Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…5051535556…102

Comments

  • Options
    #1562
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    JJayoo wrote: »
    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.

    Read it again, nowhere did i state "all" the sounds were bodies hitting the ground!


  • Options
    #1563
    JJayoo
    Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Read it again, nowhere did i state "all" the sounds were bodies hitting the ground!


    This is what you said

    "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."

    This was your blanket explanation for all the explosions that were being discussed in this thread.


  • Options
    #1564
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    JJayoo wrote: »
    This is what you said

    "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."

    This was your blanket explanation for all the explosions that were being discussed in this thread.

    And elevators! So not "all bodies!

    How many times have people described car crashes as "like an explosion"? People hear loud noises and use that description as they think thats what an explosion may sound like.


  • Options
    #1565
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


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

    People, including firefighters, said they "heard what sounded like explosions", because there were a lot of explosions and loud sounds on the day

    Many firefighters also described that WTC 7 was about to fall due to fire - but you conveniently ignored and rubbished that part. Suddenly firefighters "don't know what they are talking about"


  • Options
    #1566
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    JJayoo wrote: »
    This is what you said

    "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."

    This was your blanket explanation for all the explosions that were being discussed in this thread.

    Just to clarify here, you believe that some of these explosions were explosive blasts from controlled demolition charges?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1567
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Just to clarify here, you believe that some of these explosions were explosive blasts from controlled demolition charges?

    I think it obvious he not saying that. He saying it unlikely all these reports are due to people jumping from towers and falling to the ground and dying.

    You guys seem unable to comprehend sentences now too?


  • Options
    #1568
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    People, including firefighters, said they "heard what sounded like explosions", because there were a lot of explosions and loud sounds on the day

    Many firefighters also described that WTC 7 was about to fall due to fire - but you conveniently ignored and rubbished that part. Suddenly firefighters "don't know what they are talking about"

    Firefighters saw two towers collapse down on 9/11. They obviously thought WTC7 would meet a similar fate. Natural feeling to have based off the events earlier in the day.

    We now know though years after 9/11 the structural damage had nothing to do with the collapse that occurred later. A few firefighters recalled on the day the building was going to fail when they found structural damage.

    Since 9/11 multiple investigations were undertaken and we now have a better understanding of what failed and did not fail in the building. Evidence like melted steel was found later by FEMA. Freefall was only really discussed in 2008.


  • Options
    #1569
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe NIST claimed people were idiots to believe WTC7 experienced freefall acceleration on video in August 2008. They even stated at their own press conference after six years of work investigating the wtc7 collapse that it could not have happened as their calculations and modelling of progressive collapse showed there was resistance from the floors underneath and the collapse of columns was not instantaneous.

    Three months later miracles happen they claim freefall? And still not accurate as they claim in stage 2 during freefall their still limited support from buckling columns. NIST is pulling a fast one on people.


  • Options
    #1570
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I think it obvious he not saying that. He saying it unlikely all these reports are due to people jumping from towers and falling to the ground and dying.

    You guys seem unable to comprehend sentences now too?

    Am asking for clarification. There are pages of made-up stuff in this thread and that is the one a poster picks up on.


  • Options
    #1571
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Firefighters saw two towers collapse down on 9/11. They obviously thought WTC7 would meet a similar fate. Natural feeling to have based off the events earlier in the day.

    If you can invent something in your head that "makes sense" to you - that is what makes it a "fact" to you


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1572
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,657 ✭✭✭storker


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Media speculating about explosives planted in the towers. 1 hour 43 minutes.


    Media speculation is proof now?


  • Options
    #1573
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    storker wrote: »
    Media speculation is proof now?

    Anything that may be even remotely connected to his agenda is considered 100% solid proof.


  • Options
    #1574
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    storker wrote: »
    Media speculation is proof now?

    That what they felt on the day what they are seeing it not logic. They had a gut feeling something was not right.

    By the way, NIST has come out and stated they were unable to explain the full collapse. Their study only explains what they think the failures are. They are unable to explain the ejections of steel in the air and pulverising of concrete floors, that we all saw on tv.


  • Options
    #1575
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,678 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Between this, the pentagon thread, the JFK thread and the moon landing thread.
    It is abundantly clear that there is a pressing need for an idiot wrangler in certain quarters.


  • Options
    #1576
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    Between this, the pentagon thread, the JFK thread and the moon landing thread.
    It is abundantly clear that there is a pressing need for an idiot wrangler in certain quarters.

    If you think it all nonsense why not spend your time somewhere else? Skeptics sites talk about these subjects too. You can join the enlightened and you don't have to be around us idiots anymore?


  • Options
    #1577
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,678 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    If you think it all nonsense why not spend your time somewhere else? Skeptics sites talk about these subjects too. You can join the enlightened and you don't have to be around us idiots anymore?

    I'm quite surprised you immediately assume you are an idiot?


  • Options
    #1578
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Anything that may be even remotely connected to his agenda is considered 100% solid proof.

