the job would be quick and not difficult probably would not need a big team. I said if explosives+ nanothermite was used it take more time and they plenty of time to do it pre 9/11. Also said if they used wireless connection to set off the charges then there no need for long wires across mutiple floors.

Yup. And that's as idiotic and silly and far fetched as the idea of a fire chief getting a group of guys to do the same thing.
Again, you are showing yourself up with your own confused theories that you make up on the fly.

Cheerful Spring

[QUOTE=King Mob;109510703
Also, a bit disgusting of you to praise firefighters of being heroes with one hand, while accusing them of involvement with the other.

Hilarious whataboutery from Kingmob again.

[Deleted User]

And more deflection using a term you are mindlessly parroting.

This is the case with all of your theories.
If they are held down and examined you deflect and throw tantrums in spectacular childish fashion.
It exposes exactly how little sense your theories make and it exposes how little you know.
You don't like that as it ruins your fantasy of being a rebel researcher with secret knowledge.
You don't like the reality that you are a gullible rube who has been suckered in by youtube videos and paranoid idiots.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And more deflection using a term you are mindlessly parroting.

This is the case with all of your theories.
If they are held down and examined you deflect and throw tantrums in spectacular childish fashion.
It exposes exactly how little sense your theories make and it exposes how little you know.
You don't like that as it ruins your fantasy of being a rebel researcher with secret knowledge.
You don't like the reality that you are a gullible rube who has been suckered in by youtube videos and paranoid idiots.

You lie constantly. My last post tonight.

Never ever said the FDNY was involved. Do you ever stop posting lies?
Accusing Nigro of involvement is low even for you. Why would he be?
If he believes the building fell down due to fire, fine so what? I don't accuse him of covering up controlled demolition because he opinion is different to mine.
A respected Holocaust historian is also a holocaust denier and a racist for disbelieving 6 million Jews deaths. This how you think
I believe people who tell the truth. The reason I distrust Silverstein.

[Deleted User]

Ok then if that's all true answer the questions.

What parts did Larry lie about and why and how do you know?
How do you know he wasn't lying about all of it?

jeremyj1968

Jesus lads, three full pages. I think ye should just agree to disagree, and leave it there. From my point of view, I think that Building 7 should be re-investigated. I'm not saying what did or did not happen, I just think that the current explanation is not acceptable. If a plane goes down, they don't just say "Ah sure it doesn't happen that often". They ground all other planes until they know what happened. And we really don't know for sure what happened in this case. To quote John Lennon "that's all we're asking".

If anybody has other similar collapses, please send me a link. thanks. I'm thinking of doing a documentary, so I need all the facts. I know what you're thinking, another 9/11 conspiracy documentary, that's exactly what the Internet needs!

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have a feeling they used something like what discussed here in 2002

Well your link doesn't work so i have no idea what it is you are trying to claim.was used. Amazing how you can start a post with "I have a feeling" and expect us to debate you when you think that your "feeling" trumps facts.

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

Really? Fibre optics? Can you post me evidence to a building that was demolished by using fibreoptics and where all of the explosives were detonated simultaneously?

It's just that you keep coming back to the point that pre 9-11 no steel structure building haf collapsed due to fire and constantly ask for evidence of it happening since. I'm sure you will have no problem linking the evidence that i have requested above.

Also, you say you want the signal to travel fast to each point with no delay, what is the detination speed for fibre optics? Det cord has a PETN rate of 6400 m/s thats 6.4 kilometers a second! If thats not instantaneous then please explain

1. How fast fibreoptic detonation is.
2. Where/when it was used previously.
3. Why it would be better to use bearing im mind fibre optic cable is pretty fragile, one bump/chink and its useless.

Its expensive setup but a clever one.
http://parazite.nn.fi/roguesci/index.php/t-1632.html

Again, please show evidence of it being used.

The Nal

How did they wire the buildings without anyone noticing?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just showed you why it was a controlled demolition.

No you didn't, and weaseled your way out of answering the questions yet again

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?

Dohnjoe

WTC 1 and WTC 2 are the really mind-blowing ones. If they wired the whole buildings for demolition (as cheerful is claiming), they would have been classed as one of the largest building demolition projects ever undertaken, all done in secret, in the center of New York, "silent" explosives", somehow managing to hide all the det cord, cut beams

What if one of the planes missed? and this building was discovered wired up to the hilt?

So, so many questions about these "theories"

mikekerry

Dohnjoe wrote: »

WTC 1 and WTC 2 are the really mind-blowing ones. If they wired the whole buildings for demolition (as cheerful is claiming), they would have been classed as one of the largest building demolition projects ever undertaken, all done in secret, in the center of New York, "silent" explosives", somehow managing to hide all the det cord, cut beams

What if one of the planes missed? and this building was discovered wired up to the hilt?

