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…5253555758…102

Comments

  • Options
    #1622
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's been provided in the thread already.

    Q&A
    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610




    A previous investigation determined the building fell due to fire. The NIST investigation reinforced those findings and went into more detail



    Yeah we have, it's called the NIST report. It supports the overwhelmingly accepted theory that WTC 7 fell due to fire. It's industry accepted. What are you talking about?




    Deflecting from what?

    The main theory is that WTC 7 fell due to fire, that is widely accepted. It's supported by at least two investigations. There are no other theories with credible evidence, even you admit that.

    This thread is for alternative theories with credible evidence - you can't provide any.

    It only accepted because the alternative scares people. They can not imagine people in power would deliberately demolish buildings and kill Americans. So they keep denying the evidence that available to them. There no evidence a few office fires can demolish a 47 floor building. NIST own theory is fraudulent and you know that. It, not a truther conspiracy or a lie when they state NIST removed important construction elements from a girder at column 79. It established fact they did so in their study. They had to remove them to have that girder slide of it seat unhindered. Do you think it ok to do that so that you claim fires brought down the building? Or do you want an honest study and there be no debate what caused the building to fall? I would not be debating this if I knew the NIST study was honest and truthful.


  • Options
    #1623
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    No that just sad.

    You have prejudged the outcome already no surprise.

    If nobody sees what happening then it a pointless exercise. I want to see the arguments and rebuttals that transparency.

    Again I'd love to see it actually go to court, but it's so unlikely to make it that far. If there is an angle of slander or something, then maybe, otherwise it's highly likely to be rejected


  • Options
    #1624
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Again I'd love to see it actually go to court, but it's so unlikely to make it that far. If there is an angle of slander or something, then maybe, otherwise it's highly likely to be rejected

    State attorney will make the recommendation to the grand jury to proceed or reject it. If he rejects the truthers will say we told you so. If they hear the evidence and still reject it later least that something in regards to transparency. I like to see the issue least debated in a open setting in a court of law.

    Put the NIST guys on the stand and have them answer direct questions about their study. They have avoided this for 10 years. They never debated anyone who disagreed with their conclusions.


  • Options
    #1625
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    This is it

    https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/

    They are literally using the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 early as evidence..

    I would give my right arm for this case to get to an actual court.


  • Options
    #1626
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This is it

    https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/

    They are literally using the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 early as evidence..

    I would give my right arm for this case to get to an actual court.

    Why not. There no way anyone could have predicted a failure at column 79 (40minutes) before it occurred. That event is very suspicious as its reason NIST gave for why the floors gave way and collapsed across the width of the building. If that event did not happen then how does building 7 fall?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1627
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why not. There no way anyone could have predicted a failure at column 79 (40minutes) before it occurred. That event is very suspicious as its reason NIST gave for why the floors gave way and collapsed across the width of the building. If that event did not happen then how does building 7 fall?

    I want whatever you are smoking, seriously

    Imagine how this "evidence" would go down in a case

    The next piece of evidence; the BBC knew in advance of WTC 7 collapse
    Cross-examination: "You assert the BBC were informed of a plot to blow up the buildings, by whom?
    Truther: "We don't know"
    CE: "Why would the perpetrators of this plot warn the media?"
    Truther: "We don't know"
    CE: "If the building was going to fall, the media would report it falling, why would the plotters gain by releasing the information ahead of time to journalists?"
    Truther: "We aren't sure"
    CE: "We have the journalist here, the newsrunner, the transcripts, the editor at the time, they all support the fact that it was a simple mistake, there was a lot of speculation the building was going to fall, there was a lot of false reports on the day, what evidence do you have contrary to that?"
    Truther: "We don't, but don't you find it strange.."
    CE: "So you have no evidence to back this claim, a claim which makes no logical sense to either the plotters or the BBC, and you believe this is key evidence that the buildings were blown up?
    Truther: "Yes"

    ..


