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

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Dont be obtuse

You believe in a theory you cannot support in any way
You attack a theory that is overwhelmingly accepted around the world, backed up the consensus of experts and investigators, is literally printed history

That sounds fairly obtuse to me

I don't need to remind you the subject of this thread which you seem to confuse with an invitation to goad people into "proving" something to you that you'll never accept. For example, despite many perishable items surviving from both planes that impacted the twin towers, you've decided in your head that it's impossible for a passport to survive because you "can't believe it". You can't provide an alternative explanation, you can't provide an alternative theory backed with a single shred of evidence. No one can help you with that.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe This video for you to watch. If you actually listen to what they are saying and think about it, 9/11 was clearly a setup. From the get-go, the 9/11 investigations was doomed to fail.

You ignored a leading FBI agent who ran a 400 member team investigating 9/11 found clear evidence Saudi Arabia planned the attacks. So you should be asking why did White House under Bush put a stop to this investigation? If it was not true why would they do that?

Do you think this FBI agent has anything to gain from lying? He was important enough to be given the top job after the attacks!

You should question all aspects of this event since not just conspiracy theorists who claim a cover-up of 9/11

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You ignored a leading FBI agent who ran a 400 member team investigating 9/11 found clear evidence Saudi Arabia planned the attacks.

So Saudi Arabia blew up all 3 buildings?

If so, how did they do it? why did they blow up WTC 7?

Filling a thread full of conjecture, speculation, conspiracy videos by Russia Today hosts, creating facts, improvising.. all that stuff is not relevant to the topic

It's almost like turning a thread into a dumpster fire is better than facing the reality that there is no "inside job"

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So Saudi Arabia blew up all 3 buildings?

If so, how did they do it? why did they blow up WTC 7?

Filling a thread full of conjecture, speculation, conspiracy videos by Russia Today hosts, creating facts, improvising.. all that stuff is not relevant to the topic

It's almost like turning a thread into a dumpster fire is better than admitting there are no credible counter-theories

I don't think so.

A strong case can be made this attack was preplanned by Prince Bandar and other high officials in the Saudi Arabian government.

When Prince Bandar involved there no way the CIA or people in the deep state did not know this event was happening.

It obvious why the CIA did not notify the FBI of the terrorist arrival in the United States. We should demand answers as to why the CIA was protecting 9/11 terrorists?

Cheerful Spring

Another leading 9/11 FBI agent talks about this CIA cover up here. His storyline recently aired on HULU a TV series called the looming tower. Good watch but watered down of course for TV.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6474236/

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Another leading 9/11 FBI agent talks about this CIA cover up here.

So who blew secretly up WTC 7 in downtown NY then?

Did the Saudi's do it? did Larry Silverstein do it? Did Rumsfeld do it? Did the CIA do it?

and why did they do it?

Was it the same team who blew up the twin towers?

If another conspiracy theorist claims WTC 7 was blown up but that the twin towers fell due to aircraft impact/subsequent fires, who is correct you or them?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So who blew secretly up WTC 7 in downtown NY then?

Did the Saudi's do it? did Larry Silverstein do it? Did Rumsfeld do it? Did the CIA do it?

and why did they do it?

Was it the same team who blew up the twin towers?

If another conspiracy theorist claims WTC 7 was blown up but that the twin towers fell due to aircraft impact/subsequent fires, who is correct you or them?

I don't know who planted the explosives in WTC7 ( or the nano-thermite) as it was never investigated by anyone. NIST came along and they covered up what happened to WTC7 and their version was accepted by official media and Skeptics. After 17 years there unlikely going to be a new open independent investigation? There is a slim chance professor Hulsey WTC7 Study can change things but we have to see what the response to his work is after its completed.

Bush and his cronies put a stop to the FBI investigation into Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11. They should be in jail not walking around. We live in a strange world where the funders and planners of 9/11 got away with it. Since they got away it who can say this will be last false flag from them? The reality is there was never transparency with this investigation from the get-go.

