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

Cheerful Spring

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.

Did I not say that Where did I claim BBC and Reuters were part of the conspiracy?

She broadcast live on air. a report WTC7 collapsed 40 minutes before it happened. Could she identify this building on the day probably not?

Who exactly told this local News station the building had fully collapsed to the ground?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

YSo when people heard the building collapsed and did not, and then later it did, oh was expected to happen anyhow.

lol

I've been into conspiracies for years, that has to be one of the more ridiculous ones

Come on..

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She broadcast live on air. a report WTC7 collapsed 40 minutes before it happened. Could she identify this building on the day probably not?

But that's not possible as you rejected that idea when presented with the real explanation.

So why would they say the building had collapsed when they could see that it hadn't?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Who exactly told this local News station the building had fully collapsed to the ground?

Dunno.
You tell us, it's your theory.

So why would the plotters do this part of the plan when they are only handing you super obvious evidence?
Why did they want people to expect a collapse that apparently is obviously impossible?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did I not say that Where did I claim BBC and Reuters were part of the conspiracy?

She broadcast live on air. a report WTC7 collapsed 40 minutes before it happened. Could she identify this building on the day probably not?

Who exactly told this local News station the building had fully collapsed to the ground?

So all the wrong reports on the day about more than 4 aircraft, multiple crashes, etc ... they were ALL normal mistakes during fluid breaking news

but this one was real

And you somehow know the difference because you make up stories in your head that fit your own made-up narratives

We should transfer this thread to the history forum for the laugh

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

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

Yep. People need to look at this foreknowledge alongside the NIST study.

NIST study is clearly fraudulent. People who support lies and deception are showing their true character.

I truly amazed the NIST study is even considered legitimate when they deliberately removed items placed on the girder during the construction of the WTC7 building.

NIST own statements freefall did not happen after 6 years of work. I guess people don't think their own statements are fishy and suspect.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST study is clearly fraudulent.

Be honest, have you read it?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Be honest, have you read it?

The parts that are relevant yes I have

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Dunno.
Have a crack at my questions if you like.

Neh .. I know enough

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Neh .. I know enough

I take it then you reject Cheerful's claim that the plotters planted the false story for some reason?

If not, and you do accept it, which parts for you were particularly convincing?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

I went over there ... and they are also not able to provide solid evidence that supports the hypothesis ... If they had it you and any other skeptic would have pointed it out

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

I ask again ... widely accepted by whom ..other then some deranged skeptics

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Nope ... physics ... which makes the fire theory rather far fetched and consequently lacking the supportive solid evidence ... as is pointed out by thousands of people .... yet the 200 highly qualified NIST engineers were embarrassed by a physics professor, when their whole collapse theory was debunked because of free fall acceleration which they forgot to add into the model

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So all the wrong reports on the day about more than 4 aircraft, multiple crashes, etc ... they were ALL normal mistakes during fluid breaking news

but this one was real

And you somehow know the difference because you make up stories in your head that fit your own made-up narratives

We should transfer this thread to the history forum for the laugh

A 47-floor steel framed high rising building collapsing due to small office fires has never occurred prior to 9/11 and not after. You can't find even one example in Europe and America prior to or after 9/11.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I take it then you reject Cheerful's claim that the plotters planted the false story for some reason?

If not, and you do accept it, which parts for you were particularly convincing?

All I asked is how the BBC had foreknowledge about the collapse ... a valid question you dont have an answer for ... maybe focus on the important stuff

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

All I asked is how the BBC had foreknowledge about the collapse ... a valid question you dont have an answer for ... maybe focus on the important stuff

Are my questions not relevant?
If not, please explain why yours is relevant, but mine not.

Since you have been convinced by Cheerful's theory, perhaps you can help him out by answering some of the questions he has trouble answering.

Cheerful Spring

When it does happen WTC7 came down at freefall speeds in a manner that shows it was controlled demolition.

NIST study of WTC7 is dishonest and fraudulent and proven to be. The fire collapsed theory made no sense and still doesnt.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I went over there ... and they are also not able to provide solid evidence that supports the hypothesis ... If they had it you and any other skeptic would have pointed it out

Then the issue is clearly you

I ask again ... widely accepted by whom ..other then some deranged skeptics

What are "deranged skeptics"?

