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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It also looks like what would happen if it was hit by space lasers.

Interesting ... can you explain why space lasers would make it collapse like it did ? you seem to be more glued into the space laser theory then any of us

King Mob wrote: »

But why is one silly and the other not in your mind? Why is this question giving you so much trouble?

Im not troubled at all by it ... To me the collapse looked like controlled demolition ... You somehow think it could have been space lasers as well ... I know you didnt but I just go along with your silly arguing

King Mob wrote: »

Question dodged like a politician.

I told you earlier I don't do silly

King Mob wrote: »

So you also exclude thermite and controlled demolition.

Nope ...I do exclude space lasers though and Alien invasion, reptilian uprising, Alex Jones

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Interesting ... can you explain why space lasers would make it collapse like it did ? you seem to be more glued into the space laser theory then any of us

Again, Dr Judy Wood makes pretty much the exact same claims you do and points to all the exact same stuff that proves the towers could only fall due to space lasers.
Go look up her arguments. Have you not even looked into them before you rejected them out of hand?

My point here is just because it's your own uneducated opinion that it looks like something, it doesn't add up to much than Dr Judy Wood's opinion.

weisses wrote: »

Im not troubled at all by it ... To me the collapse looked like controlled demolition ... You somehow think it could have been space lasers as well ... I know you didnt but I just go along with your silly arguing

But it can't be a controlled demolition as it doesn't have the features of a controlled demolition, such as the lack of loud audible explosions. It has features that are impossible for a controlled demolition to produce, such as rivers of molten metal. And that's before the ridiculousness of how such a thing would be even set up...

So why is it impossible that it was a space laser?
Because space lasers don't exist? Neither do silent stealth explosives...

weisses wrote: »

I told you earlier I don't do silly

But I'm not seeing much difference between your positions...

weisses wrote: »

Nope ...I do exclude space lasers though and Alien invasion, reptilian uprising, Alex Jones

But you have to exclude them cause they can't be what produces the molten metal. Are you arguing that a controlled demolition can produce molten metal?

And if people rejected your preferred silly ideas, such as controlled demolition and thermite, you'd whine no end and call them closed minded among other things...
Maybe the reason most of the rest of the world rejects your conspiracy theory is for the same reason you reject all those silly ones...
(There isn't much of a difference...)

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

GreeBo the finer details in the background have blurred the resolution of the photograph not high enough to make out. Research it, ask someone about it on photography forum they explain it to you better then I can.

I'm still waiting on this one.
Any ideas on what the reflective material is?

A pool of molten steel hanging out on the wall perhaps?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

To me the collapse looked like controlled demolition

Same to me. However our personal interpretations, incredulity and beliefs mean zero in relation to the evidence and facts.

Keep in mind that if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, then the whole of 911 was an inside job. We are letting people off easy with this thread; in reality they would need to show, with credible evidence, how WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and show how it tied in with the rest of the events on 911 with credible and corroborating evidence

The weakness and absurdity of the responses in this thread show how utterly unsupported any of that is

I don't do silly

Alex Jones

Alex Jones maintains it was a controlled demolition. So yes, you do do silly.

It's less implausible than "space lasers" or "aliens", but there is as much evidence for all those theories, including demolition

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's less implausible than "space lasers" or "aliens", but there is as much evidence for all those theories, including demolition

I still maintain that Space Lasers are much more plausible than the demolition theories.

The demolition theories require that there was this huge secret operation to rig the buildings that could have gone wrong at any stage and left tons of evidence for anyone to stumble across.
Whereas the space laser idea would only require them to reposition the laser satellite.
It could have been even the case that they used the satellite only after the planes failed to destroy the buildings as planned.
It of course takes them 7 hours to line up the orbits and recharge the laser for a 3rd shot...

Of course the space laser doesn't exist, but that's a minor detail...

GreeBo

King Mob wrote: »

I still maintain that Space Lasers are much more plausible than the demolition theories.

The demolition theories require that there was this huge secret operation to rig the buildings that could have gone wrong at any stage and left tons of evidence for anyone to stumble across.
Whereas the space laser idea would only require them to reposition the laser satellite.
It could have been even the case that they used the satellite only after the planes failed to destroy the buildings as planned.
It of course takes them 7 hours to line up the orbits and recharge the laser for a 3rd shot...

Of course the space laser doesn't exist, but that's a minor detail...

They must exist, you can see proof where they are melting the steel and its dripping out the window!:rolleyes:

cuppa

Saying WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition makes the CT even more daft, having it ready to blow means you are relying on the events prior to go to plan.

what if the hijackers did not hijack the planes or even one of them.
what if one had heart attack, or lost control of the passengers.
what if they got shot down.
what if the planes had a malfunction and crashed.
what if they missed the towers.
Also nobody expected the towers to come down.