So, so many questions about these "theories"

Dohnjoe it really is mind blowing that 3 skyscrapers came down that day. I suppose if there were proper reports that showed exactly how they collapsed there would be a lot less questions on the topic. Not sure if there were other reports apart from the commission report? which was a sham really. It didn't even mention building 7. Probably the real truth will never come out anyway

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Larry said this.
They made the decision to pull it and we watched the building fall

Very simple. They made the decision to pull the firefighters away from the building and then they watched it fall. Which is precisely what happened. Which is exactly what Larry Silverstein clarified

You've decided it means something else entirely. You whole "conspiracy" hinges on your interpretation of it

Think about it, you've concocted an entire zany conspiracy, which you can't support in any other way, based on what you think someone said in a live national TV interview

This is the level of mental we are dealing with here

You offer the best counter-argument to conspiracy theorists by demonstrating how absurd they are. All you need to do is keep responding in this thread

Dohnjoe

mikekerry wrote: »

Dohnjoe it really is mind blowing that 3 skyscrapers came down that day. I suppose if there were proper reports that showed exactly how they collapsed there would be a lot less questions on the topic. Not sure if there were other reports apart from the commission report? which was a sham really. It didn't even mention building 7. Probably the real truth will never come out anyway

Terrorists flew planes into buildings, I watched it happening live on TV. It was extraordinary. If you are suggesting that they flew planes into buildings that were secretly rigged with explosives in the largest act of treason in the US, that's much more extraordinary, hence the questions, hence this thread

There were extensive investigations into what happened, one took 3 years and involved up to 200 structural engineers, architects, forensic scientists, investigators and related experts. They witnessed hundreds of people, reviewed tens of thousands of documents, photos, video footage
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

If you don't want to read that stuff here's a FAQ
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Terrorists flew planes into buildings, I watched it happening live on TV. It was extraordinary. If you are suggesting that they flew planes into buildings that were secretly rigged with explosives in the largest act of treason in the US, that's much more extraordinary, hence the questions, hence this thread

There were extensive investigations into what happened, one took 3 years and involved up to 200 structural engineers, architects, forensic scientists, investigators and related experts. They witnessed hundreds of people, reviewed tens of thousands of documents, photos, video footage
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

If you don't want to read that stuff here's a FAQ
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

You can see the explosion squibs on video. You see the debris and air is pushed and forced outwards at the right corners below the collapse zone.

Where the debris escapes, the floors have not yet collapsed.

[IMG][/img]

via Imgflip GIF Maker

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can see the explosion squibs on video. You see the debris and air is pushed and forced outwards at the right corners below the collapse zone.

It's straightforward, answer the questions

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?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's straightforward, answer the questions

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?

Why do you deny the evidence? You can see debris and air is ejected and escapes on floors beneath the collapse zone. One squib is about 7 to 10 floors below the collapse. This is why the towers came down at free fall speeds the structural resistance was gone underneath.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Very simple. They made the decision to pull the firefighters away from the building and then they watched it fall. Which is precisely what happened. Which is exactly what Larry Silverstein clarified

You've decided it means something else entirely. You whole "conspiracy" hinges on your interpretation of it

Think about it, you've concocted an entire zany conspiracy, which you can't support in any other way, based on what you think someone said in a live national TV interview

This is the level of mental we are dealing with here

You offer the best counter-argument to conspiracy theorists by demonstrating how absurd they are. All you need to do is keep responding in this thread

This was reported by truthers and debunkers online. Different opinions about what it all meant obviously

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
[/B]

Again this statement is not true. FEMA even said in their report there were no firefighters inside WTC7 in the afternoon. So who are the seven firefighters Silverstein spokesperson said were inside the building fighting fires in the afternoon? Why is so hard to get an honest answer from Silverstein. Why can't he just reveal the fire chief name and then people can stop calling him a liar?

Silverstein involvement or not does not change the facts building seven was taken down by controlled demolition. We just know someone ordered it done and Silverstein is a suspect.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

air is ejected and escapes on floors beneath the collapse zone

Correct

Back to the glaring questions about this gigantic inside plot you keep mentioning..

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?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

WTC 1 and WTC 2 are the really mind-blowing ones. If they wired the whole buildings for demolition (as cheerful is claiming), they would have been classed as one of the largest building demolition projects ever undertaken, all done in secret, in the center of New York, "silent" explosives", somehow managing to hide all the det cord, cut beams

What if one of the planes missed? and this building was discovered wired up to the hilt?

So, so many questions about these "theories"

Do you think the demolitions can be seen by the public? You can only access the steel central core by way of the elevator shafts and special access rooms. The public would have not noticed anything unusual.

They had plenty of time to bring in demolitions pre 9/11. They could have done this work at night and at weekends. We know for a fact repair men were constantly upgrading the facilities inside the buildings. One project was to modernise the elevators and was carried out by a company called A.C.E. Elevator Company. The company mysteriously disappeared in 2006 claiming bankruptcy though people speculate it was a front company got rid of it to hide the trail back to the conspirators

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Correct

Back to the glaring questions about this gigantic inside plot you keep mentioning..

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?

The only evidence so far explosives were used is the red/grey chips found in the dust. They were nano chemical explosives expensive to make and only a few labs in the country could afford to make it. The military would have access to nano metal explosives.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you think the demolitions can be seen by the public? You can only access the steel central core by way of the elevator shafts and special access rooms. The public would have not noticed anything unusual.

Lol

[Deleted User]

And remember they had to blow up WTC7 cause stealing and shredding paper work was too noticeable.

banie01

So we are back to silent explosives and all the already debunked nano thermite red dust evidence.

All whilst avoiding the simple questions asked by Dohnjoe?