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

weisses

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob it's obvious why they would plant a passport.

Oh Look we found a passport belonging to the terrorist who hijacked the plane. They are planting the evidence it was terrorists.

Only 6 of 19 hijackers appear on any sort of video. The US government released only two airport videos.

5 guys who are hijackers who took over flight 77. I see a 6th hijacker in the video but he never been identified as one of them.

Atta and another alleged hijackers were shown on video at an airport in Portland Maine. Not the airport they allegedly hijacked the plane from.

Guess what Atta and one of his bags mysteriously did not make the flight? It contains a will , prayer book., passport, videos how to fly Boeings. Stuff he did not need if he was going to kill himself. It looks like someone was trying to plant stuff to look like it was Al Qaeda who did it.

they were alleged to be Saudi .... lets invade Iraq because of it ... coz it makes sense

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Cool.
So do you believe the space laser theory or not?

Pretty simple question that I don't understand why you are avoiding it.

I dont do silly mob

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I dont do silly mob

So you keep saying.
But that's not an answer.

So do you believe the space laser theory or not?

The space laser theory is silly, so it would mean that you don't believe it.
You believe that it was thermite however, which is silly. It's the exact same level of silliness. You in fact do silly.

So your answer doesn't help much

I don't understand why you can't just give a simple "Yes I believe the theory" or "No I don't believe the theory".

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

they were alleged to be Saudi .... lets invade Iraq because of it ... coz it makes sense

Invasion of Iraq was PNAC group goal in 1997. You have to read their white paper, see how insane and crazy they are. The lunatic fringe took over the white house.

Nobody seems to grasp 9/11 happened when neocons were in power in Washington.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So you keep saying.
But that's not an answer.

So do you believe the space laser theory or not?

The space laser theory is silly, so it would mean that you don't believe it.
You believe that it was thermite however, which is silly. It's the exact same level of silliness. You in fact do silly.

1

Cheerful Spring

In 1998, Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament process through articles that were published in the New York Times.[22][23] Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein.[19][24] Portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, and emphasizing the potential danger of any weapons of mass destruction under Iraq's control, the letter asserted that the United States could "no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections." Stating that American policy "cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council," the letter's signatories asserted that "the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.

9/11 just happens and they went in!

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

1

Yup. Questions dodged all over again.
You are a credit to conspiracy cranks everywhere.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So you keep saying.
But that's not an answer.

So do you believe the space laser theory or not?

The space laser theory is silly, so it would mean that you don't believe it.
You believe that it was thermite however, which is silly. It's the exact same level of silliness. You in fact do silly.

So your answer doesn't help much

I don't understand why you can't just give a simple "Yes I believe the theory" or "No I don't believe the theory".

Nano-thermite is not silly as there physical evidence for it. You can actually see the red/grey chips in the dust. There pictures of this.

There nothing showing a laser blowing up a tower.

Cheerful Spring

If people have never seen this here is a photo of them under microscope.





Slide D is interesting there two layers a red/grey side.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yup. Questions dodged all over again.
You are a credit to conspiracy cranks everywhere.

After all these years I know who Im having discussions here and their positions

If you would have paid attention during this time you would have known my position in this, thus easily could have refrained from cheap point scoring, but as I said I know who I'm dealing with, so not surprised at all.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

After all these years I know who Im having discussions here and their positions

If you would have paid attention during this time you would have known my position in this,

No, I'm asking because I don't know and you've said several contradicting things and you are playing coy with the answer for no reason.

Still unsure.

For some reason I thought that I might get some straight direct answers to easy questions for change.

weisses wrote: »

thus easily could have refrained from cheap point scoring, but as I said I know who I'm dealing with, so not surprised at all.

lol

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey set out to find out if fires did collapse the building. He already stated he would tell the truth.

One expert, paid by a conspiracy theory group (and consulting with them) is out to prove that it didn't fall due to fire (they quickly changed this)

That said, I will be very interested in the report (when and if it comes out)

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

You require solid evidence for a theory I only want you to accept the same for the theory you believe to be true

The evidence is perfectly credible. There's no other theory with credible evidence.

You claiming "I don't get it, I don't accept it" unfortunately isn't enough. The evidence and consensus is overwhelming.

I don't blindly accept any theory ..evidently displayed in regards to the NIST report

What made you accept the demolition theory? do you question it?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I dont do silly mob

You believe that a 47 story building was secretly blown up in a massive inside plot

Pretty silly stuff, but fair enough. So who did it, the president? Larry Silverstein? the Saudi's? all of them?

King Mob

No dohnjoe, according to Larrys confession, the mastermind was some rando fire chief.
Or at the very least he was outranked by him.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

No dohnjoe, according to Larrys confession, the mastermind was some rando fire chief.
Or at the very least he was outranked by him.

You can make up anything you want - only as long as you rationalise it to yourself

That's what makes it real and a "fact" apparently

Dohnjoe

Almost forgot, back to Plasco, the steel-framed building that collapsed in Iran in early 2017. AE911 (the truther group) suggested it was a controlled demolition shortly after the collapse. An official investigation found it fell due to fire

http://en.mehrnews.com/news/124604/Fire-sole-cause-of-Plasco-collapse

"The report," Rouhani believed, "will greatly contribute to the restoration of public trust and national assets." The report itself however, implicates different organizations and government ministries and Tehran Municipality in the incident in one way or the other. It categorically rejects the hypothesis that 'explosives' had been used in downing (possibly a deliberate action) the building and asserts that solely fire and heat had been the causes of the collapse.
The owner of the building, Mostazafan Foundation had been lax in the face of warnings by authorities on the possibility of disasters; the Municipality is equally implicated by the report as failing to effectively enforce the implementation of Section 14 of Article 55 of Municipality rules and relevant regulations; the Municipality had been systematically negligent in enforcing Section 22 of the National Building Regulations, which addresses the safety of the building and maintenance operations.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You believe that a 47 story building was secretly blown up in a massive inside plot

Pretty silly stuff, but fair enough. So who did it, the president? Larry Silverstein? the Saudi's? all of them?

Could you at least try to answer the question I asked you 4 times already re the accuracy of the computer model ?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Could you at least try to answer the question I asked you 4 times already re the accuracy of the computer model ?

I see no reason to doubt the computer model, nor any valid expert consensus against it.

I've asked you questions which you've avoided. This thread is about providing alternative theories and their supporting evidence which you generally ignore.

As explained many times, if someone wanted genuine information they'd be going to engineering, firefighting or similar forums (go to a firefighting forum and ask about steel building collapses, and how sudden they are). They'd be contacting any of the 200 NIST experts/investigators who made up the report. Be asking on skeptic forums (where they'd be in agreement on 99% of other topics) The last place anyone rational would look for information is a conspiracy forum or conspiracy sites like AE911

Fire can weaken and warp steel. If there's a ****ton of load above that steel (like a high-rise) then there is the possibility of collapse. I am not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I see no reason to doubt the computer model, nor any valid expert consensus against it.

I've asked you questions which you've avoided. This thread is about providing alternative theories and their supporting evidence which you generally ignore.

As explained many times, if someone wanted genuine information they'd be going to engineering, firefighting or similar forums (go to a firefighting forum and ask about steel building collapses, and how sudden they are). They'd be contacting any of the 200 NIST experts/investigators who made up the report. Be asking on skeptic forums (where they'd be in agreement on 99% of other topics) The last place anyone rational would look for information is a conspiracy forum or conspiracy sites like AE911

Fire can weaken and warp steel. If there's a ****ton of load above that steel (like a high-rise) then there is the possibility of collapse. I am not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

No context provided with the picture. Where was it taken? It looks abandoned for a while.

I see sagging and twisting of an unsecured steel beam? Do you see a collapsed roof beam in the picture? You see invisible man and leprechauns in photographs i have to ask this?

Where did you pull that 200 number from? Post a source for this. I heard only 8 to 10 people were involved.

You see no reason to doubt it? Sorry but we have actual video of the collapse on 9/11 and did not fall down as a crushed coke can.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Almost forgot, back to Plasco, the steel-framed building that collapsed in Iran in early 2017. AE911 (the truther group) suggested it was a controlled demolition shortly after the collapse. An official investigation found it fell due to fire

http://en.mehrnews.com/news/124604/Fire-sole-cause-of-Plasco-collapse

An Iranian firefighter said when he poured in water explosions went off. He suspected it was gas canisters going off and blowing up

Wasn't just fire.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

An Iranian firefighter said when he poured in water explosions went off. He suspected it was gas canisters going off and blowing up

Wasn't just fire.

Gas cannisters very rarely blow up, this has already been explained to you yet here you are again ignoring evidence as usual :rolleyes:


Edit: nowhere does he say "He suspected it was gas canisters going off and blowing up"

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Gas cannisters very rarely blow up, this has already been explained to you yet here you are again ignoring evidence as usual :rolleyes:

Iranian Firefighter appeared on Iranian TV and gave an account of his experience. He said explosions went off and he believed it was the gas canisters located near the windows on the top floors. You call him a liar as well:rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Iranian Firefighter appeared on Iranian TV and gave an account of his experience. He said explosions went off and he believed it was the gas canisters located near the windows on the top floors. You call him a liar as well:rolleyes:

He does not say that, you are putting that spin on the story yourself.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr He clearly says where the gas canisters were located is where the explosion went off. You guys are desperate and don't trust firefighters eyewitnesses accounts now.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He does not say that, you are putting that spin on the story yourself.

How am I putting a spin on it? The firefighter brought up the gas canisters. He even says they shattered during the high heat :eek:

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Timberrrrrrrr He clearly says where the gas canisters were located is where the explosion went off. You guys are desperate and don't trust firefighters eyewitnesses accounts now.

And you do? :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How am I putting a spin on it? The firefighter brought up the gas canisters. He even says they shattered during the high heat :eek:

No he didnt :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No context provided with the picture. Where was it taken? It looks abandoned for a while.

I see sagging and twisting of an unsecured steel beam? Do you see a collapsed roof beam in the picture? You see invisible man and leprechauns in photographs i have to ask this?

I see sagging and twisting of an unsecured steel beam? Do you see a collapsed roof beam in the picture? You see invisible man and leprechauns in photographs i have to ask this?

Yet you attack it. With no context you immediately set to work - it's incredible.

Where did you pull that 200 number from? Post a source for this. I heard only 8 to 10 people were involved.

You heard that from where? a conspiracy source? you made it up in your head? you heard it down the pub?

I strongly suggest you read the NIST report and if you can't be bothered to do that, then at least consult the summary.

You see no reason to doubt it? Sorry but we have actual video of the collapse on 9/11 and did not fall down as a crushed coke can.

If you believe WTC 1 and WTC 2 and WTC 7 were all blown up, then you better get started on showing us who did it and how it was done.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Iranian Firefighter appeared on Iranian TV and gave an account of his experience. He said explosions went off and he believed it was the gas canisters located near the windows on the top floors. You call him a liar as well:rolleyes:

Are you claiming you know more about the Plasco collapse than the expert committee that actually investigated it?