    Not an agenda. There is an obvious cover-up. That's why I debate it.

    NIST WTC7 study was an obvious cover-up from start to finish. How can you respect NIST when after six years they came out claimed WTC7 had not undergone Freefall. They denied it at a press conference. They are on video claiming this but you guys think stuff like that is irrelevant and not important.


  • Options
    #1579
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Not an agenda. There is an obvious cover-up. That's why I debate it.

    You support many far-out conspiracies, with a very similar pattern. Does it ever occur that the issue might be you? (genuinely not having a go here, just have to ask the Q)


  • Options
    #1580
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You support many far-out conspiracies, with a very similar pattern. Does it ever occur that the issue might be you? (genuinely not having a go here, just have to ask the Q)

    They're not far out conspiracies. 9/11 and JFK are real conspiracies. UFO is a real phenomenon so not really a conspiracy.

    There literally dozens and dozens of conspiracies i don't believe in them at all.

    If I was Alex Jones type I might have a problem;)


  • Options
    #1581
    JJayoo
    Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    Cheerful: is the world flat???? I need to know


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1582
    storker
    Registered Users Posts: 5,657 ✭✭✭storker


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    That what they felt on the day what they are seeing it not logic. They had a gut feeling something was not right.

    Ah, my mistake. so it's gut feelings that are proof now...got it.
    By the way, NIST has come out and stated they were unable to explain the full collapse. Their study only explains what they think the failures are. They are unable to explain the ejections of steel in the air and pulverising of concrete floors, that we all saw on tv.

    That still isn't proof of a controlled demolition.


  • Options
    #1583
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    JJayoo wrote: »
    Cheerful: is the world flat???? I need to know

    It's a cube why would you think the world is flat;)


  • Options
    #1584
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    storker wrote: »
    Ah, my mistake. so it's gut feelings that are proof now...got it.



    That still isn't proof of a controlled demolition.

    Actually, it is as they did six years of work on it, what they think caused the collapse. They released there final draft of the final report in 2008. When freefall was brought up in questions and answers session. NIST claimed freefall could not have occurred as their model and calculations and work up to six years had shown that buckling of columns was not instantaneous and there still was resistance underneath when the top portion collapsed down.

    Freefall is a well-known observed phenomenon when buildings are controlled demolition.

    We have evidence why WTC7 failed and was not due to fire alone. You don't find melted steel in fires that only reach 400c and 600c.


  • Options
    #1585
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    They're not far out conspiracies.

    They are far-out conspiracies. Supporters of these types of conspiracies are regularly referred to as loons, etc. You yourself dismiss people who believe in certain far-out conspiracies you don't subscribe to

    Pot calling the kettle black


  • Options
    #1586
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    If I was Alex Jones type I might have a problem;)

    Alex Jones believes 911 was an inside job. He's pretty much the father of this conspiracy. That is far from the only conspiracy you have in common.

    I already know how you're going to rationalise it, but the irony isn't lost here


  • Options
    #1587
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Alex Jones believes 911 was an inside job. He's pretty much the father of this conspiracy. That is far from the only conspiracy you have in common.

    I already know how you're going to rationalise it, but the irony isn't lost here

    No, he isn't the father of this conspiracy I don't why you think that? If you asked Alex Jones to break down the NIST investigation of WTC7 he would not be able to. He knowledge is limited. He brings on guests and then talks over them.. I listened to his show a few times and its damn awful presentation.


  • Options
    #1588
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    He knowledge is limited. He brings on guests and then talks over them.. I listened to his show a few times and its damn awful presentation.
    lol.
    So exactly the same then.


  • Options
    #1589
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    No, he isn't the father of this conspiracy I don't why you think that?

    Because he literally invented it. Here he is "predicting it" in July 2001
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Hk1-BpXO8
    If you asked Alex Jones to break down the NIST investigation of WTC7 he would not be able to. He knowledge is limited. He brings on guests and then talks over them.. I listened to his show a few times and its damn awful presentation.

    He believes it was a controlled demolition, like you
    He constantly refers to AE911, like you

    They seem to love appearing on his show, Gage, Jones, everyone. In fact, they've invited him as a guest at their events

    Loons of a feather


  • Options
    #1590
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Because he literally invented it. Here he is "predicting it" in July 2001
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Hk1-BpXO8



    He believes it was a controlled demolition, like you
    He constantly refers to AE911, like you

    They seem to love appearing on his show, Gage, Jones, everyone. In fact, they've invited him as a guest at their events

    Loons of a feather

    Bin Laden group had carried out terrorist actions against US targets in Africa and the Middle East pre 9/11. If there was going to be a terrorist attack on US soil it was going to be blamed on them.Bin laden denied his movement carried out 9/11 a few days after it occurred.

    It was actually Bill Cooper in June 2001 who predicted the Bin Laden would be blamed. Alex Jones probably heard his broadcast and then took credit for it. Bill Cooper was a popular conspiracy guy in 2001.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1591
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe Bill Cooper broadcast June 2001.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement