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

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yup. Possible. Doesn't mean I believe it's true. I don't believe it's true.
It being "possible" doesn't mean it's likely or that I "entertain it" on any level.
I just suggested that it's more believable and less idiotic than the version of the conspiracy theory you believe.

Saying its entirely possible it was allowed to happen leaves open that it is entirely possible people had foreknowledge ...

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No its about you stating I don't believe his CT when I never mentioned it.

Oh... so you do believe it then.

I'm a bit disappointed as I thought, despite your dishonesty, you at least had some common sense and basic logic ability.

Onto the pile with him and Judy Wood you go though...

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

over 2000 engineers etc ...US officials etc etc

Lol, that's an internet group. It's not recognised at all.

The American Institute of Architects, which is a recognised group (of which Gage is a member of) of 90,000+ architects, have repeatedly distanced themselves from his 911 truther views, they made him take their logo off his page. They haven't sanctioned any of his events, they want nothing to do with his brand of nonsense

The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.

“I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists."

"All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization."

https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/architects-shy-from-trutherism_o

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Saying its entirely possible it was allowed to happen leaves open that it is entirely possible people had foreknowledge ...

Yes.
But in that version of the conspiracy, they wouldn't tell the BBC to report the collapse early. As doing such a thing is silly and pointless and only makes sense in the fantasy world you guys live in.

They also would not know when or even if WTC7 would collapse as it is not being demolished by explosives, so it is not the same "foreknowledge" you are talking about.

In that version of the conspiracy, no one would have foreknowledge that WTC7 would come down never mind that it would come down at a certain time.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I presented one ... controlled demolition

Good. Let's start with the simple stuff.

1. Why was WTC 7 "blown up"?
2. Who ordered it?
3. When and how were the explosives planted?
4. Who planted the explosives and how many were involved?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Oh... so you do believe it then.

I'm a bit disappointed as I thought, despite your dishonesty, you at least had some common sense and basic logic ability.

Onto the pile with him and Judy Wood you go though...

But but I just stated I did not follow your discussion with him ..hence having no opinion on the matter (not your view or his view) ... I only asked you a question about how the BBC knew wtc had collapsed .. You really should not post while under influence ...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes.
But in that version of the conspiracy, they wouldn't tell the BBC to report the collapse early. As doing such a thing is silly and pointless and only makes sense in the fantasy world you guys live in.

They also would not know when or even if WTC7 would collapse as it is not being demolished by explosives, so it is not the same "foreknowledge" you are talking about.

In that version of the conspiracy, no one would have foreknowledge that WTC7 would come down never mind that it would come down at a certain time.

bla bla bla ....

Because of your stance you entertain the premise people had foreknowledge ...which is a conspiracy by itself

Its not up to you to determine which part of the conspiracy this foreknowledge would have applied to ...

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

But but I just stated I did not follow your discussion with him ..hence having no opinion on the matter (not your view or his view) ...

Ok.
Do you believe that the plotters behind 9/11 planted a fake story that WTC had collapsed before it did for the purposes of convincing people when it did?

Yes or no please.

If yes, then you believe something very silly indeed and you are on the pile with cheerful and flat earthers.

If the answer is anything other than "yes", including your evasive mantra of "I have no opinion" then you disagree with cheerful's position.

There's no way to wiggle out of this.

weisses wrote: »

I only asked you a question about how the BBC knew wtc had collapsed ..

That is not what you asked.
You asked how they had foreknowledge that it would collapse.

If you now what to know why they reported it did, go back a few pages and it's explained.
It's also explained by applying a slight bit of common sense.

Anyhow.
Were the other items that survived the planes faked? Or were they real?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Good. Let's start with the simple stuff.

1. Why was WTC 7 "blown up"?
2. Who ordered it?
3. When and how were the explosives planted?
4. Who planted the explosives and how many were involved?

That is not the simple stuff nor is it needed to show it was controlled demolition

I have no answer to any 4 of them but wtc7 came down in a symmetrical collapse and the collapsing rooftop fell at free fall acceleration for at least eight stories. Symmetry means that all 81 columns in the building would have to fail at the same time and free fall acceleration means that when they fell there was nothing in the way.

NIST offered no explanation for either of these facts, even though these inconvenient truths only have one well-established explanation, they are the identifying characteristics of controlled demolition.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
Do you believe that the plotters behind 9/11 planted a fake story that WTC had collapsed before it did for the purposes of convincing people when it did?

I believe there was foreknowledge building 7 was gonna come down ...hours even according to testimony ... who said what to when is something I don't know .... What do you mean by plotters ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

bla bla bla ....

Because of your stance you entertain the premise people had foreknowledge ...which is a conspiracy by itself

Its not up to you to determine which part of the conspiracy this foreknowledge would have applied to ...

Lol.
I don't entertain the premise that people had foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC7.

The version of the theory I purposed would not allow the people behind the theory to have foreknowledge about when and if WTC7 would collapse.
This is because my version of the theory does not allow for the idea of a controlled demolition.

I don't see what your argument is here other than a very silly desperate attempt to pretend to have a point.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I believe there was foreknowledge building 7 was gonna come down ...hours even according to testimony ... who said what to when is something I don't know

So you disagree with Cheerful's theory.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

That is not what you asked.
You asked how they had foreknowledge that it would collapse.

I did ask How they (the bbc) knew it was gonna collapse ... so yes that is what I asked

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
I don't entertain the premise that people had foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC7.

The version of the theory I purposed would not allow the people behind the theory to have foreknowledge about when and if WTC7 would collapse.
This is because my version of the theory does not allow for the idea of a controlled demolition.

I don't see what your argument is here other than a very silly desperate attempt to pretend to have a point.

You entertain the fact its entirely possible the government had foreknowledge about 15 Saudis flying planes into buildings and allowed it to happen

Thats all I need to know

You can continue with your backpedaling and silly debating techniques

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

This is because my version of the theory does not allow for the idea of a controlled demolition.

If that how you think then of course preknowledge doesn't make sense. The evidence though shows WTC7 collapsed to controlled demolition.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I did ask How they (the bbc) knew it was gonna collapse ... so yes that is what I asked

Yup.
Which is different from:

how the BBC knew wtc had collapsed ..

"Going to..." is different from "Had"

And I don't believe that the BBC knew it was "gonna collapse". So still not seeing the point to your question.

If you want to ask why did the BBC report the building had collapsed when it had yet to, again this was explained a page or two ago. Then explain ad nausuem to you by many rational people many times in the past. Then it's explained by using common sense rather than a desire to have a conspiracy theory.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

That is not the simple stuff nor is it needed to show it was controlled demolition

According to you personally.

You then go straight into trying to prove by denial and attacking the NIST. It's incredible.

From Dr Judy Wood, to Alex Jones - this is the hallmark of every 911 truther.

I'm asking for people's theories with supporting evidence.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

over 2000 engineers etc ...US officials etc etc

Keep on misrepresenting ...

The American Society of Civil Engineers - 150,000 members

I presume you are familiar with their official stance and analysis of the NIST correct, what do you think of it?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

You entertain the fact its entirely possible the government had foreknowledge about 15 Saudis flying planes into buildings and allowed it to happen

Thats all I need to know

You can continue with your backpedaling and silly debating techniques

Again, no I don't entertain that fact.
It's a possibility. But it's a remote possibility that has no supporting evidence, so I don't believe it's true.

However, what's funny and telling is that you don't believe that conspiracy theory. Your conspiracy theory is incompatible.
Yet you are claiming victory because you (falsely) think I entertain a belief in a conspiracy theory you think is wrong.


Also, I'm a bit confused now as you seem to be confusing "foreknowledge of WTC7's collaspe" (which was the topic at hand) and "foreknowledge" in general.
So I fail to see why you brought this up, other than point scoring.

Again, a select group of people having foreknowledge of an upcoming attack does not equate or have baring on the BBC having foreknowledge of WTC7's collapse.