Yes, I believe Rumsfield was involved. He behaved very suspiciously on 9/11 and then denying he knew that building WTC7 came down on 9/11, makes no sense. Rumsfield sat on the board of Salomon Smith Barney as chairperson before becoming Defence Secretary, it was his last job. Salomon Smith Barney had more offices in WTC7 then anyone else. How likely is he would know of WTC7 and it coming down on 9/11? Most people are unaware of that even in the 9/11 conspiracy world.

Cheerful Spring

Donald Rumsfield playing dumb. This alone should raise red flags. It not first interview he denied knowing building 7.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You believe in a theory you cannot support in any way
You attack a theory that is overwhelmingly accepted around the world, backed up the consensus of experts and investigators, is literally printed history

I asked you over and over to present the solid evidence that supports the office fires hypothesis, to this date you have presented nothing, nada ...So yes that is obtuse

Why do you present a theory where you can not show the solid supporting evidence of ?

The theory you support is NOT accepted around the world ... so far 2800 scientists and engineers and other people of knowledge and authority are disagreeing with its findings.

And all that most of them are asking for is a proper investigation backed by solid evidence and peer review.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I don't need to remind you the subject of this thread which you seem to confuse with an invitation to goad people into "proving" something to you that you'll never accept..

ahh now you are using the " i don't provide any evidence because it is not accepted by you anyways BS" ... Well.. try again,

The subject of this thread is about theories and evidence

You are looking for normal, supporting, solid evidence for any theory in regards to 9/11... which is fair

Weeks ago myself and other posters stated that there was no such alternative theory that has the level of evidence required.

I am asking you to apply the same kind of evidence based critical thinking to the hypothesis you support and post them here on thread for all to see.

You cannot sit on the fence demanding solid evidence to alt theories when the theory you support lacks just that ... And no its not personal incredulity

I too have a long History with this whole 9/11 thing

Dohnjoe wrote: »

For example, despite many perishable items surviving from both planes that impacted the twin towers, you've decided in your head that it's impossible for a passport to survive because you "can't believe it". You can't provide an alternative explanation, you can't provide an alternative theory backed with a single shred of evidence. No one can help you with that.

I find it suspect ...yes, critical thinking requires that, I find dozens more things suspect regarding 9/11, many of have not been sufficiently explained.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So who blew secretly up WTC 7 in downtown NY then?

If you go with the official line ..Most hijjackers came from SA were funded by Saudies

Because of it Iraq was invaded ... made so much sense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Did the Saudi's do it? did Larry Silverstein do it? Did Rumsfeld do it? Did the CIA do it?

According to King Mob that is a possibility ... yes

Dohnjoe wrote: »

and why did they do it?

I posted a video dealing with many of the questions you have

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If another conspiracy theorist claims WTC 7 was blown up but that the twin towers fell due to aircraft impact/subsequent fires, who is correct you or them?

All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.”

Think about it

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I find it suspect ...yes, critical thinking requires that, I find dozens more things suspect regarding 9/11, many of have not been sufficiently explained.

Yet you think that that passport surviving is proof of a conspiracy even though you can't explain any of the flaws and contradictions in that explanation.

Your reason for rejecting the real explanation:
You just think it's "suspect".
You ignore the other articles that were found.

That's not critical thinking.

If you were applying critical thinking, you would be rejecting all of the conspiracy theory explanations like you do for the space laser explanation.

You don't, cause you don't care.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

According to King Mob that is a possibility ... yes

Again, a lie. You are continuing to dishonestly misrepresent me. You are doing this while avoiding answering the question put to you.

It's possible in the same way the space laser and hologram theories are possible.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And again I don't think you understand what free fall is or what the NIST meant when they mentioned it.
So I will ask you the same question. Cheerful ran away from.
How long in seconds would it take a ball to fall from the roof of WTC7.
Please show your math as I do not believe you understand it and need evidence otherwise.

Then explain why NIST accepted the free fall acceleration evidence ... The math was done by Chandler, Dont need to dodge or run away from it

And then show how that evidence was incorporated in their final report and collapse sequence animation.. proving the simultaneously disappearance of the outer columns to allow for free fall acceleration.