You have 99% in common with skeptics, why all of a sudden are all of them suddenly "deranged" on this one subject that you happen to be very passionate about

Think, what does that point to..

Nope ... physics ... which makes the fire theory rather far fetched and consequently lacking the supportive solid evidence

And the controlled demolition theory has a lot of traction in the steel industry and engineering world does it? It's not far-fetched at all and has plenty of supporting evidence does it?

A bunch of loons with credentials still makes them a bunch of loons. If you have chosen to believe them - that's your choice

Nobody is here to convince you. That's not possible. Just pointing out how weak and ridiculous your argument is

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Since you have been convinced by Cheerful's theory, perhaps you can help him out by answering some of the questions he has trouble answering.

Your gas, Mob


Try again ..now with a sentence that makes sense

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When it does happen WTC7 came down at freefall speeds in a manner that shows it was controlled demolition.

NIST study of WTC7 is dishonest and fraudulent and proven to be. The fire collapsed theory made no sense and still doesnt.

No cheerful. Don't get distracted now.

We're talking about your claims about the BBC's early report.

You claim that the BBC made a mistake and reported the building collapsed without actually checking if the building had collapsed.
You previously claimed that such a thing was impossible when I outlined the real explanation.

That can't be explanation for your problem.

So why would the BBC report the building had collapsed when it hadn't?

Also:
Why would the plotters do this part of the plan when they are only handing you super obvious evidence?
Why did they want people to expect a collapse that apparently is obviously impossible?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And the controlled demolition theory has a lot of traction in the steel industry and engineering world does it? It's not far-fetched at all and has plenty of supporting evidence does it?

A bunch of loons with credentials still makes them a bunch of loons. If you have chosen to believe them - that's your choice

Nobody is here to convince you. That's not possible. Just pointing out how weak and ridiculous your argument and reasoning is in relation to this all this

This is recorded history David Chandler embarrassed NIST at their own press conference. How can you deny this when their video evidence? NIST denied freefall at their own conference where they presented a draft of the final report. These loons knew more about the collapse then NIST.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Your gas, Mob


Try again ..now with a sentence that makes sense

Do you think that my questions are relevant? Yes or no?
If no, why is your question relevant where mine are not.

Secondly, since you believe as Cheerful does, and that the Plotters planted a fake story, maybe you can take a stab at some of the questions I am asking.

I'm sorry if I can't make that any clearer for you.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No cheerful. Don't get distracted now.

Already answered your questions. Read the thread.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Then the issue is clearly you

The issue is me? when you cannot provide evidence to support a theory ?

:D



What are "deranged skeptics"?

Sometimes it seems to me that the “nuts” are those who hold to what they’ve been told with an almost religious fervor despite all of the evidence to the contrary — the ones who won’t even consider that there was a conspiracy. There are so many anomalies to the “official” investigation that you can’t blame it on oversight or incompetence.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You have 99% in common with skeptics, why all of a sudden are all of them suddenly "deranged" on this one subject that you happen to be very passionate about

I have an open mind so i'm not fitting in that category

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And the controlled demolition theory has a lot of traction in the steel industry and engineering world does it? It's not far-fetched at all and has plenty of supporting evidence does it?

Yes because it is logical that when everything witnessed point to a controlled demolition it must have been office fires

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A bunch of loons with credentials still makes them a bunch of loons. If you have chosen to believe them - that's your choice

The only proven loons are the 200 NIST engineers who got embarrassed by a high school physics teacher

Here more loons for you

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160100.html

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nobody is here to convince you. That's not possible. Just pointing out how weak and ridiculous your argument is

You don't have to convince me ..... the evidence of your laughable, proven incorrectly theory should do it ... But I gues that info will never be delivered by you or the other skeptics here

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think that my questions are relevant? Yes or no?
If no, why is your question relevant where mine are not.

Secondly, since you believe as Cheerful does, and that the Plotters planted a fake story, maybe you can take a stab at some of the questions I am asking.

I'm sorry if I can't make that any clearer for you.

I did not even bother to read them

I gott straight to the point asking as to how she could have known the building was on the verge of collapse in the first place ... To me that is the obvious question ... one the bbc could not answer either afaik

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Already answered your questions. Read the thread.

Ok, please link to the post where you have answered those questions.

I can't see where you have done so and it appears that you have not.

Maybe it would be easier to just restate or summarise your answers.