Also, again:
Were the other items that survived the plane real or fake?
Should I just assume that you are on the level of cheerful and believe they are all faked?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The American Society of Civil Engineers - 150,000 members

I presume you are familiar with their official stance and analysis of the NIST correct, what do you think of it?

500 people downloaded NIST only peer review WTC7 paper published by ASCE.

150,000 members in ASCE please get you facts straight. There no evidence every member supports the NIST study. There ASCE members involved in the truth movement.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

500 people downloaded NIST only peer review WTC7 paper published by ASCE.

150,000 members in ASCE please get you facts straight. There no evidence every member supports the NIST study. There ASCE members involved in the truth movement.

Oh, what's this, it's the Stanford engineering department endorsing the NIST findings
https://blume.stanford.edu/event/seminar/investigation-collapse-wtc-7-how-do-we-know-nist-got-it-right

Quick, you have to write to them and explain how they have no idea what they are talking about, they shouldn't even be teaching engineering

Oh no! look, the World Trade Center 7: Collapse Analysis and Assessment won an award from the American Council of Engineering Companies
https://docs.acec.org/pub/AC6BE8D1-00DB-2C78-14F9-78A7ED130679

It's 2015, uhm haven't they heard of nano-thermite?

Dohnjoe

Ah for godsake, now it's spreading to the American Institute of Architects, the motion to reinvestigate WTC 7 failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions)
http://aiablueridge.org/2017/news/a17-update

Dohnjoe

The Council on Tall Buildings and Habitats view on the NIST and WTC 7 (450,000 members)

http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/TechnicalGuides/CommentsonNISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-US/Default.aspx

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to you personally.

You then go straight into trying to prove by denial and attacking the NIST. It's incredible.

From Dr Judy Wood, to Alex Jones - this is the hallmark of every 911 truther.

I'm asking for people's theories with supporting evidence.

But you do realize that NIST was in charge of investigating the collapse ..the fact that they needed to be corrected over and over in regards to their collapse theory is not the hallmark of a truther ... Its the hallmark of a person who is critical ... And NIST was PROVEN to be wrong, and worse, they did not correct their mistakes, as is proven

There are many outlandish theories out there, which i do not entertain ... the fact you have to drag them in to somehow discredit me says more about you and how you are standing in this debate

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Oh, what's this, it's the Stanford engineering department endorsing the NIST findings
https://blume.stanford.edu/event/seminar/investigation-collapse-wtc-7-how-do-we-know-nist-got-it-right

Ohh what is this ... John Gross of NIST telling during a seminar ..Nist got it right

Its like Kelly ann Conway stating Trump did nothing wrong

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Oh no! look, the World Trade Center 7: Collapse Analysis and Assessment won an award from the American Council of Engineering Companies
https://docs.acec.org/pub/AC6BE8D1-00DB-2C78-14F9-78A7ED130679

A groundbreaking forensic study confirmed that the destruction of the World Trade Center 7 building resulted from the collapse of the adjacent
North and South Towers, and not from errors in design or construction. The project team’s analysis included nonlinear dynamic thermomechanical
computational assessments, combined with photos, videos and eyewitness accounts, to analyze and understand the physics behind
the WTC 7 collapse. Results established that the most plausible cause was the shower of debris from the North Tower, which destroyed WTC 7’s
structural components while also igniting fires that raged throughout the day. This undermined the building’s steelwork, leading to a downward
cascade of floors and the buckling of interior columns. The study’s conclusions validate the relative safety of modern office buildings designed
to current codes and standards.

Yes they got as far as NIST .... :rolleyes:

I say you need to look harder

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Ah for godsake, now it's spreading to the American Institute of Architects, the motion to reinvestigate WTC 7 failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions)
http://aiablueridge.org/2017/news/a17-update

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79

Oh Oh ..... Another NIST cockup

If you post linkies ...at least make sure they support your theory

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

There are many outlandish theories out there, which i do not entertain ... the fact you have to drag them in to somehow discredit me says more about you and how you are standing in this debate

But Weisses, you do believe an outlandish theory. The controlled demolition theory is just are idiotic as the space laser theory.