  • Options
    #1628
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I want whatever you are smoking, seriously

    Imagine how this "evidence" would go down in a case

    The next piece of evidence; the BBC knew in advance of WTC 7 collapse
    Cross-examination: "You assert the BBC were informed of a plot to blow up the buildings, by whom?
    Truther: "We don't know"
    CE: "Why would the perpetrators of this plot warn the media?"
    Truther: "We don't know"
    CE: "If the building was going to fall, the media would report it falling, why would the plotters gain by releasing the information ahead of time to journalists?"
    Truther: "We aren't sure"
    CE: "We have the journalist here, the newsrunner, the transcripts, the editor at the time, they all support the fact that it was a simple mistake, there was a lot of speculation the building was going to fall, there was a lot of false reports on the day, what evidence do you have contrary to that?"
    Truther: "We don't, but don't you find it strange.."
    CE: "So you have no evidence to back this claim, a claim which makes no logical sense to either the plotters or the BBC, and you believe this is key evidence that the buildings were blown up?
    Truther: "Yes"

    ..

    That not the truther position. Nobody, well I am not claiming the BBC are involved in this conspiracy. What I believe is possible. The information about a pending collapse was put out there to prepare the media for the eventuality. WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you try to make seem like this was going to happen and not odd that it occurred- don't worry folks nothing to see here!


  • Options
    #1629
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    That not the truther position.

    Yes it is. It's one of the pieces of evidence they submitted.


  • Options
    #1630
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I want whatever you are smoking, seriously

    Imagine how this "evidence" would go down in a case

    The next piece of evidence; the BBC knew in advance of WTC 7 collapse
    Cross-examination: "You assert the BBC were informed of a plot to blow up the buildings, by whom?
    Truther: "We don't know"
    CE: "Why would the perpetrators of this plot warn the media?"
    Truther: "We don't know"
    CE: "If the building was going to fall, the media would report it falling, why would the plotters gain by releasing the information ahead of time to journalists?"
    Truther: "We aren't sure"
    CE: "We have the journalist here, the newsrunner, the transcripts, the editor at the time, they all support the fact that it was a simple mistake, there was a lot of speculation the building was going to fall, there was a lot of false reports on the day, what evidence do you have contrary to that?"
    Truther: "We don't, but don't you find it strange.."
    CE: "So you have no evidence to back this claim, a claim which makes no logical sense to either the plotters or the BBC, and you believe this is key evidence that the buildings were blown up?
    Truther: "Yes"

    ..

    That not the truther position. Nobody, well I am not claiming the BBC are involved in this conspiracy. What I believe is possible. The information about a pending collapse was put out there to prepare the media for the eventuality. WTC7 was a controlled demolition, you try to make seem like this was going to happen and not odd that it occurred- don't worry folks nothing to see here!
    So who told the BBC?
    When did they tell them and who did they tell?
    What was their name?
    Why would the BBC then announce the collapse early? Did they not look out a window?
    Was the guy from the conspiracy unclear?

    Remember, you asked those exact questions when presented with the real explanation.


  • Options
    #1631
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So who told the BBC?
    When did they tell them and who did they tell?
    What was their name?
    Why would the BBC then announce the collapse early? Did they not look out a window?
    Was the guy from the conspiracy unclear?

    Remember, you asked those exact questions when presented with the real explanation.

    It was provided to Reuters by an anonymous source and from there BBC passed it onto their audience least that what I read. The BBC claimed they could find out who the source was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1632
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok, so who was the anonymous source?
    When did they tell them?
    Where's the copy of this report?
    Are routers involved in the conspiracy too?
    Why did routers and the BBC report on iy when they could see it wasn't true?


  • Options
    #1633
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's been provided in the thread already.

    Q&A
    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610

    That is a hypothesis ... they dont provide solid evidence .. You know that right ?

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A previous investigation determined the building fell due to fire. The NIST investigation reinforced those findings and went into more detail

    Which investigation was that ?

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yeah we have, it's called the NIST report. It supports the overwhelmingly accepted theory that WTC 7 fell due to fire. It's industry accepted. What are you talking about?

    You do realize the nist report doesn't supply any solid evidence right ?

    That is the fact that is widely accepted

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The main theory is that WTC 7 fell due to fire, that is widely accepted. It's supported by at least two investigations. There are no other theories with credible evidence, even you admit that.

    Its a theory ..and they created a computer model to support the theory ... Even you have to admit that computer model is flawed and inaccurate ... if not maybe spec-savers is the next port of call
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This thread is for alternative theories with credible evidence - you can't provide any.

    You haven't either for the NIST theory ...other then copy pasting the NIST theory .... your hilarious


    I ask again ...where is the solid evidence NIST provided that shows WTC7 fell due to fire?


  • Options
    #1634
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, so who was the anonymous source?
    When did they tell them?
    Where's the copy of this report?
    Are routers involved in the conspiracy too?
    Why did routers and the BBC report on iy when they could see it wasn't true?

    Reuters claim they got the information from a local news channel. But they have never revealed what local channel they referring to so people can not check up on this and see if the source was outside the news channel.


  • Options
    #1635
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Reuters claim they got the information from a local news channel. But they have never revealed what local channel they referring to so people can check up on this and if the source was outside the news channel.
    Ok, which news channel? And which person at Reuters got this information?
    And who at Reuters passed this info on to whom at the BBC?

    Why did Reuters pass on the information that the Building had collapsed?
    Why did the BBC report that it had collapsed?
    Surely they both could tell that it obviously wasn't true?
    Why then would they not investigate where this obviously untrue information came from?

    Are Reuters part of the conspiracy?


  • Options
    #1636
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, which news channel? And which person at Reuters got this information?
    And who at Reuters passed this info on to whom at the BBC?

    Why did Reuters pass on the information that the Building had collapsed?
    Why did the BBC report that it had collapsed?
    Surely they both could tell that it obviously wasn't true?
    Why then would they not investigate where this obviously untrue information came from?

    Are Reuters part of the conspiracy?

    BBC looked into this and they claimed they got this information from Reuters. Reuters then made a statement the received information from a local news station WTC7 had collapsed and passed it on. Who gave the local news station this information about WTC7 collapse, is unknown.


  • Options
    #1637
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    BBC looked into this and they claimed they got this information from Reuters. Reuters then made a statement the received information from a local news station WTC7 had collapsed and passed it on. Who gave the local news station this information about WTC7 collapse, is unknown.
    Ok.
    Source for all that? Please provide a link.
    What local news station was it? When did they pass on this information? Who in Reuters received this information and passed it onto the BBC and when?

    Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story?
    Are they part of the conspiracy?
    Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy?

    Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?
    Why did neither the BBC or Reuters report that this false report they were fed were part of a conspiracy?


  • Options
    #1638
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok.
    Source for all that? Please provide a link.

    Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story?
    Are they part of the conspiracy?
    Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy?

    Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html


  • Options
    #1639
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html
    Great!
    Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story?
    Are they part of the conspiracy?
    Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy?

    Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?


  • Options
    #1640
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    That is a hypothesis ... they dont provide solid evidence .. You know that right ?

    It's a conclusion that's widely accepted (except by e.g. conspiracy theorists)
    Which investigation was that ?

    There's been two, FEMA and NIST
    You do realize the nist report doesn't supply any solid evidence right ?

    That is the fact that is widely accepted

    False
    Its a theory ..and they created a computer model to support the theory ... Even you have to admit that computer model is flawed and inaccurate ... if not maybe spec-savers is the next port of call

    That's your personal opinion. I can't account for your understanding, interpretations and incredulity.
    You haven't either for the NIST theory ...other then copy pasting the NIST theory .... your hilarious

    It's an investigative report that concludes the building fell due to fire. Likewise the FEMA report. At this stage it's not debated by anyone but CTers.

    This thread repeatedly demonstrates why people don't take CTers seriously on this issue

    It's an event, it's not considered a mystery. If you believe something else happened, then let us know, but support it with credible evidence. Getting personal, snide or petty about it doesn't change that.


  • Options
    #1641
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Great!
    Now, again, why would Reuters pass on an obviously untrue story?
    Are they part of the conspiracy?
    Was this Mysterious Local News Station part of the conspiracy?

    Why did the BBC report on it early when they could see it wasn't true and you contend they aren't part of the conspiracy?

    They believed to be true obviously why else.

    No don't be silly.

    No don't be silly. They got information about a full collapse from an anonymous source. Who provided that information unknown.

    BBC was reporting about the 9/11 events, they thought the information was reliable


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1642
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    BBC looked into this and they claimed they got this information from Reuters. Reuters then made a statement the received information from a local news station WTC7 had collapsed and passed it on. Who gave the local news station this information about WTC7 collapse, is unknown.

    Why would the plotters send these details to the media? what's the point of it?


  • Options
    #1643
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Why would the plotters send these details to the media? what's the point of it?

    If the building was going to be controlled demolition at that specific time. You spread the story the building was going to collapse due to fire ahead of time. Then when it happens it not shocking it was expected.


  • Options
    #1644
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    They believed to be true obviously why else.

    No don't be silly.

