To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Dohnjoe · 07-12-2018 5:57pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

.

The mainstream news in the US are shills for the US government. So we never going to get the truth from them.

So why has Trump declared war on the media?

Is this where you decide to go full deep state Alex Jones just to distance yourself from Alex Jones?

The Nal · 07-12-2018 6:53pm

The main stream media have done nothing but expose the current government, help to leak information and are basically at war with the current White House.

The main stream media uncovered Watergate, were all over the Iran/Contra affair and now employ Oliver North as a commentator. They have uncovered and reported on Clintons Lewinski affair, Grover Clevelands illegitimate son, the Petticoat affair and Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, both of which were about was 200 years ago. All of the above reported on and exposed under extreme pressure not to do so from the US government. Literally, hundreds of years of main stream media exposing the US government.

Thats to name but a few. Heres a list, which is incomplete. All reported on by the mainstream media. Shills for the US government.

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

storker · 07-12-2018 7:46pm

The Nal wrote: »

The main stream media have done nothing but expose the current government, help to leak information and are basically at war with the current White House.

I tend to think that when someone or some organisation is annoying both sides equally, they're probably getting the balance right.

(Cf. the EU, which is considered too left-wing by the Tory party, and too right-wing by Labour.

)

Ipso · 07-12-2018 8:24pm

Conspiracy theorists are the original hipsters, the media is too mainstream for them.

Cheerful Spring · 07-12-2018 9:10pm

The Nal wrote: »

This has nothing to do with 9/11. Zero, nada.

No one denies governments engage in covert acts and deception.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/30/us/white-house-crisis-evidence-points-big-saudi-role-iranian-contra-arms-deals.html

Prince Bandar was funding the Iran-Contra affair. He involved in all the shady stuff for last 30+ years.

Prince Bandar funded and facilitated the 9/11 attacks.

Cheerful Spring · 07-12-2018 9:15pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So why has Trump declared war on the media?

Is this where you decide to go full deep state Alex Jones just to distance yourself from Alex Jones?

That's trump. He, not even politician his a reality host an outsider. Why do you think the establishment hates him his not one of them.

Cheerful Spring · 07-12-2018 9:44pm

The Nal wrote: »

The main stream media have done nothing but expose the current government, help to leak information and are basically at war with the current White House.

The main stream media uncovered Watergate, were all over the Iran/Contra affair and now employ Oliver North as a commentator. They have uncovered and reported on Clintons Lewinski affair, Grover Clevelands illegitimate son, the Petticoat affair and Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, both of which were about was 200 years ago. All of the above reported on and exposed under extreme pressure not to do so from the US government. Literally, hundreds of years of main stream media exposing the US government.

Thats to name but a few. Heres a list, which is incomplete. All reported on by the mainstream media. Shills for the US government.

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

Bush frightened everyone after 9/11. You either with us or against us he said! I think reporters were afraid to investigate 9/11 and be labelled unAmerican. America did a lot of bad **** to people after 9/11. Rendition flights, torture, holding people without trial. The patriotic act is actually no different to the Nazi enabling act. You could go on all day about it, but people seem to ignore this behaviour because its America. It was Wikileaks who exposed the scandals if I remember correctly not official media in the US.

I never said official media never exposed government corruption in the past. You looking to the past to claim the same standards apply always. I don't think that was the case with 9/11.

Since its relevant to our discussion.

The Watergate scandal was exposed by two reporters at the Washington Post. The media did not join in and go after Nixon until some time later. By the way, an insider approached the reporters and gave them inside information so they did not find this all out on there own.

E Howard Hunt who was CIA and was involved in organising the Watergate breakin claimed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. He even listed some of those people involved before he died.

storker · 07-12-2018 11:18pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Bush frightened everyone after 9/11. You either with us or against us he said!

This is not proof of anything.

I think reporters were afraid to investigate 9/11 and be labelled unAmerican. America did a lot of bad **** to people after 9/11.

What you think doesn't amount to proof either.

Rendition flights, torture, holding people without trial. The patriotic act is actually no different to the Nazi enabling act. You could go on all day about it, but people seem to ignore this behaviour because its America.

In the context of 9/11, it's ignored because it...wait for it...doesn't prove anything. Are you seeing a pattern here yet?

The Watergate scandal was exposed by two reporters at the Washington Post. The media did not join in and go after Nixon until some time later. By the way, an insider approached the reporters and gave them inside information so they did not find this all out on there own.

The Washington post stood by the story because the editor was sufficiently satisfied by what the reports had uncovered to deem it worth the considerable risk. Remember that Woodward and Bernstein had an inside source. Where is the inside source that is informing the 911 movement? Where is the newspaper prepared to stand over the conspiracy claims? What risk is run by uploading a Youtube video or hosting a 911 Conspiracy website? To liken 911 conspiracy fans with Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee is to stick two fingers up to real investigative journalism.

E Howard Hunt who was CIA and was involved in organising the Watergate breakin claimed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. He even listed some of those people involved before he died.

This is a claim, and what he said was a claim if he said it, because even the claim that he made the claims has not been verified. See if you can work out how this fails to qualify as proof.

Dohnjoe · 08-12-2018 11:30am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Bush frightened everyone after 9/11. You either with us or against us he said! I think reporters were afraid to investigate 9/11 and be labelled unAmerican. America did a lot of bad **** to people after 9/11. Rendition flights, torture, holding people without trial. The patriotic act is actually no different to the Nazi enabling act. You could go on all day about it, but people seem to ignore this behaviour because its America. It was Wikileaks who exposed the scandals if I remember correctly not official media in the US.

Horse**** again

Abu Ghraib and extraodinary rendition were broken and reported by US press and other outlets. Like it or not, the "Nazi enabling act" was supported by a majority of Americans, but democracy, what can you do. The US president can't even bar one journalist from his own press conference. Everything you come out with seems to be shaped by this ridiculous anti-establishment conspiracy narrative

weisses · 12-12-2018 10:45pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The official investigation concluded that the building fell due to fire

I lost count asking for the relevant info ?

Can you provide the solid evidence that building 7 collapsed due to fires ??

I noticed you are so evidence based .... then provide it when asked for it !

Dohnjoe · 12-12-2018 11:14pm

weisses wrote: »

Can you provide the solid evidence that building 7 collapsed due to fires ??

I noticed you are so evidence based .... then provide it when asked for it !

This has been answered many times. The NIST (and other investigations) support the theory. It's corroborated, science-based, credible evidence. It's backed by consensus, it's findings have been implemented by industry. It's overwhelmingly accepted. Open any encyclopedia, credible information site, relevant history book, etc it's all right there

Can I provide credible evidence that WTC 7 fell down due to fire? sure

Can you accept it? nope. You've repeatedly demonstrated that.
Are you willing to seek out the information on proper sites? nope, you've demonstrated you go to conspiracy sites
Are you willing to go to actual engineers, architects, etc for information? nope
Do you have a theory? yup
Can you support that theory in any way? nope
Do you require evidence to believe that theory? nope

There's so much whack and contradiction in this debate I don't know where to start.

Cheerful Spring · 12-12-2018 11:29pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This has been answered many times. The NIST (and other investigations) support the theory. It's corroborated, science-based, credible evidence. It's backed by consensus, it's findings have been implemented by industry. It's overwhelmingly accepted. Open any encyclopedia, credible information site, relevant history book, etc it's all right there

Can I provide credible evidence that WTC 7 fell down due to fire? sure

Can you accept it? nope. You've repeatedly demonstrated that.
Are you willing to seek out the information on proper sites? nope, you've demonstrated you go to conspiracy sites
Are you willing to go to actual engineers, architects, etc for information? nope
Do you have a theory? yup
Can you support that theory in any way? nope
Do you require evidence to believe that theory? nope

There's so much whack and contradiction in this debate I don't know where to start.

The truth movement won a small battle.

Sept. 11th Legal Breakthrough: U.S. Attorney For The Southern District Of New York Agrees To Comply With Federal Law Requiring That He Submit Evidence Of Still-Unprosecuted Federal Crimes At Ground Zero On 9/11 To A Special Criminal Grand Jury

It looks like the truther evidence will be listened to in a court of law.

Mainstream news silent about this of course.

Cheerful Spring · 12-12-2018 11:32pm

http://conspiracynews.in/for-the-first-time-since-9-11-federal-govt-takes-steps-to-prosecute-the-use-of-explosives-to-destroy-wtcs/

In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Centers.
The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).

