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

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

Lol you have argued previously that the buildings were rigged in secret in a matter of hours...
You seem confused about your own theory.

Did i can you post the link where I said that? Was I talking about nano-thermite?

If explosives were used it takes a lot longer than a few hours. If you use multiple teams to plant explosives you can cut down the time.

Proof for this please. Please show that it is quicker to plant magic thermite charges.
Also please outline how many charges they placed, where they were placed and how long it took.
Otherwise it's on the crackpot pile with space lasers.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Proof for this please. Please show that it is quicker to plant magic thermite charges.
Also please outline how many charges they placed, where they were placed and how long it took.
Otherwise it's on the crackpot pile with space lasers.

Kingmob watch this presentation.

Your arguments are not sound they annoying and just wrong. Been over this with Dohnjoe already.

When you familiarise yourself with Dr Hulsey work, you will understand why I support the controlled demolition theory for WTC7.

Think of it as a debunking exercise if that helps you watch it? I off for the night.

Yup, like Dr Judy Wood, you can't answer simple questions.
So I'll take a page from your book and dismiss your theory as crackpot nonsense like you did with Dr Judy Wood's.
You have not demonstrated any difference between the two.

Dohnjoe

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I remember seeing the following clip live on the day it happened, Larry Silverstein clearly states that the decision was made to "pull it".

At the time meant "pulling" firefighters from the building. There were mounting fears the building was close to collapse (a large bulge had developed on the side and it had been burning for hours)

This was clarified a few years later in an interview

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When you familiarise yourself with Dr Hulsey work, you will understand why I support the controlled demolition theory for WTC7.

He doesn't support the controlled demo theory. The only reason you "support" Hulsey is because he is paid by a conspiracy group to conduct research attempting to "disprove" the NIST

If in the final report he comes out and claims that it couldn't be proved and that the NIST findings are correct you will likely disown him

Again, the above has nothing to do with energy weapons or controlled demolitions

You are still writing in this thread and you haven't supported your own theory yet

It's a showcase for how individuals can support inane and absurd theories with absolutely no evidence, purely by attacking and attempting to discredit the real findings. Nothing else.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When his finds get released they're going to be a lot of backtracking in the 9/11 Skeptic community.

When is it being released?


Why wait? If he has the smoking gun right now why not go public now?

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

When is it being released?


Why wait? If he has the smoking gun right now why not go public now?

He's "building tension"

Just kidding it was due early this year but has been delayed. One of two assistants is no longer working on the project and there are already multiple discrepancies in his preliminary findings

He's really going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and that's before it gets subjected to peer-review

When it was announced it stated that the results were going to discredit the NIST, that was before he even started his work - pretty hilarious for an "objective" study. They quickly changed the wording

All that said, I'm keeping an open mind, perhaps it will be groundbreaking, but I wouldn't hold my breath

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

At the time meant "pulling" firefighters from the building. There were mounting fears the building was close to collapse (a large bulge had developed on the side and it had been burning for hours)

This was clarified a few years later in an interview

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/shame-on-jesse-ventura

Silverstein was on the phone on 9/11 trying to find out of his insurance company would pay out for controlled demolition of WTC7. Skeptics can no longer claim he was just talking just about pulling firefighters out of the building. The firefighters were told not to fight the fires at 11 am on 9/11. That's insane I love to know who made that decision and why? That just give up saving a building that had a few fires on just a few floors. There were no eastside fires till after 2 pm.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Silverstein was on the phone on 9/11 trying to find out of his insurance company would pay out for controlled demolition of WTC7.

Guess he forgot to check that before he got involved with the conspiracy. Whoopies...
Also then maybe forgot that he probably shouldn't have told the insurance company that he planed to blow it up... I don't think they'd pay out for that...

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

When is it being released?


Why wait? If he has the smoking gun right now why not go public now?

November or December this year.

Everything has to be correct for peer review. If he released and something is not right then the whole study is worthless.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Guess he forgot to check that before he got involved with the conspiracy. Whoopies...
Also then maybe forgot that he probably shouldn't have told the insurance company that he planed to blow it up... I don't think they'd pay out for that...

We never going to know for sure what he meant. It's a lie though to claim Silverstein did not discuss controlled demolition with people on 9/11.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He doesn't support the controlled demo theory. The only reason you "support" Hulsey is because he is paid by a conspiracy group to conduct research attempting to "disprove" the NIST

If in the final report he comes out and claims that it couldn't be proved and that the NIST findings are correct you will likely disown him

Again, the above has nothing to do with energy weapons or controlled demolitions

You are still writing in this thread and you haven't supported your own theory yet

It's a showcase for how individuals can support inane and absurd theories with absolutely no evidence, purely by attacking and attempting to discredit the real findings. Nothing else.

I would accept Hulsey work if he said fires was the main cause for the building falling. I don't stick to one position like you do

The NIST study is full of contradictions, errors and lies. Their own models and graphs and images are not accurate. How can you not see that when they have the building come down like a crushed soda can. Do you trust your own eyes Dohnjoe have you watched the actual collapse video of WTC7?

NIST lied about the connections on the girder, they lied about where the fires were at different stages during the day. NIST had to be told by David Chandler WTC7 underwent freefall. They were denying freefall up till the time David Chandler contacted them about it. There so many things that just don't make sense.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We never going to know for sure what he meant. It's a lie though to claim Silverstein did not discuss controlled demolition with people on 9/11.

Sure. But the conspiracy explanation here is silly to the point of parody.

You are claiming that he was involved with the conspiracy. Yet he only checked he'd get the money on the day of the event hours before the building was to collapse. And then in the process of calling, not only did he discuss it openly in front of people not involved in the conspiracy who would later talk about... he told the insurance company directly that he wanted to defraud them and asked them if they would still pay out money if he did.
Then on top of that years later, he admits on camera that he's part of the conspiracy.

Again, it's bizarre that you reject space lasers as silly, but believe this...

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

November or December this year.

Everything has to be correct for peer review. If he released and something is not right then the whole study is worthless.

Something tells me that this will be the case regardless.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Sure. But the conspiracy explanation here is silly to the point of parody.

You are claiming that he was involved with the conspiracy. Yet he only checked he'd get the money on the day of the event hours before the building was to collapse. And then in the process of calling, not only did he discuss it openly in front of people not involved in the conspiracy who would later talk about... he told the insurance company directly that he wanted to defraud them and asked them if they would still pay out money if he did.
Then on top of that years later, he admits on camera that he's part of the conspiracy.

Again, it's bizarre that you reject space lasers as silly, but believe this...

Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. So his comments are very important. You are of the opinion this did not occur. You have a different point of view, that fine.

We don't know what his insurance company told him? Either way, NIST covered up what really happened so he got his insurance money anyhow.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Something tells me that this will be the case regardless.

Dr Hulsey is highly respected in his field of study. He even gave a lecture to ASCE engineers. They're not all close-minded. Many professional groups disagree with the NIST findings. Even Skeptics on JREF forum believe the NIST study has problems.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

In my opinion Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. So his comments are very important. You are of the opinion this did not occur. You have a different point of view, that fine.

We don't know what his insurance company told him? Either way, NIST covered up what really happened so he got his insurance money anyhow.

Fixed that for you.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. So his comments are very important. You are of the opinion this did not occur. You have a different point of view, that fine.

We don't know what his insurance company told him? Either way, NIST covered up what really happened so he got his insurance money anyhow.

You are not understanding the problem with your conspiracy theory here.

It makes no sense for him to do those things in the context of a conspiracy.
The fact you can't see why those actions are so silly shows either how little you understand or how little you care your evidence.

Why did he only check if he would get his money on the day? It makes no sense that he would do this.
Why would he call the insurance company to check this? It makes no sense that he would do this.
Why would he tell the insurance company that he intends to defraud them? It makes no sense why he would do this.
Why would he do this in earshot of people not involved in the conspiracy? It makes no sense why he would do this.
Why would he admit to being part of the conspiracy on camera? It makes so sense why he would do this.

Again, I'm not saying that these things didn't happen. It's just that your interpretation is silly and not very well thought out.

bessboroughboy

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so leaving aside the fact that that quote was not ever broadcast live...

Why do you think he said this on camera? Why did he blow the whole conspiracy?

Ok, maybe not broadcast LIVE but that phrase WAS used by Larry Silverstein on the day of the attacks and BROADCAST on the same day - I remember it on TV

Either way, 3 buildings simply collapsed into their own footprints and one of them wasn't hit by a plane

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey is highly respected in his field of study. He even gave a lecture to ASCE engineers. They're not all close-minded. Many professional groups disagree with the NIST findings. Even Skeptics on JREF forum believe the NIST study has problems.

I'm sure he is, I'm also sure that you guys will throw him under the bus if he cannot prove conclusively what you are claiming and will instead turn on him and claim he is part of the conspiracy.

bessboroughboy

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Ok, maybe not broadcast LIVE but that phrase WAS used by Larry Silverstein on the day of the attacks and BROADCAST on the same day - I remember it on TV

But no, that video clip was not broadcast on 9/11. it from a documentary by PBS called “America Rebuilds”, released in 2002.
https://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337570/

That is the only time he utters those words. No conspiracy theorists point to any earlier videos. I think you are just remembering it incorrectly.

And again, you've ignored my question. Why?

Why do you believe he's admitting to the conspiracy when that idea does not make sense to you?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You are not understanding the problem with your conspiracy theory here.

It makes no sense for him to do those things in the context of a conspiracy.
The fact you can't see why those actions are so silly shows either how little you understand or how little you care your evidence.

What silly here you don't think people can slip up and saying things they should not have said.

Skeptics have always claimed he meant pull the firefighters from the building?


What they ignore is no firefighting effort was happening after 11 am so what they need to pull firefighters out? It makes sense for early in the day if they were trying to fight the fires and the decisions were made to leave.

Silverstein says the best thing to do is pull it and we watched the building collapse. That doesn't read to me like he was telling the fire chief to get people out. Building 7 was empty of people for hours.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What silly here you don't think people can slip up and saying things they should not have said.

Ahh.. so he slipped, fell and accidentally told his insurance company and everyone in the room that he planned on committing insurance fraud against them...
Then he also slipped and accidentally admitted to being involved in the biggest crime ever...

Right....:rolleyes:

Why, in conspiracy land, does he say that he's concerned about more people dying? Why would he care about that if there's no people in danger and that he'd already just helped kill 3000 people?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm sure he is, I'm also sure that you guys will throw him under the bus if he cannot prove conclusively what you are claiming and will instead turn on him and claim he is part of the conspiracy.

I would not do that. I know this study has been done correctly and he looked at different fire scenarios that could have occurred. His even looked could diesel fuel have caused it. There was an electric substation next to WTC7 his even looked at to see if that was a cause.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ahh.. so he slipped, fell and accidentally told his insurance company and everyone in the room that he planned on committing insurance fraud against them...
Then he also slipped and accidentally admitted to being involved in the biggest crime ever...

Right....:rolleyes:

Why, in conspiracy land, does he say that he's concerned about more people dying? Why would he care about that if there's no people in danger and that he'd already just helped kill 3000 people?

Silverstein never told anyone he contacted the insurance company to inquire about controlled demolition payouts. His conversation was overheard. It happens not unusual he probably did not think about it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I would not do that. I know this study has been done correctly and he looked at different fire scenarios that could have occurred. His even looked could diesel fuel have caused it. There was an electric substation next to WTC7 his even looked at to see if that was a cause.

Quoted for future reference.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Silverstein never told anyone he contacted the insurance company to inquire about controlled demolition payouts. His conversation was overheard. It happens not unusual he probably did not think about it.

lol, sure, that solves all of the problems I brought up.
Good job.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Quoted for future reference.

You don't have to wait. You can listen to this to find out what he been looking at.

Take time to listen you see his very credible. You see what he's doing compared to what NIST did. What NIST did is a joke.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

lol, sure, that solves all of the problems I brought up.
Good job.

You speculating. We know on 9/11 he was ringing up his insurance to ask about controlled demolition.

So why do you dismiss that Silverstein quote was about controlled demolition?

Do you think its possible this firechief ( whoever he is) and Silverstein talked about this on the phone?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

you see his very credible.

Confirmation bias at it's best

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't have to wait. You can listen to this to find out what he been looking at.

Take time to listen you see his very credible. You see what he's doing compared to what NIST did. What NIST did is a joke.

I dont have time to spend an hour listening to that, i quoted you for when he doesnt say what you want him to say and you change tactic and accuse him of being in on the conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Confirmation bias at it's best

Have you actually ever sat down and listened to his one of his presentations? I have a feeling you have not. You forming an opinion when you don't even know what the issues are.

Watch the presentation I just posted.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You speculating.

Again, go back and read my posts. My points are all there.

The conspiracy explanation is profoundly stupid and silly.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I dont have time to spend an hour listening to that, i quoted you for when he doesnt say what you want him to say and you change tactic and accuse him of being in on the conspiracy.

So you can't be bothered to find what the arguments are, got ya. Don't have to watch it all in one sitting anyways. You watch some of it and come back watch it again.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So you can't be bothered to find what the arguments are, got ya. Don't have to watch it all in one sitting anyways. You watch some of it and come back watch it again.

And i may later, as i said i quoted YOU so when you flip on your opinion of him i can quote your post again.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Have you actually ever

As mentioned I have, and I have also read criticism of his preliminary findings. I've read that his own students have started questioning it.

Without the final report, which is crucial, we can't know his final findings. He could literally turn around the conclude that he believes fire brought the building down

I'm not sure you realise this.

Having white hair, sounding "sciencey" about something and confirming your bias may be all you need, but back in real world his report (if finished, if challenging the WTC 7 investigation) will have to stand up to expert scrutiny

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

watch some of it

Yeah perhaps instead of repeatedly telling people to watch videos you could spend some time coming up with a shred of credible evidence for your personal theory that some unknown people blew up a building in front of the world's media

12 pages of diversions and deflections

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As mentioned I have, and I have also read criticism of his preliminary findings. I've read that his own students have started questioning it.

Without the final report, which is crucial, we can't know his final findings. He could literally turn around the conclude that he believes fire brought the building down

I'm not sure you realise this.

Having white hair, sounding "sciencey" about something and confirming your bias may be all you need, but back in real world his report (if finished, if challenging the WTC 7 investigation) will have to stand up to expert scrutiny

I don't believe you watched it sorry. You read some random posts on a Skeptic forum and formed an opinion be truthful. Wrong none of his students questioned it. One of his students just graduated with a PhD so he no longer at the University.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And i may later, as i said i quoted YOU so when you flip on your opinion of him i can quote your post again.

Do its best way to judge if the information is reliable or not.

Tipsy McSwagger

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/shame-on-jesse-ventura

Silverstein was on the phone on 9/11 trying to find out of his insurance company would pay out for controlled demolition of WTC7. Skeptics can no longer claim he was just talking just about pulling firefighters out of the building. The firefighters were told not to fight the fires at 11 am on 9/11. That's insane I love to know who made that decision and why? That just give up saving a building that had a few fires on just a few floors. There were no eastside fires till after 2 pm.

I’ve researched a lot of conspiracy theories in my time and this has to be the funniest thing I’ve ever read. It’s beyong bonkers to think like this.

storker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah perhaps instead of repeatedly telling people to watch videos

I gave up watching "truther" videos as soon as I'd seen enough to know that they are never what the headline trumpets them to be ("Proof!", "Smoking Gun!", "Whistle Blower!"), and are instead all sizzle and no steak, put together by people who either don't know how critical thinking and logic work, or who do, but hope the viewer doesn't.

Cheerful Spring

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I’ve researched a lot of conspiracy theories in my time and this has to be the funniest thing I’ve ever read. It’s beyong bonkers to think like this.

Silverstein phoned the insurance company to find out if they would pay out if the building was brought down by controlled demolition. It happened so why you think it's bonkers?

Cheerful Spring

storker wrote: »

I gave up watching "truther" videos as soon as I'd seen enough to know that they are never what the headline trumpets them to be ("Proof!", "Smoking Gun!", "Whistle Blower!"), and are instead all sizzle and no steak, put together by people who either don't know how critical thinking and logic work, or who do, but hope the viewer doesn't.

You may not know this but no modern steel framed building had collapsed due to fire pre 9/11. Three steel framed buildings collapsed and fell on 9/11. The people who believe WTC7 collapsed to fire are people who are not thinking logically.

Cheerful Spring

NIST was unable to replicate the actual collapse conditions is another sign what truthers have said is true.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah perhaps instead of repeatedly telling people to watch videos you could spend some time coming up with a shred of credible evidence for your personal theory that some unknown people blew up a building in front of the world's media

12 pages of diversions and deflections

The actual collapse video shows what happened. The building fell down symmetrically!

NIST images do not show a symmetrical collapse. The building looked like a crushed soda can when it fell.

If you had watched the actual collapse video. You would see the walls came straight down (no deformations or crushing in) and the roofline was almost a perfect horizontal line as it fell.

You know that's an impossibility in a natural collapse? For a symmetrical collapse to occur all the vertical columns have to break at the same time.

That's why NIST images look like they do. A progressive collapse is not instant. You have to wait for all the floors to buckle and break and fall away.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe For NIST theory to make sense fire would have to buckle all the columns at the same time. Did not happen.

Cheerful Spring

When the truthers had to point out to NIST freefall occurred it was game over.

Dohnjoe You don't understand the implications of freefall.

Demolition experts will tell you this a building can not fall down naturally and not meet structural resistance underneath. Wtc7 was falling down at freefall speeds, is a tell-tale sign of controlled demolition.

If NIST was right building 7 would not have come down at freefall speeds. There is a sequence of failures that need to occur in a natural collapse.

Maybe you did not understand this? NIST computer simulation calculations are wrong. They claim it took 20+ seconds when the Penthouse fell from the roof for the entire building to start coming down.

False the actual collapse the building started falling in 5 to 6 seconds after the Penthouse left the roof.

20+ second in their model for the progressive collapse to finish up.

In actual reality, it took only 5 to 6 seconds for WTC7 to start falling down completely.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe NIST is claiming all the steel and concrete just disappeared no explanation how that was even possible in a natural collapse?

storker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You may not know this but no modern steel framed building had collapsed due to fire pre 9/11.

This proves nothing; there is a first time for everything. By the way, how many of the buildings that failed to collapse due to fire had also been impacted by airliners moving at high speed?

Three steel framed buildings collapsed and fell on 9/11. The people who believe WTC7 collapsed to fire are people who are not thinking logically.

OK, so we're agreed that only one building collapsed due to fire alone. Except that WTC7 was also hit by a large amount of debris from the collapse of the North and South towers. Aerial photos of the collapsing towers show a large debris cloud surrounding WTC7, and considerable damage to the southwest corner of that building. NIST determined later that the most likely scenario was that the south face of WTC was severely damaged by falling debris, and that it was this, combined with the the fires, that brought the building down. Eye-witness reports by firefighters on the scene give support to this view:

Lt Rudy Weindler, Ladder Co, 40: "So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."

Fire Captain Chris Boyle: "Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. [...]And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it,nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped."

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

So the eyewitness accounts indicate a weakened building that was suffering a very serious, very large, and that it was no surprise to those on the scene that it collapsed. Indeed

To go against that, some pretty compelling evidence would be required:

• Evidence confirming who wired the building for demolition, or who ordered it to be done.
• Evidence confirming the reason for the demolition.
• Evidence confirming where the charges were placed.
• Evidence explaining how the charges placed without anyone noticing.

If you have any of this evidence, I would be interested in seeing it, and by "evidence", I mean real evidence and not innuendo...the kind of evidence that would be likely to result in charges (legal, not explosive ) being brought...the kind of evidence that would support someone being to 100% positive as "truthers" tend to be, that skulduggery was indeed afoot.

(Oh, and no videos please, and if citing a website or publication, please make it precise - direct me straight to the money quotes - my reading time is limited.)

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe believes in miracles.

Dohnjoe has to explain how 84 columns (exterior and perimeter) got removed in 1 to 2 seconds by fire? If he can't then the NIST study as I have always known is junk science.