All of those pieces of evidence in your poster are either not true and/or self contradictory.
For example, it states that explosions were heard by credible witnesses.
However all of those witnesses report single explosions are random points and locations through out the day, not all at once as with real actual demolitions. You yourself claim that all of the dozens of supports were all taken out at once to allow for freefall acceleration.
If there was explosions through out the day at random intervals, then you can't insist that the supports were all taken out all at once.
Otherwise it's a contradiction.

Further, if all the supports were taken out at once, then we would have some witness reports of a rapid sequence of explosions right before the collapse. And that noise would be apparent on the recordings of the collapse.
But no such explosions exist.

For another explain, you again run into the triad of contradictions resulting on the idea of the imaginary thermite.
Firstly, thermite doesn't explode, so it contradicts the notion of witnesses hearing explosions.
Thermite isn't ever used in controlled demolitions of buildings. It never has been. And it wouldn't result in what you claimed happened as thermite cannot cut supports instantly like explosions do. (Which is why it's not used in demolitions.)
And finally, if thermite was used it would be again apparent as you claim that the outside supports were taken out as well, so we would have seen or heard reports of the bright, very noticeable flares from the thermite burning. There are no reports of anyone seeing anything like that, despite your belief that these were going off all day.

And then it repeats the claim that there were pools of molten steel.
Which if we assume is true, contradicts the conspiracy theory you buy as explosives do not result in pools of molten metal.
If it was a controlled demolition, there wouldn't be pools of molten metal.
Molten metal is never present at any other controlled demolition.

We don't have to drag in other silly theories to discredit you. You do that all on your lonesome.

Until you can actually address those contradictions as well as the many, many others, your theory is dumber than some of ones like space lasers.

(Also I love how the list says "symmetrical collapse" right next to a picture that shows the building with a noticeable lopsided bow in the roof.)

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

There are many outlandish theories out there, which i do not entertain

When asked about the passport, you describe it as suspicious. Incredible yes, but why would you choose the word suspicious? why would someone go to the effort of forging, then "planting" a hijackers passport in the middle of the street? it wasn't pivotal evidence at all (the hijackers were named from a myriad of sources), so what was to be gained by taking the added risk? It's just bringing more people into this highly treasonous plot for literally no reason, who plans these things, the keystone cops?

That is nothing. You entertain the notion that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Why would someone want to blow the building up? perfectly timed in the middle of a terrorist attack? what if the planes missed the buildings and people found this entirely "rigged" 47 story building in the middle of NY? what if they were caught rigging the ****ing building by any of the hundreds of people using the building? what if one of the riggers exposed the plot? what if one of them exposed it on their deathbed? what if one of them suddenly had a problem with being involved with killing thousands of fellow country-men?

And for what?

If there were"secrets" or papers inside to be destroyed, why didn't they just destroy them while "rigging" the building?
Why didn't they just let the fire destroy them?
Why did there "have to be" explosives? why add that extra ridiculous risk? Exploding a ****ing building in the middle of NY with every camera in NY pointing at it, the world's attention

And not one single investigator noticed this, they could win every prize and accolade going for exposing the biggest most incredible story of the 21st century

You seem to have no notion how utterly mental and ridiculous that theory is. You've admitted you have no credible evidence for it. Yet you label other people "loons" and dismissing them for their "crazy" theories

It's staggering

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

When asked about the passport, you describe it as suspicious. Incredible yes, but why would you choose the word suspicious? why would someone go to the effort of forging, then "planting" a hijackers passport in the middle of the street? it wasn't pivotal evidence at all (the hijackers were named from a myriad of sources), so what was to be gained by taking the added risk? It's just bringing more people into this highly treasonous plot for literally no reason, who plans these things, the keystone cops?