I will repeat the questions again for your convenience:

Why did the BBC report the building fell when it hadn't?
(Your answer cannot be that they just didn't or couldn't check, as you previously rejected this notion as impossible.)

Why would the plotters give people evidence for the conspiracy when planting the story early is a dead giveaway?

Why did they want people to expect a collapse that was apparently impossible? What benefit does it give them?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I did not even bother to read them

Maybe you should as they highlight a lot of issues in the conspiracy theory you believe.

weisses wrote: »

I gott straight to the point asking as to how she could have known the building was on the verge of collapse in the first place ... To me that is the obvious question ... one the bbc could not answer either afaik

Ok.
So why does this point to a conspiracy?
Do you disagree with Cheerful and believe the BBC is in fact involved in the conspiracy?
How in your mind did she know the building was on the verge of collapse?

Cheerful Spring

Already answered so no reason for me to clarify for you silly benefit

Why did the BBC report the building fell when it hadn't?
(Your answer cannot be that they just didn't or couldn't check, as you previously rejected this notion as impossible.)

What evidence are they giving away? Nobody knows who provided the information to the local news station

Why would the plotters give people evidence for the conspiracy when planting the story early is a dead giveaway?

This should not be difficult for you to work out? Don't you believe the building collapsed to fire? They convinced you.

Why did they want people to expect a collapse that was apparently impossible? What benefit does it give them?[/B]

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Already answered so no reason for me to clarify for you silly benefit.

Ok. Where did you answer this. Please quote your post and directly show when you answered this.
I can't find it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What evidence are they giving away? Nobody knows who provided the information to the local news station

But you are saying that the fact that the BBC reported the collapse early points towards a conspiracy.
So they are giving you the evidence for no real reason, which seems a bit silly.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This should not be difficult for you to work out? Do you think the building collapsed to fire? They convinced you.

I don't understand what relevance this has.
I don't believe the real explanation of the collapse because of BBC report I didn't see until years later.

Please try to answer the questions again, or point to/quote where you believe you have answered them before.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Where did you answer this. Please quote your post and directly show when you answered this.
I can't find it.

But you are saying that the fact that the BBC reported the collapse early points towards a conspiracy.
So they are giving you the evidence for no real reason, which seems a bit silly.


I don't understand what relevance this has.
I don't believe the real explanation of the collapse because of BBC report I didn't see until years later.

Please try to answer the questions again, or point to/quote where you believe you have answered them before.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057919635&page=110

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057919635&page=110

That is a link to a page, not a post. And I have checked that page. It does not contain an answer for any of the questions I have asked you as far as I can see.

If you are having difficulty, it might be easier and faster to just restate your answers directly to the quoted questions.

Again for convenience and clarity:
1. Why did the BBC report the building fell when it hadn't?
(Your answer cannot be that they just didn't or couldn't check, as you previously rejected this notion as impossible.)

2. Why would the plotters give people evidence for the conspiracy when planting the story early is a dead giveaway?

3. Why did they want people to expect a collapse that was apparently impossible? What benefit does it give them?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

The issue is me?

This is a thread specifically about alternative theories, you have admitted you can't support any with credible evidence. You can't answer the most basic questions on your own theory, you have no witnesses, no suspects, no credible physical evidence. Nothing. Therefore by definition you have a weak or non-existent theory. You have a weak argument in relation to this thread.

If you have an alternative theory with credible evidence, then by all means, post it

If you want people to prove the widely accepted theory to you - make a thread on it.

If you are going to play games, semantics and be pedantic pretending that the main theory which is in print everywhere is somehow not the main theory.. yeah

Yes because it is logical that when everything witnessed point to a controlled demolition it must have been office fires

You can't believe a hijackers passport survived and was picked up in the street. It's "impossible" to you based on your incredulity. This is despite knowing that other perishable and delicate items survived from the planes.

Likewise, WTC 7 coming down "looks like" a controlled demolition to you. Therefore it is.

No one can debate with faulty logic like that, let alone convince them of something. It's common to most if not all conspiracy theories. This is part of the reason why I created a thread specifically asking for alternative theories and their support.

If you want people to convince you, to provide support for the main theory, etc - again, create your own thread, or just use one of the many existing ones

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you should as they highlight a lot of issues in the conspiracy theory you believe.

What conspiracy would that be in regards to the BBC reporter ?