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

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

Which has already been debunked ffs

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Which has already been debunked ffs

Note how you are the one having to provide explanations in a thread which specifically asks conspiracy theorists to explain and backup their theories

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"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

Iranians even admitted the building has no fireproofing (steel was unprotected) and there were no adequate shear studs on the steel. The building was reported for multiple violations pre-collapse.

People heated their homes with fuel oil and gas.

Can you point to where fuel oil and gas caused WTC7 to fail?

Mehdi Chamran, the president of the city council in Tehran, said the day after the collapse of the Plasco building: "At first, the fire had been mastered, but at around 11:30 am three explosions on upper floors caused 'Collapse of several floors to collapse

It also a smaller sized building only 17 floors high. The building also collapsed in on itself, not like the collapse of WTC7. When floors collapse walls are pulled in.More evidence the NIST theory is wrong. Their own model even has walls pulling in during the collapse. The problem that never happened during the real collapse.

Dohnjoe

The official investigation concluded that the building fell due to fire

Care to explain how you know more than the investigation?

Do you know better than AE911? if so, how?

(the key here is to dream up a situation whereby both you and AE911 are "correct")

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The official investigation concluded that the building fell due to fire

Care to explain how you know more than the investigation?

Do you know better than AE911? if so, how?

(the key here is to dream up a situation whereby both you and AE911 are "correct")

The official explanation is WTC7 fell to fire. Facts say otherwise.

Iranian government are wrong too.

Again AE911 have provided videos of Iranian firefighters who stated gas explosions went off and the building collapsed. They are open to other possibilities.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The official explanation is WTC7 fell to fire. Facts say otherwise.

Iranian government are wrong too.

Again AE911 have provided videos of Iranian firefighters who stated gas explosions went off and the building collapsed. They are open to other possibilities.

When a building goes on fire, there are a lot of explosions as aerosol cans, gas canisters, electrical transformers, etc explode

You find a video of a firefighter describing hearing explosions (which is normal) and you then make this gigantic leap to a personally invented story that the building itself was blown up due to those explosions (in keeping with confirmation bias about steel-framed buildings not collapsing due to fire)

You have no access to the evidence, to the site, no expertise.. but on a psychological level you believe you "know more" than the people who do have access to all that, the expertise and spend months investigating it

https://www.psypost.org/2018/08/people-with-a-conspiracy-mentality-show-less-of-a-bias-in-favor-of-historical-experts-study-finds-52070

Is a book by a professional historian more trustworthy than a YouTube video created by an anonymous person? If you’re high in the personality trait known as conspiracy mentality, you might not see much of a difference.

The investigation into Plasco found it fell due to fire. If some random individual or group on the internet wants to rationalise that it was space lasers or an "inside job" or "gas explosions" - it's dumb as a bag of hammers, but they can.

The Nal

Im still looking for the explanation as to how they rigged a building up to take it down with explosives without anyone noticing. It would've taken months and months to do. There would've been explosives everywhere, wires etc.

Timberrrrrrrr

The Nal wrote: »

Im still looking for the explanation as to how they rigged a building up to take it down with explosives without anyone noticing. It would've taken months and months to do. There would've been explosives everywhere, wires etc.

Apparently someone (unknown) ran through the buildings (that were ablaze) and sprayed extremely volatile "thermite or thermate or nano thermite" (depends on CS's mood on the day) and then got it all to magically ignite at the same time to cause a perfect collapse.

The Nal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Apparently someone (unknown) ran through the buildings (that were ablaze) and sprayed extremely volatile "thermite or thermate or nano thermite" (depends on CS's mood on the day) and then got it all to magically ignite at the same time to cause a perfect collapse.

That would've taken months. They only had an hour before the buildings came down and were extremely limited where they could go due to the crash. Yet "they" apparently managed to spray enough of this magic dust to take down two 110 story buildings - thats 220 floors over half a mile high - in an hour. A huge breakthrough in demolition. A hundred years into the future stuff.

The other one I love is that it did indeed take months but all of the security guys were in on it, as presumably were the thousands of people who had no problem with demolition experts running wires, cables, explosives etc through lift shafts, across office floors, through canteens toilets and hallways, ignored the months of digging and drilling, turning the electricity off for days at a time, saw the hundreds of demolition guys coming and going who somehow hid the huge machinery needed to do this for months on end and agreed to not say anything.

Its great banter.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

That would've taken months. They only had an hour before the buildings came down and were extremely limited where they could go due to the crash. Yet "they" apparently managed to spray enough of this magic dust to take down two 110 story buildings - thats 220 floors over half a mile high - in an hour. A huge breakthrough in demolition. A hundred years into the future stuff.

The other one I love is that it did indeed take months but all of the security guys were in on it, as presumably were the thousands of people who had no problem with demolition experts running wires, cables, explosives etc through lift shafts, across office floors, through canteens toilets and hallways, ignored the months of digging and drilling, turning the electricity off for days at a time, saw the hundreds of demolition guys coming and going who somehow hid the huge machinery needed to do this for months on end and agreed to not say anything.

Its great banter.

According to our resident conspiracy theorists, it only needed about 8 guys.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108367707&postcount=355
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108367883&postcount=357
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108563541&postcount=1221

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Im still looking for the explanation as to how they rigged a building up to take it down with explosives without anyone noticing. It would've taken months and months to do. There would've been explosives everywhere, wires etc.

Easily actually all explained in this website. Fact-based information on work done at Twin Towers weeks and months before the attacks.

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

Security at Twin Towers.
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

Cheerful Spring

Demolition experts such as Tom Sullivan have said that it would be quite easy to plant them, if a group had access to the elevator shafts, next to the core columns.

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

According to our resident conspiracy theorists, it only needed about 8 guys.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108367707&postcount=355
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108367883&postcount=357
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108563541&postcount=1221

2 teams of 4?! Christ.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Demolition experts such as Tom Sullivan have said that it would be quite easy to plant them, if a group had access to the elevator shafts, next to the core columns.

But they never found any evidence of explosives.

Ipso

Welcome to the post evidence world.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

But they never found any evidence of explosives.

According to NIST

According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings.

Find it answer 13 https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

130db is the sound of drillhammer or an alarm going off

The ignored 1 second before the Penthouse slipped from the roof a noise was picked up on audio.

You can hear it on video. You don't even hear the noise of the building collapsing or 47 floors, but you can hear that noise before the Penthouse collapsed.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

According to NIST

For the umpteenth time, according to the NIST and the NIST video you provide no explosive blasts were heard or recorded

These are demolitions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdqWRHe4AKs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JqOcE-DIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csZLkYiYfpE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wB08FY2FS0

That's not what happened to WTC 1, 2 or 7

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

For the umpteenth time, according to the NIST and the NIST video you provide no explosive blasts were heard or recorded

These are demolitions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdqWRHe4AKs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7JqOcE-DIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csZLkYiYfpE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wB08FY2FS0

That's not what happened to WTC 1, 2 or 7

This is a false argument that WTC7 had to be controlled demolition like this? Whoever did this was not looking for an audience and they did not place mics close to the building for people to hear explosions later on Youtube video. They did not care about economics or public safety.

NIST used noise levels to rule out explosives. Again unless you're deaf that noise on the video is explosive in nature its a boom with an echo.

NIST claimed after 6 years WTC7 did not experience freefall and explained how that was not even possible. The evidence found supports the controlled demolition theory

Office fires don't melt steel and probably most damning evidence NIST is wrong. Nobody has ever explained where the sulphur originated from helped melt the steel?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is a false argument that WTC7 had to be controlled demolition like this? Whoever did this was not looking for an audience and they did not place mics close to the building for people to hear explosions later on Youtube video. They did not care about economics or public safety.

Youtube didn't exist in 2001. Just about every major media outlet in the world was pointed at NY that day, we were all watching it live, there were countless firefighters, emergency staff, police, responders and the streets were packed with people (someone I know was one of them)

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Youtube didn't exist in 2001. Just about every major media outlet in the world was pointed at NY that day, we were all watching it live, there were countless firefighters, emergency staff, police, responders and the streets were packed with people (someone I know was one of them)

You ignoring evidence again. The media and rescue crews on 9/11 thought there were explosives planted in the buildings. I watched all 9/11 American news coverage over the years and they all speculated on-the-air explosives were planted in the building.

Here are some firefighters speculating on explosives on video.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The media and rescue crews on 9/11 thought there were explosives planted in the buildings.

All of the media and all of the rescue crews?

Pack it in chief. You're a garden variety conspiracy theorist.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You ignoring evidence again. The media and rescue crews on 9/11 thought there were explosives planted in the buildings.

A lot of people heard explosions, that's because there was a lot of stuff exploding inside those buildings. Some people mistook them for what sounded like "demolition charges". You've decided to take this out of context to back your far-fetched theory that all the buildings were demolished

I watched all 9/11 American news coverage over the years and they all speculated on-the-air explosives were planted in the building.

Yup and it's all speculation. Your source is youtube which became saturated in selective footage from conspiracy videos.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You ignoring evidence again. The media and rescue crews on 9/11 thought there were explosives planted in the buildings. I watched all 9/11 American news coverage over the years and they all speculated on-the-air explosives were planted in the building.

Here are some firefighters speculating on explosives on video.

The "explosives" they thought they heard were bodies of the people who chose to jump from 100 stories up to avoid burning to death and the multiple elevators that crashed down.

JJayoo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The "explosives" they thought they heard were bodies of the people who chose to jump from 100 stories up to avoid burning to death .

Well that's just silly

Timberrrrrrrr

JJayoo wrote: »

Well that's just silly

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/what_i_saw_on_911.php

At a distance falling debris can be mistaken for falling bodies but I can say this with certainty: I saw two bodies fall and I saw four lying on the ground. One fell on the opposite edge of the square, arms out and legs straight. I heard it tear through the roof of a bandstand and I heard it hit the ground. Closer to me another woman struck the ground. Both times I heard a sound that, had I not seen the impact, I would have taken for an explosion.

Plenty more eyewitness accounts out there too.

King Mob

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/what_i_saw_on_911.php



Plenty more eyewitness accounts out there too.

Now watch how the argument will change to make eye witnesses like that not credible.

Cheerful Spring

Media speculating about explosives planted in the towers. 1 hour 43 minutes.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A lot of people heard explosions, that's because there was a lot of stuff exploding inside those buildings. Some people mistook them for what sounded like "demolition charges". You've decided to take this out of context to back your far-fetched theory that all the buildings were demolished



Yup and it's all speculation. Your source is youtube which became saturated in selective footage from conspiracy videos.

lol i guess the 9/11 firefighters are actors? They described the building come down like a controlled demolition.

JJayoo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/what_i_saw_on_911.php



Plenty more eyewitness accounts out there too.

But you're not comparing the same thing. Your account is from a person who was close to the two bodies that hit the ground, one of which smashed trough a roof. The other poster was talking about witnesses hearing 'explosions' from unknown sources in the distance that they could hear over all the other noise at the scene and it would have been exceptionally noisey.

King Mob

JJayoo wrote: »

The other poster was talking about witnesses hearing 'explosions' from unknown sources in the distance that they could hear over all the other noise at the scene and it would have been exceptionally noisey.

Where and when did they hear these "explosions"?
Is it possible that they hear things that sounded like explosions, or where explosions, but weren't from explosives?
The fact that one witness reports that things like bodies hitting the ground sounded like an explosion seems to confirm that such a thing is possible.

JJayoo

King Mob wrote: »

Where and when did they hear these "explosions"?
Is it possible that they hear things that sounded like explosions, or where explosions, but weren't from explosives?
The fact that one witness reports that things like bodies hitting the ground sounded like an explosion seems to confirm that such a thing is possible.

My issue with the post I quoted is that they stated that all the 'explosion' sounds were bodies hitting the ground.


"The "explosives" they thought they heard were bodies of the people who chose to jump from 100 stories up to avoid burning to death and the multiple elevators that crashed down."


I'm sure there are about a million things that could cause explosions but to explain everything away as bodies hitting the ground is like I said a bit silly.