So what then just blow it anyhow, or just leave it rigged.

The controlled demo of WTC 7 needs WTC1&2 to come down for the cover, sure just rig one side to blow so it does not look like controlled take down.

Dohnjoe

cuppa wrote: »

Saying WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition makes the CT even more daft, having it ready to blow means you are relying on the events prior to go to plan.

what if the hijackers did not hijack the planes or even one of them.
what if one had heart attack, or lost control of the passengers.
what if they got shot down.
what if the planes had a malfunction and crashed.
what if they missed the towers.
Also nobody expected the towers to come down.

So what then just blow it anyhow, or just leave it rigged.

The controlled demo of WTC 7 needs WTC1&2 to come down for the cover, sure just rig one side to blow so it does not look like controlled take down.

But the way it falls "looks" similar to buildings that come down in demolitions, and for some individuals that is enough to plant a persistent belief that overrides all the above

King Mob

Plus also on top of that you have yo consider that it's risky even if all does go to plan.
They were slamming planes into the building. They would have to be very precise to avoid the rigged charges, or they would have to predict the impact of the plane impossibly precisely.
If they damaged the charges or the wiring in the impact, then the demolition couldn't happen.
Then they'd have to hope none of the roaring fires got near the democharges or wiring.
Doubly so if the charges were thermite based as thermite is set off by heat.

Know what wouldn't have any of these problems? Space laser...

Ipso

King Mob wrote: »

Plus also on top of that you have yo consider that it's risky even if all does go to plan.
They were slamming planes into the building. They would have to be very precise to avoid the rigged charges, or they would have to predict the impact of the plane impossibly precisely.
If they damaged the charges or the wiring in the impact, then the demolition couldn't happen.
Then they'd have to hope none of the roaring fires got near the democharges or wiring.
Doubly so if the charges were thermite based as thermite is set off by heat.

Know what wouldn't have any of these problems? Space laser...

It couldn't have been space lasers, crazy talk. Hologram planes takes care of your problems above.
http://wikidumper.blogspot.com/2006/11/hologram-theory.html

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Plus also on top of that you have yo consider that it's risky even if all does go to plan.
They were slamming planes into the building. They would have to be very precise to avoid the rigged charges, or they would have to predict the impact of the plane impossibly precisely.
If they damaged the charges or the wiring in the impact, then the demolition couldn't happen.
Then they'd have to hope none of the roaring fires got near the democharges or wiring.
Doubly so if the charges were thermite based as thermite is set off by heat.

Know what wouldn't have any of these problems? Space laser...

Even less risky plan..

Turn off the sprinklers. Set the building on fire. Let it burn "whatever" was inside.

All that aside, many other buildings were suffered catastrophic damage

WTC 3, a 22 story high-rise was so badly damaged it had to be torn down, likewise WTC 4, WTC 5 (suffered a partial collapse due to fire) WTC 6, several other buildings nearby including a Greek Orthodox church

King Mob

So I guess on top of the government, the NIST, NASA, CIA, Fbi, nsa, every major engineering body including the one dealing with build standards, USAF, NORAD, Larry Silverstein and his insurance company, the people who make the magic thermite and the FDNY (who are apparently at the tippy top and make the decisions)...

Now the Greeks are in on it too...

Mellor

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Controlled demolition.

NIST has always stated no noise was heard above 130db prior to any collapse event.

That's false a loud bang was heard on video 1 second prior to the Penthouse collapse event.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here. But how are you establishing that the random noise you heard was above 130dB?

Reason why is significiant that bang was heard blocks away and no collapsing floors noise audio was picked up at all. That literally means the noise was explosive in nature.

because all loud noises come from explosions???

Cheerful Spring

Mellor wrote: »

I feel like I'm stating the obvious here. But how are you establishing that the random noise you heard was above 130dB?



because all loud noises come from explosions???

Yes, I claiming this noise is louder than a drill or personal alarm noise.

I claimed it was an explosion because it occurred 1 second before the first signs of a structural collapse was happening. The building was still, then the explosion and then the penthouse came down crashing through the roof.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Even less risky plan..

Turn off the sprinklers. Set the building on fire. Let it burn "whatever" was inside.

All that aside, many other buildings were suffered catastrophic damage

WTC 3, a 22 story high-rise was so badly damaged it had to be torn down, likewise WTC 4, WTC 5 (suffered a partial collapse due to fire) WTC 6, several other buildings nearby including a Greek Orthodox church

You ignore none of these buildings actually collapsed on 9/11. Partial collapse is not the same as full collapse. WTC5 and 6 even had more fires than WTC7 and they still stood.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Plus also on top of that you have yo consider that it's risky even if all does go to plan.
They were slamming planes into the building. They would have to be very precise to avoid the rigged charges, or they would have to predict the impact of the plane impossibly precisely.
If they damaged the charges or the wiring in the impact, then the demolition couldn't happen.
Then they'd have to hope none of the roaring fires got near the democharges or wiring.
Doubly so if the charges were thermite based as thermite is set off by heat.

Know what wouldn't have any of these problems? Space laser...

I don't think Skeptics are even aware wireless detonators have been used for decades now even prior to 9/11. You don't need wiring throughout the building.

Nonsense the explosives can go off still below the undamaged area. And there no evidence the planes would even reach the central core. Twin Towers were built to deal with a plane impact.

A commercial plane is made of flimsy aluminium that would evaporate quickly when hit the building. The Engines is the only part of the plane that would cause some damage further into the building.

Nano-thermite was likely sprayed or gel on the steel or was placed near the central core. Fires will be a godsend for this. Nano-thermite works when there is a hot fire.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

But the way it falls "looks" similar to buildings that come down in demolitions, and for some individuals that is enough to plant a persistent belief that overrides all the above

NIST even stated publically they got get a handle on what caused WTC7 to fail.

It took seven years and when they finally released their report in 2008 it was full of errors and omissions.

You can't remove construction elements from girders and expect to be taken seriously. These elements were on the steel beam and girders to prevent steel from failing. NIST went ahead and removed them is positive proof of a cover-up.

Even their own collapse models and graphs were unrepresentative of the actual collapse on 9/11. Anyhow, whos not blinded can see their model is showing deformations that never occurred during the actual collapse.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite was likely sprayed or gel on the steel or was placed near the central core. Fires will be a godsend for this. Nano-thermite works when there is a hot fire.

Cool.
How much nano-thermite?
Where was it sprayed and by who and when?
How was it prevented from going off too early?

Can you provide something to show that Thermite etc can produce rivers of molten metal?
How much molten metal in litres can 1 kilogram of nano-thermite?

Questions don't vanish if you ignore them for a week.

Cheerful Spring

cuppa wrote: »

Saying WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition makes the CT even more daft, having it ready to blow means you are relying on the events prior to go to plan.

what if the hijackers did not hijack the planes or even one of them.
what if one had heart attack, or lost control of the passengers.
what if they got shot down.
what if the planes had a malfunction and crashed.
what if they missed the towers.
Also nobody expected the towers to come down.

So what then just blow it anyhow, or just leave it rigged.

The controlled demo of WTC 7 needs WTC1&2 to come down for the cover, sure just rig one side to blow so it does not look like controlled take down.

You ignoring what happened that day. There was no chance this mission was going to fail. The military drills secured the path for the planes to reach their targets. That took almost 2 hours for there to a proper response on 9/11 is a sign this was a pre-planned event. Even at NEADS air force base, you can hear the personal on duty complaining about the drills and saying somebody in authority needs to cancel them, that order to shut it down never came till after 10 am.

Heart attack? They are young Muslim men the chance of that is very remote.


The Twin Towers is the tallest buildings in New York very unlikely they miss them.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There was no chance this mission was going to fail.

What mission? carried out by who? ordered when and by who and how?

Literally what are you talking about?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Twin Towers is the tallest buildings in New York very unlikely they miss them.

Lol, in other threads you argued that they were crap pilots who couldn't hit anything, even the pentagon.
Get your story straight...:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Cool.
How much nano-thermite?
Where was it sprayed and by who and when?
How was it prevented from going off too early?

Can you provide something to show that Thermite etc can produce rivers of molten metal?
How much molten metal in litres can 1 kilogram of nano-thermite?

Questions don't vanish if you ignore them for a week.

Depends on what connections failed. Truthers have not done a twin tower study.

Dr Hulsey was able to replicate the actual failures in WTC7 collapse so when he releases his computer model we know more. Dr Hulsey has stated his model looks more like the actual collapse. When we see these failures inside WTC7 we see where they likely placed the explosives and whatnot.

I don't have to provide evidence when photographic evidence already exists of yellow liquid in the rubble near the steel core. If you believe was caused naturally you provide evidence what caused that and how? What in the rubble melted steel?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Depends on what connections failed. Truthers have not done a twin tower study.

Dr Hulsey was able to replicate the actual failures in WTC7 collapse so when he releases his computer model we know more. Dr Hulsey has stated his model looks more like the actual collapse. When we see these failures inside WTC7 we see where they likely placed the explosives and whatnot.

Cool. So how much thermite? Where was it placed? By who and when?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't have to provide evidence when photographic evidence already exists of yellow liquid in the rubble near the steel core.

Cool. Please post something that shows that nanothermite can produce this.

How much yellow liquid can nano-thermite produce per kg.?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you believe was caused naturally you provide evidence what caused that and how? What in the rubble melted steel?

No, this is about the alternative explanation.
Don't deflect. It's pathetic.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, in other threads you argued that they were crap pilots who couldn't hit anything, even the pentagon.
Get your story straight...:rolleyes:

False, but you often make statements that are untrue. I stated the pilot would need to be very experienced to fly the plane 3 feet from the ground and hit the Pentagon. The official account has you believing the pilots were terrible pilots I open to the possibility they had training not documented by open sources?

I never said the Twin Towers was a difficult target to hit ever.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

False, but you often make statements that are untrue. I stated the pilot would need to be very experienced to fly the plane 3 feet from the ground and hit the Pentagon. The official account has you believing the pilots were terrible pilots I open to the possibility they had training not documented by open sources?

I never said the Twin Towers was a difficult target to hit ever.

So wait... they planted false evidence that they were bad pilots?
That's hilarious...:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What mission? carried out by who? ordered when and by who and how?

Literally what are you talking about?

I think it fairly obvious this operation involved support from Saudi Arabia. They probably trained the hijackers in simulators to hit the Pentagon and Trade Centers. You would not leave it to chance they pull it off by luck you train them so they are able to do with ease on 9/11

And never mind it public record now Prince Bandar wife was sending money through bank accounts to a Saudi Spy in America who was then using this money to house and finance the 9/11 attackers attacks. We know this investigation into these links was shut down by request from the White House. They did want this uncovered. The FBI top agent investigating 9/11 has come out in recent years and said the 9/11 commission reported false facts. His team uncovered plenty of evidence these attacks were organised and funded directly from Saudi Arabia. Bin laden was not the pay master of the attacks on 9/11

Saudi Arabia would not dare carry out a mission like this if they had got the go-ahead from powerful people in the US.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So wait... they planted false evidence that they were bad pilots?
That's hilarious...:rolleyes:

If you actually did some research who owned these flight schools you see what they turned up there.

They were partly owned by Saudi Arabia and some were well known CIA drug smuggling airports.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you actually did some research who owned these flight schools you see what they turned up there.

They were partly owned by Saudi Arabia and some were well known CIA drug smuggling airports.

Ok, so they owned the schools and trained the pilots.
Their instructors said that they were bad pilots and therefore they couldn't have done any of the maneuvers.
Why would they say this and to what end?
Was this on purpose? Cause it can't be by accident apparently.

Also, you have missed more questions:

How much thermite was used? Where was it placed? By who and when?

Please post something that shows that nanothermite can produce a yellow liquid.

How much yellow liquid can nano-thermite produce per kg.?

Is this yellow liquid molten steel? Molten Iron?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so they owned the schools and trained the pilots.
Their instructors said that they were bad pilots and therefore they couldn't have done any of the maneuvers.
Why would they say this and to what end.

Also, you have missed more questions:

How much thermite was used? Where was it placed? By who and when?

Please post something that shows that nanothermite can produce a yellow liquid.

How much yellow liquid can nano-thermite produce per kg.?

Is this yellow liquid molten steel? Molten Iron?

They showed up at some American flight schools that were legitimate. That was the ruse. The problem was they were American flight instructors so there was a language problem right away. So it might not be because they were bad pilots they just did understand the flight instructions told to them by the American flight instructors?

The main pilots got training at schools that were owned partly by Saudi Arabia. I would be surprised if they got training elsewhere that never got documented as it would expose further the Saudi involvement. Out in Las Vegas or Florida, the Saudis may have brought in their own pilots to train them?

There evidence for this in the official report. One instructor claimed one of 9/11 hijackers least he thought had military aviation training.

No steel buildings collapsed due to fire, nano-thermite prior to 9/11. So how can you prove it when never occurred before? Scientifically nano-thermite chips were found in the dust.

I can not speculate till I know for sure what the failures were inside the buildings. That just common sense.

Molten steel is Molten Iron I have told you this countless times.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

you often make statements that are untrue.

This entire thing is a creative writing exercise for you - which you can't back up with credible sources

Remember, this is your theory, another truther has a different take, another with yet another take and so on

Your speculation and made-up secret "missions" as are valid as theirs, or Alex Jones or Dr Judy Wood's