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

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good question, I like to know that too? The reality is that's how it went down.

"The reality is the Loch Ness monster exists. It's true because I say it is and no one can convince me otherwise."

19 pages in and zero credible evidence of a controlled demolition. Countless 911 truthers have been working on this for 17-odd years and they have nothing but a myriad of vague theories with no supporting evidence

This thread demonstrates perfectly the psychology behind such thinking

bessboroughboy

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This thread demonstrates perfectly the psychology behind such thinking

Psychology is quite important in all this, consider one's reaction to the word "conspiracy", compared to one's reaction to the word "corruption".

Both words relate to very similar concepts, yet it would be naive to say that corruption doesn't exist.

Three buildings collapse in much the same manner, within a similar timeframe, and one of them wasn't hit by a plane.

Imagine hacking away at one side of a tree with an axe, and then the tree descends vertically into it's own pile of sawdust, bit weird, eh?

Perfect pancake collapses, all of them !

King Mob

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Psychology is quite important in all this, consider one's reaction to the word "conspiracy", compared to one's reaction to the word "corruption".

Both words relate to very similar concepts, yet it would be naive to say that corruption doesn't exist.

But here's the thing. It's all well and good to pick at flaws in the official story and regurgitate factoids you've heard in youtube videos.
But when you actually examine these factoids and claims closely and directly, they fall apart.

Like your claim that Larry Silverstien admitted to being part of the conspiracy on camera.
You've admitted that this doesn't actually make sense to you, as you can't explain why he would do this. Yet you still hold it up as the only explanation.

So please stick to this point as it is the one you brought up as proof positive that it was a conspiracy.

Do you think that his telling of the anecdote is accurate to what happened?

Dohnjoe

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Psychology is quite important in all this, consider one's reaction to the word "conspiracy", compared to one's reaction to the word "corruption".

Both words relate to very similar concepts, yet it would be naive to say that corruption doesn't exist.

Conspiracies and corruption happen all the time, I rarely see threads about them on this forum

Here it's generally about incredulous denials "no way man went to the moon", "a steel framed building can't fall due to fire", "Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have acted alone", etc

When pressed for an evidence based alternative theory.. the actual conspiracy theory part, that's typically thin or non-existent

Dohnjoe

To recap

Theory - WTC 7 fell due to some sort of controlled demolition

Witnesses: none
Physical and material evidence: none
Motives: none provided
Suspects: none

It fell downwards.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Suspects: none

One: Larry Silverstien is involved somehow. The reason they know this is because he admitted it on camera for no real reason in a way that doesn't make sense and contradicts the claims of the conspiracy.

storker

bessboroughboy wrote: »

bit weird, eh?

Perfect pancake collapses, all of them !

This is the problem with such pseudo-evidence. "Bit weird" != proof.

bessboroughboy

storker wrote: »

This is the problem with such pseudo-evidence. "Bit weird" != proof.

Was I referring to 911 when I ENDED a sentence with "Bit weird"

---

NO

It was an analogy.

I have no evidence, therefore I am not in a position to offer any.

On the other hand, perhaps LOGIC might enter the fray.

How on earth can asymmetrical structural damage cause such symmetrical collapses, it defies logic.

Obviously it was a controlled demolition.

King Mob

bessboroughboy wrote: »

How on earth can asymmetrical structural damage cause such symmetrical collapses, it defies logic.

Obviously it was a controlled demolition.

Are you an engineer?
Are you familiar with the detailed plans of the buildings and experienced with how buildings typically collapse?

How, if the buildings fell by fire alone, should they have looked in your expert opinion?

If it was a controlled demolition, how do you account for things like there being no multiple large explosions in sequences immediately prior to the collapse?

Why if you are so sure of your position do you have to ignore questions?
Could you please address the questions about Larry Silverstien or at least explain why you are ignoring them?

Cheerful Spring

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Was I referring to 911 when I ENDED a sentence with "Bit weird"

---

NO

It was an analogy.

I have no evidence, therefore I am not in a position to offer any.

On the other hand, perhaps LOGIC might enter the fray.

How on earth can asymmetrical structural damage cause such symmetrical collapses, it defies logic.

Obviously it was a controlled demolition.

Exactly. Asymmetrical collapse can only occur in a controlled demolition.

Dohnjoe does not know this, either do the people who keep liking his posts.

He claims there is no evidence for controlled demolition. When you then show him what happened to the building on 9/11 he ignores it.

Then when you produce NIST images of the collapse, he ignores this. Is he serious?

NIST image shows a non-symmetrical collapse.

storker

bessboroughboy wrote: »

How on earth can asymmetrical structural damage cause such symmetrical collapses, it defies logic.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Exactly. Asymmetrical collapse can only occur in a controlled demolition.

[...]

NIST image shows a non-symmetrical collapse.

Hang on...one of you is saying that the damage was asymmetrical and the collapse was symmetrical, so that it must have been a controlled explosion, and the other is saying that that the collapse was asymmetrical, and therefor it must have been a controlled explosion.

You've also said that the damage didn't contribute to the collapse. When then should the "shape" of the collapse be affected by the damage?

Can't you at least get your stories straight?

bessboroughboy

storker wrote: »

Hang on...one of you is saying that the damage was asymmetrical and the collapse was symmetrical, so that it must have been a controlled explosion, and the other is saying that that the collapse was asymmetrical, and therefor it must have been a controlled explosion.

You've also said that the damage didn't contribute to the collapse. When then should the "shape" of the collapse be affected by the damage?

Can't you at least get your stories straight?

Obviously a typo, if you read Cheerful's previous post.

Cheerful Spring

NIST computer model of the collapse is a fraud plain and simple.

NIST computer simulation of WTC7 collapse side by side with the actual collapse.

There is a reason why NIST shut the computer simulation off at this point and did not show the full collapse to the end!

NIST provided a graphic. NIST is claiming this is what is happening to WTC7 as it fell!

Viewed from the North. The video of the actual collapse is also the north side view. This is not symmetrical.



Another problem is you can't have intact floors, with steel and concrete underneath. It established beyond all doubt now WTC7 collapsed at freefall speeds So there can't be floors there when the building collapsed!

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Exactly. Asymmetrical collapse can only occur in a controlled demolition.

Dohnjoe does not know this, either do the people who keep liking his posts.

He claims there is no evidence for controlled demolition. When you then show him what happened to the building on 9/11 he ignores it.

Then when you produce NIST images of the collapse, he ignores this. Is he serious?

NIST image shows a non-symmetrical collapse.

How do you know this? By your own repeated admissions this is the first time steel structured buildings have ever collapsed in this manner so if there are no previous examples to go by how do you know that this is not the way steel structured buildings fall due to intense fires?

King Mob

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How do you know this? By your own repeated admissions this is the first time steel structured buildings have ever collapsed in this manner so if there are no previous examples to go by how do you know that this is not the way steel structured buildings fall due to intense fires?

It's also the first time that a building has been demolished by using secret magic thermite in a stealth demolition. Yet it also looks like a typical demolition.

I wonder why the conspirators weren't able to make it look more like a natural collapse...?

bessboroughboy

I'm inclined to question the mentality of people who, having seen footage of the collapses, were so easily dissuaded from thinking that they were controlled demolitions.

I would say that such people have fallen at the first hurdle.

Not trying to win an argument here, I don't have any investment in the outcome.

Cheerio!

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How do you know this? By your own repeated admissions this is the first time steel structured buildings have ever collapsed in this manner so if there are no previous examples to go by how do you know that this is not the way steel structured buildings fall due to intense fires?

By looking at video of what actually happened on the day.

This WTC7 falling in real time on 9/11. Can you not spot the differences between this and NIST graphic?

Keep an eye on the roofline and side corner walls as the building collapses. What do you see?

[IMG][/img][IMG][/img]via Imgflip GIF Maker

King Mob

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I'm inclined to question the mentality of people who, having seen footage of the collapses, were so easily dissuaded from thinking that they were controlled demolitions.

I would say that such people have fallen at the first hurdle.

Not trying to win an argument here, I don't have any investment in the outcome.

Cheerio!

For me it's because none of the conspiracy theory explanations make any sense and never stand up to scrutiny. And those proposing them usually ignore questions, whine, then run away when their ideas are examined...

bessboroughboy

King Mob wrote: »

For me it's because none of the conspiracy theory explanations make any sense and never stand up to scrutiny. And those proposing them usually ignore questions, whine, then run away when their ideas are examined...

Cool

King Mob

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Cool

Could you at least explain why you aren't answering the questions and why you still believe in the conspiracy despite the fact you can't answer them?

That's the one thing I don't understand.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

By looking at video of what actually happened on the day.

This WTC7 falling in real time on 9/11. Can you not spot the differences between this and NIST graphic?

Keep an eye on the roofline and side corner walls as the building collapses. What do you see?

[IMG][/img][IMG][/img]via Imgflip GIF Maker

So you believe everything you see on tv/youtube?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you believe everything you see on tv/youtube?

That CBS real time news footage of the collapse. That exactly how it fell.

Now take a look at NIST graphic (north view) and tell me where you see the similarities.

storker

King Mob wrote: »

Could you at least explain why you aren't answering the questions and why you still believe in the conspiracy despite the fact you can't answer them?

That's the one thing I don't understand.

See Religion.

Dohnjoe

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I'm inclined to question the mentality of people who, having seen footage of the collapses, were so easily dissuaded from thinking that they were controlled demolitions.

You do realise that every minute detail of this has been examined and multiple investigations from hundreds of experts over years have shown the building fell due to fire. A steel-framed building in Iran also collapsed due to fire.

On the flipside there is no evidence at all that it was a controlled demolition

Cheerful Spring

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I'm inclined to question the mentality of people who, having seen footage of the collapses, were so easily dissuaded from thinking that they were controlled demolitions.

I would say that such people have fallen at the first hurdle.

Not trying to win an argument here, I don't have any investment in the outcome.

Cheerio!

I can't explain it either.

If people can't spot the problem I don't know what we can do to fix that?

This is TV footage of the collapse on 9/11
[IMG][/img][IMG][/img]via Imgflip GIF Maker

And this is what NIST claims is happening in their study of the collapse. The graphic that relevant in this in the north view side. The TV footage is showing the building as it fell down viewed from the north.

NIST graphic is showing deformation and crushing of the roofline and corner walls. This never happened.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

no evidence for controlled demolition.

The constant act

You still have no evidence on your alternative theory. You refuse to answer any basic questions on it and your only addition to this thread is to revert to acting incredulous, making up "alternative facts" and endlessly attacking the NIST

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The constant act

You still have no evidence on your alternative theory. You refuse to answer any basic questions on it and your only addition to this thread is to revert to acting incredulous, making up "alternative facts" and endlessly attacking the NIST

Why would I not attack NIST they covered up what happened on 9/11

Fact, not a conspiracy.
NIST claims they could find any WTC7 steel? Are they serious they could not find one piece of steel from this collapse? Did they just conveniently forget FEMA found WTC7 steel in 2002 and they discovered it melted by high temp?

Fact not a conspiracy
NIST claims nobody saw melted steel and Iron in the rubble. Multiple photographs exist that show a yellow liquid in the rubble. There multiple pictures of steel and iron molten.

Fact not a conspiracy
NIST claim no eyewitnesses saw melted steel. A lie firefighters clean up crews all reported seeing this on video.

Fact, not a conspiracy.
No sound above 130db was heard prior to any collapse event according to NIST. Wrong a loud bang was heard a second before the Penthouse fell in and a few seconds later the entire building collapsed down.

That four lies already before we even take a look at what they claim in their study of the collapse.

storker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can't explain it either.

If people can't spot the problem I don't know what we can do to fix that?

This is TV footage of the collapse on 9/11
[IMG][/img][IMG][/img]via Imgflip GIF Maker

And this is what NIST claims is happening in their study of the collapse. The graphic that relevant in this in the north view side. The TV footage is showing the building as it fell down viewed from the north.

NIST graphic is showing deformation and crushing of the roofline and corner walls. This never happened.

If I remember correctly, this is what they say was happening to the interior structure, and was not visible because the exterior walls collapsed last.

Cheerful Spring

storker wrote: »

If I remember correctly, this is what they say was happening to the interior structure, and was not visible because the exterior walls collapsed last.

NIST believes a progressive collapse occurred. There multiple stages to it. This graphic is highlighting the end of it and when the building started to come down! They're basically just showing the final result in the graphic. It's what the building looked fully across the width of it!