    No don't be silly. They got information about a full collapse from an anonymous source. Who provided that information unknown.

    BBC was reporting about the 9/11 events, they thought the information was reliable
    But why would they think the information was true?
    Couldn't they look out the window?
    If the building was going to be controlled demolition at that specific time. You spread the story the building was going to collapse due to fire ahead of time. Then when it happens it not shocking it was expected.
    So why then did the BBC say it had collapsed before it did?

    Why wouldn't the Plotters want it to be shocking? Why would they want it to be expected? Weren't they worried about something going wrong, like perhaps it getting reported early, thus exposing the conspiracy?


  • Options
    #1645
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    If the building was going to be controlled demolition at that specific time. You spread the story the building was going to collapse due to fire ahead of time. Then when it happens it not shocking it was expected.

    What?

    You are speculating that the plotters "gave" information to journalists (that was wrong) that the building had collapsed (when it hadn't) in order to "not shock" people when the building would collapse later (contradicting the plotters info) - that makes no sense


  • Options
    #1646
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What?

    You are speculating that the plotters "gave" information to journalists (that was wrong) that the building had collapsed (when it hadn't) in order to "not shock" people when the building would collapse later (contradicting the plotters info) - that makes no sense

    Yep, it does make sense. They knew it was coming down by controlled demolition. They got the public prepared for the event in real-time. So when people heard the building collapsed and did not, and then later it did, oh was expected to happen anyhow. Don't you claim this to be true?

    It makes sense when you look back now.

    NIST could not get a handle on what caused the collapse for years they were unable to figure it out. Then they decided the collapse most have happened where the fires was! So NIST looked at column 79 on floor 13 and then starting look at ways the steel girder would fall of its seat during a fire. We now know NIST was underhanded in how they went about it. Removing construction fittings on the girder at column 79 to allow their theory to work.


  • Options
    #1647
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's a conclusion that's widely accepted (except by e.g. conspiracy theorists)

    Widely by whom ? ..

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There's been two, FEMA and NIST


    Where does FEMA conclude building 7 fell due to fire ?


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    False

    Then provide the solid evidence .... I know the NIST report its not in there ... so lazy copy pasting of the report is not sufficient


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    That's your personal opinion. I can't account for your understanding, interpretations and incredulity.

    An opinion shared by all that have normal eyesight ... Evidence about the inaccuracy of the NIST collapse model was also shown on this thread

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's an event, it's not considered a mystery. If you believe something else happened, then let us know, but support it with credible evidence. Getting personal, snide or petty about it doesn't change that.

    It fell due to controlled demolition ..It had all the characteristics of one so that is the most logical conclusion.


  • Options
    #1648
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yep, it does make sense. They knew it was coming down by controlled demolition. They got the public prepared for the event in real-time. So when people heard the building collapsed and did not, and then later it did, oh was expected to happen anyhow. Don't you claim this to be true?

    It makes sense when you look back now.
    But you now claim that this didn't convince anyone and is in fact evidence for the conspiracy theory.
    So the plotters in fact just handed evidence to you for no benefit.

    So no, it doesn't make sense to rational people.

    So why did the BBC report it when they could tell it wasn't true by looking out a window?
    It can't be that they just made a mistake or where just unable to fact check or they were just passing on a report they had received, as you contend that is impossible.


  • Options
    #1649
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you now claim that this didn't convince anyone and is in fact evidence for the conspiracy theory.
    So the plotters in fact just handed evidence to you for no benefit.

    So no, it doesn't make sense to rational people.

    So why did the BBC report it when they could tell it wasn't true by looking out a window?
    It can't be that they just made a mistake or where just unable to fact check or they were just passing on a report they had received, as you contend that is impossible.

    How would the know the building was coming down in the first place ?


  • Options
    #1650
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    How would the know the building was coming down in the first place ?
    Dunno.
    Have a crack at my questions if you like.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1651
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »

    Then provide the solid evidence .... I know the NIST report its not in there ... so lazy copy pasting of the report is not sufficient

    If you go to an architectural forum, an engineering forum, a skeptic forum - they'll generally give you the same answer. If that doesn't convince you, then nothing will. The issue here is clearly not the report.
    It fell due to controlled demolition ..It had all the characteristics of one so that is the most logical conclusion.

    You reject a theory that is widely accepted for not having enough evidence. You accept a theory for which you have little or no evidence for

    We aren't dealing with logical thought or critical thinking here


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement