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

Cheerful Spring

Ipso wrote: »

What do you think Bigelow was investigating at Skinwalker ranch?

Paranormal events from what I heard, why?

Ipso

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Paranormal events from what I heard, why?

Bigelow was investigating on “behalf” of the Pentagon (kick backs to a donor), he’s the perfect example of more money than sense.
Invoking him to make the ever changing troofer tower 7 charade seem credible isn’t a good idea.

Cheerful Spring

Ipso wrote: »

Bigelow was investigating on “behalf” of the Pentagon (kick backs to a donor), he’s the perfect example of more money than sense.
Invoking him to make the ever changing troofer tower 7 charade seem credible isn’t a good idea.

Bigelow bought the ranch in the '90s it had nothing to do with the Pentagon research project. He had a lifetime interest investigating this subject. Since he is a billionaire he can pursue this independently. He even hired a team of scientists to research the subject in the '90s.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The 9/11 truth movement is very different.

It's a bunch of like-minded people pushing pseudo-science and disinformation. There's no difference.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a bunch of like-minded people pushing pseudo-science and disinformation. There's no difference.

NIST is pushing pseudoscience and disinformation, corrected for you:)

storker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They just did not research the explanation given. The trusted the source and left it at that. Big mistake.

If they trusted the explanations given, that means they saw no inconsistencies. 95% of them read the official explanation and didn't have a problem with it. 95%.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST is pushing pseudoscience and disinformation

According to conspiracy theorists and isolated experts, which doesn't mean anything. There's as much evidence for Bigfoot as there is for a controlled demolition, hologram planes, mini-nukes and whatever else at 911

Sure a completely different building fell down in another country, there was an investigation which discovered the cause, but you arbitrarily decided to create your own facts about it based on a youtube video. That's the mentality we are dealing with here

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so we can exclude the idea that the NIST was covering something up.

So if they weren't hiding something, why would they first say there was no free fall and then say there was free fall and how does that point towards a conspiracy?

Because evidence showed there was free fall ... something the couldn't deny, 200 highly skilled engineers didnt do the proper calculations ... they had to be told by a physics teacher ... rather embarrassing, The fact they did not conducted proper research (re evaluate their collapse hypothesis) after the free fall was pointed out to them is highly suspicious. And yes point towards a conspiracy

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Because evidence showed there was free fall ... something the couldn't deny, 200 highly skilled engineers didnt do the proper calculations ... they had to be told by a physics teacher ... rather embarrassing, The fact they did not conducted proper research (re evaluate their collapse hypothesis) after the free fall was pointed out to them is highly suspicious. And yes point towards a conspiracy

Ok, so why then did they say there was free fall if that's a dead give away?
Why did they say that there was no free fall in the first place?

If there was a conspiracy, they wouldn't do either of these things, so therefore the conspiracy can't be an explanation.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It was related to the question you posed - which I kindly asked on engineering forums (where it's been asked dozens of times before)

And where is the simple answer to my specific question ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You rubbish/reject all the responses

Yes because
A Some are posted here on thread already and didn't answer the question

B Many refer to the NIST report .. which is what is disputed ..And even those references dont deal with the question asked

And yes I checked the links you posted thoroughly before replying

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You post a conspiracy video from a known crank (Chandler)

Can you point out why he is a crank ? I mean he embarrassed 200 highly trained NIST engineers by pointing out flaws in the Collapse of wtc7

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You again ignore the topic of the thread

You asked for theories with solid evidence

All I asked is to provide the solid evidence for the collapse hypothesis put forward by NIST in regards to wtc 7 ... SO far I have seen nothing of the sort

I mean you asked a simple question and look what you got as an answer ... If you have any sense of critical thinking you should know the answers didn't make sense

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so why then did they say there was free fall if that's a dead give away?
Why did they say that there was no free fall in the first place?

If there was a conspiracy, they wouldn't do either of these things, so therefore the conspiracy can't be an explanation.

Shoddy investigating ?

They were forced to admit it because the evidence was presented ... no point in denying it

What they did after free fall acceleration was established is the problem ... And is part of my question that is still not answered by all the debunkers

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to conspiracy theorists and isolated experts, which doesn't mean anything. There's as much evidence for Bigfoot as there is for a controlled demolition, hologram planes, mini-nukes and whatever else at 911

How much real evidence is there that fires brought down building 7 ?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's because the question has been asked repeatedly (and answered) for years. On some engineering forums it's banned

Then where is the answer ??

FFS just post the answer here and move on

weisses

storker wrote: »

If they trusted the explanations given, that means they saw no inconsistencies. 95% of them read the official explanation and didn't have a problem with it. 95%.

95% of engineers read the NIST report ?? ...dream on ...

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Shoddy investigating ?

They were forced to admit it because the evidence was presented ... no point in denying it

But this would indicate that it wasn't a conspiracy and just shoddy investigating.

So again the conspiracy explanation can't be true as it wouldn't make sense for them to deny free fall and then admit it later.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to conspiracy theorists and isolated experts, which doesn't mean anything. There's as much evidence for Bigfoot as there is for a controlled demolition, hologram planes, mini-nukes and whatever else at 911

Sure a completely different building fell down in another country, there was an investigation which discovered the cause, but you arbitrarily decided to create your own facts about it based on a youtube video. That's the mentality we are dealing with here

What is your issue ? For weeks I ask for facts and all I get is incoherent ramblings about truthers and cranks and anti vaxxers

You want facts and evidence in this thread ? ...Then provide it when asked for it

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But this would indicate that it wasn't a conspiracy and just shoddy investigating.

Could be yes ?

There is also a scenario they did know but decided to try and hide it because it would destroy their collapse hypothesis

King Mob wrote: »

So again the conspiracy explanation can't be true as it wouldn't make sense for them to deny free fall and then admit it later.

Again you leap from assumption to assumption and the reach a conclusion based on an assumption .... That is not how it works..

You should focus on what happened after they admitted free fall and how that affected their progressive free fall hypothesis ... Or better how it didn't affect it at all

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Could be yes ?

There is also a scenario they did know but decided to try and hide it because it would destroy their collapse hypothesis

Ok, but then if that's the case, why would they then admit there was free fall later if they were trying to hide it? Do you not notice how your explanation is self contradictory?

Why would they try to hide it in the first place if it's easily shown by people like yourself who don't even know what free fall is?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, but then if that's the case, why would they then admit there was free fall later if they were trying to hide it? Do you not notice how your explanation is self contradictory?

So if it was shoddy investigating ..which is what you find plausible ..what does that say about the quality of the report ? talk about a contradiction

King Mob wrote: »

Why would they try to hide it in the first place if it's easily shown by people like yourself who don't even know what free fall is?

Ohh I know what free fall is ... Its the speed in which your argument is falling towards being nonsensical

I dont know why they would hide it ... Best case for the debunkers at this stage is that these 200 engineers were incompetent ... That says a lot

It also explains why free fall was never incorporated in the final draft other then a few lines taken out and some content added ... Their collapse hypothesis did not change one bit ... more shoddy work

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

So if it was shoddy investigating ..which is what you find plausible ..what does that say about the quality of the report ? talk about a contradiction

I don't believe the investigation was shoddy. That was your suggestion, I'm just trying to figure out how that makes sense to you.

If it's just a shoddy investigation then, why would you think it's a conspiracy when blow you admit you can't make sense of the conspiracy explanation?

weisses wrote: »

I dont know why they would hide it ...

If you can't suggest a reason why they would hide it, then the conspiracy explanation is invalid and silly and you should dismiss it as it doesn't make sense here.

So if your arguments held, the most you can conclude is that the investigation is shoddy.
But that argument also falls into it's own pitfalls...

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

And where is the simple answer to my specific question ?

First of all it isn't a "simple" question so stop referring to it as such

It's a long quote of text, an assumption put forward by AE911 which requires a rebuttal and an explanation

A simple yes or no is not enough

Can you point out why he is a crank ?

He's a crank. He believes a rocket was fired at the Twin Towers and that their collapse was "impossible"

You asked for theories with solid evidence

You haven't provided any

All I asked is to provide the solid evidence for the collapse hypothesis put forward by NIST in regards to wtc 7 ... SO far I have seen nothing of the sort

The NIST is sufficient evidence to everyone but conspiracy theorists, cranks and isolated experts

I mean you asked a simple question

Here's a non-bull**** question, why don't you go to engineering/architectural/relevant forums and ask yourself?

How can anyone take you seriously?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to conspiracy theorists and isolated experts, which doesn't mean anything. There's as much evidence for Bigfoot as there is for a controlled demolition, hologram planes, mini-nukes and whatever else at 911

Sure a completely different building fell down in another country, there was an investigation which discovered the cause, but you arbitrarily decided to create your own facts about it based on a youtube video. That's the mentality we are dealing with here

You made the conscious choice to ignore the 9/11 conspiracy evidence. This thread has plenty of evidence of a conspiracy.

This just WTC7
Melted steel.
Nanothermite found
Symmetrical collapse which can't happen if the fires are non-symmetrical.
NIST own computer simulation of the collapse looks nothing like the real collapse
The NIST collapse calculations are wrong.
NIST not understanding the implication of freefall in a building collapse
NIST removing items from the girder at column 79 ( this is fraud by the way)
NIST did not model the collapse with the connections on the girder at column 79
NIST lied about eyewitnesses seeing molten steel and iron
NIST lied about collapse noise heard.
NIST lied about the extent of fires on floors 12 at 4pm


I made the conscious choice to believe the Iranian firefighters who actually battled the fire.

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

Because evidence showed there was free fall ... something the couldn't deny, 200 highly skilled engineers didnt do the proper calculations ... they had to be told by a physics teacher ... rather embarrassing, The fact they did not conducted proper research (re evaluate their collapse hypothesis) after the free fall was pointed out to them is highly suspicious. And yes point towards a conspiracy

Even with you show them the video NIST trying to explain this and saying Freefall could not occur says it all really.

They even admitted on video in August 2008 if freefall occurred the event is instantaneous and there would be no structural resistance underneath. They said in Aug 2008 that impossible because their analysis showed there was resistance. So they got caught out big time.

For 6 years they did not know about Freefall really? In space of three months they added Freefall in but still this has errors as they claim the structure still has slight support underneath. Nonsense. Freefall there no resistance at all 0

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

95% of engineers read the NIST report ?? ...dream on ...

They only paper they released for peer review was downloaded 540 times.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

So only 540 people actually read this report!

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I don't believe the investigation was shoddy. That was your suggestion, I'm just trying to figure out how that makes sense to you.

If it's just a shoddy investigation then, why would you think it's a conspiracy when blow you admit you can't make sense of the conspiracy explanation?



If you can't suggest a reason why they would hide it, then the conspiracy explanation is invalid and silly and you should dismiss it as it doesn't make sense here.

So if your arguments held, the most you can conclude is that the investigation is shoddy.
But that argument also falls into it's own pitfalls...

There no other explanation. For 6 years and even right up to draft of the final report in Aug 2008 they stated Freefall did not occur. It very curious don't you think

The video is online you can hear their own words on this in Aug 2008

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I made the conscious choice to believe the Iranian firefighters who actually battled the fire.

Ah, so you are claiming you know more than

a) the investigation of the event
b) AE911 who suggested it was a controlled demolition

correct?

AE911 are a bunch of experts, so how can they be wrong?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Ah, so you are claiming you know more than

a) the investigation of the event
b) AE911 who suggested it was a controlled demolition

correct?

AE911 are a bunch of experts, so how can they be wrong?

AE911 who posted the testimony of Iranian firefighters recalling gas explosions.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

AE911 who posted the testimony of Iranian firefighters recalling gas explosions.

AE911 suggest it was a controlled demolition

https://gizmodo.com/why-9-11-truthers-are-obsessed-with-the-plasco-high-ris-1822203542

So you ask again, why do you differ from them? if they are experts they why would they make such an extreme claim? is there any truth behind it?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

AE911 suggest it was a controlled demolition

https://gizmodo.com/why-9-11-truthers-are-obsessed-with-the-plasco-high-ris-1822203542

So you ask again, why do you differ from them? if they are experts they why would they make such an extreme claim? is there any truth behind it?

I don't know who supports that theory, basically a PDF or recommendation to the Iranian government to check for controlled demolition.

Chandler has never spoken about it and I don't know of anyone in that movement who gave a lecture on this?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't know who supports that theory, basically a PDF or recommendation to the Iranian government to check for controlled demolition.

"Uuhhh, we see a steel-framed building fell down in your country, it could be a controlled demolition, look at these squibs going off, where did that smoke come from, it didn't topple over, it came straight down, that's suspicious, can you check?"

Signed - the people who believe that steel-framed buildings can't collapse due to fire