After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that they will comply with the law.
“We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman stated.

This letter from the U.S. Attorney was signed by Michael Ferrara and Ilan Graff, Chiefs, Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit.

Dohnjoe · 12-12-2018 11:41pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It looks like the truther evidence will be listened to in a court of law.

I believe it's a letter confirming that the evidence has been submitted to a "special Criminal Grand Jury"

Chances are high they will reject it (I don't know all the legal ins and outs). I would love to see this go to an actual court.

weisses · 13-12-2018 10:50am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Can I provide credible evidence that WTC 7 fell down due to fire? sure

Then provide it here on thread for all to see, for me to disagree with proper scientific evidence based reports I need to see it right ?

Stop dodging

I know NIST supports the theory ... they created it ..... Now we need the solid credible evidence that supports said theory

None of you skeptics on this thread have provided any solid evidence that supports the theory ....

You are masters of deflection I have to give you that

Cheerful Spring · 13-12-2018 6:40pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I believe it's a letter confirming that the evidence has been submitted to a "special Criminal Grand Jury"

Chances are high they will reject it (I don't know all the legal ins and outs). I would love to see this go to an actual court.

Yep, they be shown the evidence.

They could be setting the truth movement up for a fall or we could finally be seeing transparency on this issue. We have to wait and see. Not jumping up and down claiming its victory yet, till I know what happens.

Dohnjoe · 13-12-2018 8:17pm

weisses wrote: »

Then provide it here on thread for all to see, for me to disagree with proper scientific evidence based reports I need to see it right ?

It's been provided in the thread already.

Q&A
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610

I know NIST supports the theory ... they created it ..... Now we need the solid credible evidence that supports said theory

A previous investigation determined the building fell due to fire. The NIST investigation reinforced those findings and went into more detail

None of you skeptics on this thread have provided any solid evidence that supports the theory ....

Yeah we have, it's called the NIST report. It supports the overwhelmingly accepted theory that WTC 7 fell due to fire. It's industry accepted. What are you talking about?

You are masters of deflection I have to give you that

Deflecting from what?

The main theory is that WTC 7 fell due to fire, that is widely accepted. It's supported by at least two investigations. There are no other theories with credible evidence, even you admit that.

This thread is for alternative theories with credible evidence - you can't provide any.

Dohnjoe · 13-12-2018 8:23pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yep, they be shown the evidence.

They could be setting the truth movement up for a fall or we could finally be seeing transparency on this issue. We have to wait and see. Not jumping up and down claiming its victory yet, till I know what happens.

Taking bets

a) outright rejected for being utter twaddle
b) dumped by judge early in proceedings for being utter twaddle
c) eviscerated in court for being utter twaddle

It's proponents will then claim that the court/jury/judge/whatever are part of the "inside job cover-up" nonsense

The lawyers will make bank either way

Dohnjoe · 13-12-2018 8:25pm

The first post in this thread for individuals who clearly have difficulty understanding it

To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?
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

Cheerful Spring · 13-12-2018 10:32pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Taking bets

a) outright rejected for being utter twaddle
b) dumped by judge early in proceedings for being utter twaddle
c) eviscerated in court for being utter twaddle

It's proponents will then claim that the court/jury/judge/whatever are part of the "inside job cover-up" nonsense

The lawyers will make bank either way

No that just sad.

You have prejudged the outcome already no surprise.

If nobody sees what happening then it a pointless exercise. I want to see the arguments and rebuttals that transparency.

Cheerful Spring · 13-12-2018 10:48pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's been provided in the thread already.

Q&A
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610

A previous investigation determined the building fell due to fire. The NIST investigation reinforced those findings and went into more detail

Yeah we have, it's called the NIST report. It supports the overwhelmingly accepted theory that WTC 7 fell due to fire. It's industry accepted. What are you talking about?

Deflecting from what?

The main theory is that WTC 7 fell due to fire, that is widely accepted. It's supported by at least two investigations. There are no other theories with credible evidence, even you admit that.

This thread is for alternative theories with credible evidence - you can't provide any.

It only accepted because the alternative scares people. They can not imagine people in power would deliberately demolish buildings and kill Americans. So they keep denying the evidence that available to them. There no evidence a few office fires can demolish a 47 floor building. NIST own theory is fraudulent and you know that. It, not a truther conspiracy or a lie when they state NIST removed important construction elements from a girder at column 79. It established fact they did so in their study. They had to remove them to have that girder slide of it seat unhindered. Do you think it ok to do that so that you claim fires brought down the building? Or do you want an honest study and there be no debate what caused the building to fall? I would not be debating this if I knew the NIST study was honest and truthful.

Dohnjoe · 14-12-2018 10:26am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No that just sad.

You have prejudged the outcome already no surprise.

If nobody sees what happening then it a pointless exercise. I want to see the arguments and rebuttals that transparency.

Again I'd love to see it actually go to court, but it's so unlikely to make it that far. If there is an angle of slander or something, then maybe, otherwise it's highly likely to be rejected

Cheerful Spring · 14-12-2018 1:19pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Again I'd love to see it actually go to court, but it's so unlikely to make it that far. If there is an angle of slander or something, then maybe, otherwise it's highly likely to be rejected

State attorney will make the recommendation to the grand jury to proceed or reject it. If he rejects the truthers will say we told you so. If they hear the evidence and still reject it later least that something in regards to transparency. I like to see the issue least debated in a open setting in a court of law.

Put the NIST guys on the stand and have them answer direct questions about their study. They have avoided this for 10 years. They never debated anyone who disagreed with their conclusions.

Dohnjoe · 14-12-2018 8:03pm

This is it

https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/

They are literally using the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 early as evidence..

I would give my right arm for this case to get to an actual court.

Cheerful Spring · 14-12-2018 8:08pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is it

https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/

They are literally using the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 early as evidence..

I would give my right arm for this case to get to an actual court.

Why not. There no way anyone could have predicted a failure at column 79 (40minutes) before it occurred. That event is very suspicious as its reason NIST gave for why the floors gave way and collapsed across the width of the building. If that event did not happen then how does building 7 fall?

Dohnjoe · 14-12-2018 10:09pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why not. There no way anyone could have predicted a failure at column 79 (40minutes) before it occurred. That event is very suspicious as its reason NIST gave for why the floors gave way and collapsed across the width of the building. If that event did not happen then how does building 7 fall?

I want whatever you are smoking, seriously

Imagine how this "evidence" would go down in a case

The next piece of evidence; the BBC knew in advance of WTC 7 collapse
Cross-examination: "You assert the BBC were informed of a plot to blow up the buildings, by whom?
Truther: "We don't know"
CE: "Why would the perpetrators of this plot warn the media?"
Truther: "We don't know"
CE: "If the building was going to fall, the media would report it falling, why would the plotters gain by releasing the information ahead of time to journalists?"
Truther: "We aren't sure"
CE: "We have the journalist here, the newsrunner, the transcripts, the editor at the time, they all support the fact that it was a simple mistake, there was a lot of speculation the building was going to fall, there was a lot of false reports on the day, what evidence do you have contrary to that?"
Truther: "We don't, but don't you find it strange.."
CE: "So you have no evidence to back this claim, a claim which makes no logical sense to either the plotters or the BBC, and you believe this is key evidence that the buildings were blown up?
Truther: "Yes"

..

Cheerful Spring · 14-12-2018 10:35pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I want whatever you are smoking, seriously

Imagine how this "evidence" would go down in a case

The next piece of evidence; the BBC knew in advance of WTC 7 collapse
Cross-examination: "You assert the BBC were informed of a plot to blow up the buildings, by whom?
Truther: "We don't know"
CE: "Why would the perpetrators of this plot warn the media?"
Truther: "We don't know"
CE: "If the building was going to fall, the media would report it falling, why would the plotters gain by releasing the information ahead of time to journalists?"
Truther: "We aren't sure"
CE: "We have the journalist here, the newsrunner, the transcripts, the editor at the time, they all support the fact that it was a simple mistake, there was a lot of speculation the building was going to fall, there was a lot of false reports on the day, what evidence do you have contrary to that?"
Truther: "We don't, but don't you find it strange.."
CE: "So you have no evidence to back this claim, a claim which makes no logical sense to either the plotters or the BBC, and you believe this is key evidence that the buildings were blown up?
Truther: "Yes"

..

That not the truther position. Nobody, well I am not claiming the BBC are involved in this conspiracy. What I believe is possible. The information about a pending collapse was put out there to prepare the media for the eventuality. WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you try to make seem like this was going to happen and not odd that it occurred- don't worry folks nothing to see here!

Dohnjoe · 14-12-2018 11:41pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That not the truther position.

Yes it is. It's one of the pieces of evidence they submitted.

King Mob · 14-12-2018 11:44pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I want whatever you are smoking, seriously

Imagine how this "evidence" would go down in a case

The next piece of evidence; the BBC knew in advance of WTC 7 collapse
Cross-examination: "You assert the BBC were informed of a plot to blow up the buildings, by whom?
Truther: "We don't know"
CE: "Why would the perpetrators of this plot warn the media?"
Truther: "We don't know"
CE: "If the building was going to fall, the media would report it falling, why would the plotters gain by releasing the information ahead of time to journalists?"
Truther: "We aren't sure"
CE: "We have the journalist here, the newsrunner, the transcripts, the editor at the time, they all support the fact that it was a simple mistake, there was a lot of speculation the building was going to fall, there was a lot of false reports on the day, what evidence do you have contrary to that?"
Truther: "We don't, but don't you find it strange.."
CE: "So you have no evidence to back this claim, a claim which makes no logical sense to either the plotters or the BBC, and you believe this is key evidence that the buildings were blown up?
Truther: "Yes"

..

That not the truther position. Nobody, well I am not claiming the BBC are involved in this conspiracy. What I believe is possible. The information about a pending collapse was put out there to prepare the media for the eventuality. WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you try to make seem like this was going to happen and not odd that it occurred- don't worry folks nothing to see here!

So who told the BBC?
When did they tell them and who did they tell?
What was their name?
Why would the BBC then announce the collapse early? Did they not look out a window?
Was the guy from the conspiracy unclear?

Remember, you asked those exact questions when presented with the real explanation.

Cheerful Spring · 15-12-2018 2:23am

King Mob wrote: »

So who told the BBC?
When did they tell them and who did they tell?
What was their name?
Why would the BBC then announce the collapse early? Did they not look out a window?
Was the guy from the conspiracy unclear?

Remember, you asked those exact questions when presented with the real explanation.

It was provided to Reuters by an anonymous source and from there BBC passed it onto their audience least that what I read. The BBC claimed they could find out who the source was.

King Mob · 15-12-2018 5:18am

Ok, so who was the anonymous source?
When did they tell them?
Where's the copy of this report?
Are routers involved in the conspiracy too?
Why did routers and the BBC report on iy when they could see it wasn't true?

weisses · 15-12-2018 3:01pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's been provided in the thread already.

Q&A
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610

That is a hypothesis ... they dont provide solid evidence .. You know that right ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A previous investigation determined the building fell due to fire. The NIST investigation reinforced those findings and went into more detail

Which investigation was that ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah we have, it's called the NIST report. It supports the overwhelmingly accepted theory that WTC 7 fell due to fire. It's industry accepted. What are you talking about?

You do realize the nist report doesn't supply any solid evidence right ?

That is the fact that is widely accepted

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The main theory is that WTC 7 fell due to fire, that is widely accepted. It's supported by at least two investigations. There are no other theories with credible evidence, even you admit that.

Its a theory ..and they created a computer model to support the theory ... Even you have to admit that computer model is flawed and inaccurate ... if not maybe spec-savers is the next port of call

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This thread is for alternative theories with credible evidence - you can't provide any.

You haven't either for the NIST theory ...other then copy pasting the NIST theory .... your hilarious

I ask again ...where is the solid evidence NIST provided that shows WTC7 fell due to fire?

Cheerful Spring · 15-12-2018 3:29pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so who was the anonymous source?
When did they tell them?
Where's the copy of this report?
Are routers involved in the conspiracy too?
Why did routers and the BBC report on iy when they could see it wasn't true?

Reuters claim they got the information from a local news channel. But they have never revealed what local channel they referring to so people can not check up on this and see if the source was outside the news channel.

King Mob · 15-12-2018 3:35pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Reuters claim they got the information from a local news channel. But they have never revealed what local channel they referring to so people can check up on this and if the source was outside the news channel.

Ok, which news channel? And which person at Reuters got this information?
And who at Reuters passed this info on to whom at the BBC?

Why did Reuters pass on the information that the Building had collapsed?
Why did the BBC report that it had collapsed?
Surely they both could tell that it obviously wasn't true?
Why then would they not investigate where this obviously untrue information came from?

Are Reuters part of the conspiracy?

Cheerful Spring · 15-12-2018 3:41pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, which news channel? And which person at Reuters got this information?
And who at Reuters passed this info on to whom at the BBC?

Why did Reuters pass on the information that the Building had collapsed?
Why did the BBC report that it had collapsed?
Surely they both could tell that it obviously wasn't true?
Why then would they not investigate where this obviously untrue information came from?

Are Reuters part of the conspiracy?

BBC looked into this and they claimed they got this information from Reuters. Reuters then made a statement the received information from a local news station WTC7 had collapsed and passed it on. Who gave the local news station this information about WTC7 collapse, is unknown.

King Mob · 15-12-2018 3:46pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

BBC looked into this and they claimed they got this information from Reuters. Reuters then made a statement the received information from a local news station WTC7 had collapsed and passed it on. Who gave the local news station this information about WTC7 collapse, is unknown.

Ok.
Source for all that? Please provide a link.
What local news station was it? When did they pass on this information? Who in Reuters received this information and passed it onto the BBC and when?

Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story?
Are they part of the conspiracy?
Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy?

Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?
Why did neither the BBC or Reuters report that this false report they were fed were part of a conspiracy?

Cheerful Spring · 15-12-2018 3:48pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
Source for all that? Please provide a link.

Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story?
Are they part of the conspiracy?
Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy?

Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

King Mob · 15-12-2018 3:52pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

Great!
Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story?
Are they part of the conspiracy?
Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy?

Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?

Dohnjoe · 15-12-2018 3:57pm

weisses wrote: »

That is a hypothesis ... they dont provide solid evidence .. You know that right ?

It's a conclusion that's widely accepted (except by e.g. conspiracy theorists)

Which investigation was that ?

There's been two, FEMA and NIST

You do realize the nist report doesn't supply any solid evidence right ?

That is the fact that is widely accepted

False

Its a theory ..and they created a computer model to support the theory ... Even you have to admit that computer model is flawed and inaccurate ... if not maybe spec-savers is the next port of call

That's your personal opinion. I can't account for your understanding, interpretations and incredulity.

You haven't either for the NIST theory ...other then copy pasting the NIST theory .... your hilarious

It's an investigative report that concludes the building fell due to fire. Likewise the FEMA report. At this stage it's not debated by anyone but CTers.

This thread repeatedly demonstrates why people don't take CTers seriously on this issue

It's an event, it's not considered a mystery. If you believe something else happened, then let us know, but support it with credible evidence. Getting personal, snide or petty about it doesn't change that.

Cheerful Spring · 15-12-2018 3:59pm

King Mob wrote: »

Great!
Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story?
Are they part of the conspiracy?
Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy?

Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?

They believed to be true obviously why else.

No don't be silly.

No don't be silly. They got information about a full collapse from an anonymous source. Who provided that information unknown.

BBC was reporting about the 9/11 events, they thought the information was reliable

Dohnjoe · 15-12-2018 4:01pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

BBC looked into this and they claimed they got this information from Reuters. Reuters then made a statement the received information from a local news station WTC7 had collapsed and passed it on. Who gave the local news station this information about WTC7 collapse, is unknown.

Why would the plotters send these details to the media? what's the point of it?

Cheerful Spring · 15-12-2018 4:04pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why would the plotters send these details to the media? what's the point of it?

If the building was going to be controlled demolition at that specific time. You spread the story the building was going to collapse due to fire ahead of time. Then when it happens it not shocking it was expected.

King Mob · 15-12-2018 4:08pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They believed to be true obviously why else.

No don't be silly.

No don't be silly. They got information about a full collapse from an anonymous source. Who provided that information unknown.

BBC was reporting about the 9/11 events, they thought the information was reliable

But why would they think the information was true?
Couldn't they look out the window?

If the building was going to be controlled demolition at that specific time. You spread the story the building was going to collapse due to fire ahead of time. Then when it happens it not shocking it was expected.

So why then did the BBC say it had collapsed before it did?

Why wouldn't the Plotters want it to be shocking? Why would they want it to be expected? Weren't they worried about something going wrong, like perhaps it getting reported early, thus exposing the conspiracy?

Dohnjoe · 15-12-2018 4:08pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If the building was going to be controlled demolition at that specific time. You spread the story the building was going to collapse due to fire ahead of time. Then when it happens it not shocking it was expected.

What?

You are speculating that the plotters "gave" information to journalists (that was wrong) that the building had collapsed (when it hadn't) in order to "not shock" people when the building would collapse later (contradicting the plotters info) - that makes no sense

Cheerful Spring · 15-12-2018 4:25pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What?

You are speculating that the plotters "gave" information to journalists (that was wrong) that the building had collapsed (when it hadn't) in order to "not shock" people when the building would collapse later (contradicting the plotters info) - that makes no sense

Yep, it does make sense. They knew it was coming down by controlled demolition. They got the public prepared for the event in real-time. So when people heard the building collapsed and did not, and then later it did, oh was expected to happen anyhow. Don't you claim this to be true?

It makes sense when you look back now.

NIST could not get a handle on what caused the collapse for years they were unable to figure it out. Then they decided the collapse most have happened where the fires was! So NIST looked at column 79 on floor 13 and then starting look at ways the steel girder would fall of its seat during a fire. We now know NIST was underhanded in how they went about it. Removing construction fittings on the girder at column 79 to allow their theory to work.

weisses · 15-12-2018 4:26pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a conclusion that's widely accepted (except by e.g. conspiracy theorists)

Widely by whom ? ..

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's been two, FEMA and NIST

Where does FEMA conclude building 7 fell due to fire ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

False

Then provide the solid evidence .... I know the NIST report its not in there ... so lazy copy pasting of the report is not sufficient

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's your personal opinion. I can't account for your understanding, interpretations and incredulity.

An opinion shared by all that have normal eyesight ... Evidence about the inaccuracy of the NIST collapse model was also shown on this thread

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's an event, it's not considered a mystery. If you believe something else happened, then let us know, but support it with credible evidence. Getting personal, snide or petty about it doesn't change that.

It fell due to controlled demolition ..It had all the characteristics of one so that is the most logical conclusion.

King Mob · 15-12-2018 4:30pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yep, it does make sense. They knew it was coming down by controlled demolition. They got the public prepared for the event in real-time. So when people heard the building collapsed and did not, and then later it did, oh was expected to happen anyhow. Don't you claim this to be true?

It makes sense when you look back now.

But you now claim that this didn't convince anyone and is in fact evidence for the conspiracy theory.
So the plotters in fact just handed evidence to you for no benefit.

So no, it doesn't make sense to rational people.

So why did the BBC report it when they could tell it wasn't true by looking out a window?
It can't be that they just made a mistake or where just unable to fact check or they were just passing on a report they had received, as you contend that is impossible.

weisses · 15-12-2018 4:32pm

King Mob wrote: »

But you now claim that this didn't convince anyone and is in fact evidence for the conspiracy theory.
So the plotters in fact just handed evidence to you for no benefit.

So no, it doesn't make sense to rational people.

So why did the BBC report it when they could tell it wasn't true by looking out a window?
It can't be that they just made a mistake or where just unable to fact check or they were just passing on a report they had received, as you contend that is impossible.

How would the know the building was coming down in the first place ?

King Mob · 15-12-2018 4:37pm

weisses wrote: »

How would the know the building was coming down in the first place ?

Dunno.
Have a crack at my questions if you like.

Dohnjoe · 15-12-2018 4:37pm

weisses wrote: »

Then provide the solid evidence .... I know the NIST report its not in there ... so lazy copy pasting of the report is not sufficient

If you go to an architectural forum, an engineering forum, a skeptic forum - they'll generally give you the same answer. If that doesn't convince you, then nothing will. The issue here is clearly not the report.

It fell due to controlled demolition ..It had all the characteristics of one so that is the most logical conclusion.

You reject a theory that is widely accepted for not having enough evidence. You accept a theory for which you have little or no evidence for

We aren't dealing with logical thought or critical thinking here

To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Comments