You only have to copy paste the relevant part of the report ... should be easy

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

If you were applying critical thinking, you would be rejecting all of the conspiracy theory explanations like you do for the space laser explanation.

Why would I reject all other alternative explanations or theories just because I reject space lasers ? ... You realize how silly that would be yes ?

You yourself don't rule out 9/11 was somehow allowed to happen (which is a conspiracy as well)

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Then explain why NIST accepted the free fall acceleration evidence ... The math was done by Chandler, Dont need to dodge or run away from it

And then show how that evidence was incorporated in their final report and collapse sequence animation.. proving the simultaneously disappearance of the outer columns to allow for free fall acceleration.

Again, you are asking me to provide evidence for something I don't believe happened.

And again, I have no inclination in explaining it to you when you've again ignored my points and my question.
And I don't think it's worth doing as you, like cheerful just don't understand what "free fall" means and you can't even do a simple physics problem.

Answer this directly and simply and then I can maybe start explaining it to you:
How long in seconds would it take a ball to fall from the roof of WTC7?

If you avoid it or ignore it, then there's no point.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Pulling something is a common phrase.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pull


You have again dodged questions you can't answer.

Uhh no ...I literally said I dont know

I responded with FEMA's conclusion that

firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."

I asked you to explain your firefighters pulling hypothesis in regards to the FEMA findings ?

Which you not surprisingly, failed to do

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Uhh no ...I literally said I dont know

I responded with FEMA's conclusion that

I asked you to explain your firefighters pulling hypothesis in regards to the FEMA findings ?

Which you not surprisingly, failed to do

I did. He was refering to the operation that was being planned.
I answered that directly and simply. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108597982&postcount=1283
You have dodged every single question about your silly childish explanation that he was confessing.

If you can't answer those questions, why do you think he was confessing?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Why would I reject all other alternative explanations or theories just because I reject space lasers ? ... You realize how silly that would be yes ?

Because there is no difference between them.

weisses wrote: »

You yourself don't rule out 9/11 was somehow allowed to happen (which is a conspiracy as well)

Again a dishonest misrepresentation.
I don't rule it out. I don't rule out space lasers or thermite either.
There's a 0.0001% they could happen.

I don't think they did happen however.
Just some of those theories are less believable and more silly than others.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, a lie. You are continuing to dishonestly misrepresent me. You are doing this while avoiding answering the question put to you.

It's possible in the same way the space laser and hologram theories are possible.

If it was possible allowed to happen then some of the people mentioned in that post knew about it

Or are you now saying you never said such a thing ? oohh wait ... you actually did

King Mob wrote: »

I've said a few times that the basic premise of the conspiracy theory isn't far fetched.
It's entirely possible that elements of the US government allowed or helped or ordered terrorists to fly planes into buildings.

stop the fake outcries of dishonesty .... Think hard next time you decide to call me a hypocrite

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I did. He was refering to the operation that was being planned.

What operation was being planned ? .. linkie would suffice

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

If it was possible allowed to happen then some of the people mentioned in that post knew about it

Or are you now saying you never said such a thing ? oohh wait ... you actually did

top the fake outcries of dishonesty .... Think hard next time you decide to call me a hypocrite

And again, you are being dishonest.
I don't rule it out. I don't rule out the other ideas as completely impossible either.
But I still maintain that it's as unlikely as space lasers and your controlled demolition theory, just that it's not as inherently silly.
That's the distinction you are pretending not to get.

weisses wrote: »

What operation was being planned ? .. linkie would suffice

Link to what exactly?
I'm making a very reasonable assumption that firefighters, at the site of a large fire might have been planning to fight that fire.

But yea, that's too far fetched...
It's far far more likely he was confessing to the world's biggest crime:rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't think so.

A strong case can be made this attack was preplanned by Prince Bandar and other high officials in the Saudi Arabian government.

Prince Bandar ordered someone to blow up WTC 7 and WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Who? what was the motive for him to blow up WTC 7?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And again, you are being dishonest.
I don't rule it out. I don't rule out the other ideas as completely impossible either.
But I still maintain that it's as unlikely as space lasers and your controlled demolition theory, just that it's not as inherently silly.
That's the distinction you are pretending not to get.

Uhh you said that the premise of a CT is not far fetched and it is entirely possible the government knew and allowed it to happen ...

3 buildings destroyed by space lasers is far fetched and highly unlikely ...

But I appreciate you find it entirely possible that a conspiracy took place on 9/11

Claiming otherwise after quoting from you directly would make you utterly untrustworthy in this debate .

King Mob wrote: »

Link to what exactly?
I'm making a very reasonable assumption that firefighters, at the site of a large fire might have been planning to fight that fire.

But I countered your assumption with actual evidence from FEMA contradicting your assumption

It is you who is doing the dodging "there was no planned operation" simples ... stop lying

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you are asking me to provide evidence for something I don't believe happened.

Again ... No one gives a toss about what you do or don't believe

The evidence points to a simultaneously disappearance of the outer columns to allow for free fall acceleration, free fall acceleration would be impossible otherwise (basic physics)

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Uhh you said that the premise of a CT is not far fetched and it is entirely possible the government knew and allowed it to happen ...

3 buildings destroyed by space lasers is far fetched and highly unlikely ...

But I appreciate you find it entirely possible that a conspiracy took place on 9/11

Claiming otherwise after quoting from you directly would make you utterly untrustworthy in this debate .

Again, a dishonest misrepresentation.
This is the only tactic you have left to avoid the fact you can't address any points.

weisses wrote: »

But I countered your assumption with actual evidence from FEMA contradicting your assumption

It is you who is doing the dodging "there was no planned operation" simples ... stop lying

But the evidence you provided did not say anything about planned operations. But whatever, I'm not bothered to explain this to you all over again.

If my explanation doesn't work, why do you believe he was confessing when you can't make sense of that explanation.
Why should I accept that explanation when you can't answer a single question about it?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Again ... No one gives a toss about what you do or don't believe

The evidence points to a simultaneously disappearance of the outer columns to allow for free fall acceleration, free fall acceleration would be impossible otherwise (basic physics)

Again, that's not what happened. It's not what I believe happened.
I can't prove it if I don't think it happened.

You don't understand the evidence because you are not even able to do high school level physics.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, a dishonest misrepresentation.
This is the only tactic you have left to avoid the fact you can't address any points.

Stop the nonsense about dishonest misrepresentation ... I quoted you directly, Its not a tactic .. All I do is set the record straight

You find it very plausible a conspiracy occurred during 9/11 ..You said it ..own it

King Mob wrote: »

But the evidence you provided did not say anything about planned operations. But whatever, I'm not bothered to explain this to you all over again.

Correct .. It was YOU who brought in the planned operations, My stance is that there were no planned operations.

Is there any evidence that there were planned operations in buidling 7 requiring firefighters to be pulled ?

King Mob wrote: »

If my explanation doesn't work, why do you believe he was confessing when you can't make sense of that explanation.
Why should I accept that explanation when you can't answer a single question about it?

Your explanation doesnt work because it contradicts the findings of FEMA

No amount of assuming from your side will change that

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Your explanation doesnt work because it contradicts the findings of FEMA

No amount of assuming from your side will change that

Ok, let's pretend that's true.
My explanation can't work.

So why should I accept your explanation that he was confessing?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again, that's not what happened. It's not what I believe happened.

Again ...This is not what you believe Its about presenting the evidence that supports what you believe

King Mob wrote: »

I can't prove it if I don't think it happened.

So you dont believe the building fell at free fall acceleration .... glad we cleared that up

King Mob wrote: »

You don't understand the evidence because you are not even able to do high school level physics.

Ohh I do understand the evidence and lack of ... It is you who has issues with it because of your believes ... You sound almost religious ... If you understood high school physics your need for believing would not be there

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

So you dont believe the building fell at free fall acceleration .... glad we cleared that up

Misrepresentation of the dishonest kind. Again.

weisses wrote: »

Ohh I do understand the evidence and lack of ... It is you who has issues with it because of your believes ... You sound almost religious ... If you understood high school physics your need for believing would not be there

Cool.
How long would it take a ball to fall from the roof of WTC7?