That is nothing. You entertain the notion that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Why would someone want to blow the building up? perfectly timed in the middle of a terrorist attack? what if the planes missed the buildings and people found this entirely "rigged" 47 story building in the middle of NY? what if they were caught rigging the ****ing building by any of the hundreds of people using the building? what if one of the riggers exposed the plot? what if one of them exposed it on their deathbed? what if one of them suddenly had a problem with being involved with killing thousands of fellow country-men?

And for what?

If there were"secrets" or papers inside to be destroyed, why didn't they just destroy them while "rigging" the building?
Why didn't they just let the fire destroy them?
Why did there "have to be" explosives? why add that extra ridiculous risk? Exploding a ****ing building in the middle of NY with every camera in NY pointing at it, the world's attention

And not one single investigator noticed this, they could win every prize and accolade going for exposing the biggest most incredible story of the 21st century

You seem to have no notion how utterly mental and ridiculous that theory is. You've admitted you have no credible evidence for it. Yet you label other people "loons" and dismissing them for their "crazy" theories

It's staggering

I am not debating the whats and hows and who

Everything points towards controlled demolition ...experts in this field are telling you this.

You have a problem with what the consequences/ ramifications would be if it was controlled demolition

You post up a link from the The Council on Tall Buildings and Habitats , and they and their 450000 members are saying that the failure of a single column was not the cause of the collapse .... something NIST was relying on to prove their "office fires" collapse hypothesis..... I agree with you there ...Its staggering

So the report you are so blindly defending is getting criticized left right and centre,

So yes I stick with it being controlled demolition ... why ? It has all the characteristics of controlled demolition .. and not some random office fires causing instant failure to all the outer columns, resulting in a symmetrical collapse where the building reaches gravitational acceleration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc

Why has no one in the entire world ... no engineer/scientist/proffesor etc etc provided the evidence it could be something else then controlled demolition, forget the fire hypothesis.... what factors/methods other then CT can bring down a building the way wtc7 collapsed.

If you would use proper science with the brightest people on earth and you would do an elimination game what would you be left over with as a cause ? ... hint ... its not gonna be office fires

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But Weisses, you do believe an outlandish theory. The controlled demolition theory is just are idiotic as the space laser theory.

All of those pieces of evidence in your poster are either not true and/or self contradictory.
For example, it states that explosions were heard by credible witnesses.
However all of those witnesses report single explosions are random points and locations through out the day, not all at once as with real actual demolitions. You yourself claim that all of the dozens of supports were all taken out at once to allow for freefall acceleration.
If there was explosions through out the day at random intervals, then you can't insist that the supports were all taken out all at once.
Otherwise it's a contradiction.

Further, if all the supports were taken out at once, then we would have some witness reports of a rapid sequence of explosions right before the collapse. And that noise would be apparent on the recordings of the collapse.
But no such explosions exist.

For another explain, you again run into the triad of contradictions resulting on the idea of the imaginary thermite.
Firstly, thermite doesn't explode, so it contradicts the notion of witnesses hearing explosions.
Thermite isn't ever used in controlled demolitions of buildings. It never has been. And it wouldn't result in what you claimed happened as thermite cannot cut supports instantly like explosions do. (Which is why it's not used in demolitions.)
And finally, if thermite was used it would be again apparent as you claim that the outside supports were taken out as well, so we would have seen or heard reports of the bright, very noticeable flares from the thermite burning. There are no reports of anyone seeing anything like that, despite your belief that these were going off all day.

And then it repeats the claim that there were pools of molten steel.
Which if we assume is true, contradicts the conspiracy theory you buy as explosives do not result in pools of molten metal.
If it was a controlled demolition, there wouldn't be pools of molten metal.
Molten metal is never present at any other controlled demolition.

We don't have to drag in other silly theories to discredit you. You do that all on your lonesome.

Until you can actually address those contradictions as well as the many, many others, your theory is dumber than some of ones like space lasers.

(Also I love how the list says "symmetrical collapse" right next to a picture that shows the building with a noticeable lopsided bow in the roof.)

Can carbon based fires cause molten steel/pools of molten steel ... ?