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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, deniers is accurate.
Especially as you are a holocaust denier as well.

Why because I disagree with the number of 6 million died in gas chambers? That not a denier. The concentration camps existed and were built by the Nazis. Were Jews gassed in grand scale doesn't make sense. Most of the eastern European camps were not build till late 1942. You could not kill enough people in the day to get close to 6 million.

I remember in another thread that people claimed the Nazis exterminated Jews at Belsen at threw them in a pit. This story is false it well is known and established fact the Allies bombed railways and transport during the final stages of the war. The Germans actually ran out of food to support their own people. The people held least at the cam died due to starvation and spread of disease. That way they were dressed in those uniforms and head shaved. It stopped the spread of disease in the camp during the early days of the war. There were too many people occupying too much space and disease was a problem.


End of the day the Nazis imprisoned people against their will, it was evil and crime and every death were caused by their actions.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why because I disagree with the number of 6 million died in gas chambers?

Yup.
An inaccurate claim of course, but essentially.

Thanks for illustrating.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yup.
An inaccurate claim of course, but essentially.

Thanks for illustrating.

How do you know its inaccurate? You have inside knowledge were all the jews went to during the war? You think no Jews left Germany and emigrated to America, Canada and South America or the Middle East even Russia? Nobody can for sure what the number died truly was. The Nazis left no documentation at the camps to look over. The only record is the transporting of Jews to the east on trains. And that number is way below the 6 million figure.

Cheerful Spring

Anyway back on topic.

Kingmob do you think it was ok to remove construction elements on the girder to allow the floors to collapse in their model?

prinzeugen

Anyone watch the X Files spin off? The Lone Gunmen?

Aired just before 9/11. I dont do conspiracy . But..

Cheerful Spring

prinzeugen wrote: »

Anyone watch the X Files spin off? The Lone Gunmen?

Aired just before 9/11. I dont do conspiracy . But..

You talking about this and was aired on March 2001.

Yes, Spooky indeed.

Operation Northwoods is a documented fact and that was a plan from the 1960s. If they had drone technology in the 60s they definitely had made it better by 2001. Lot truthers believe that what happened on 9/11, they planes controls were taken over and the planes were flown remotely to their targets.

I not sure if they are right or not. What I do find strange is there is no photographs and video evidence of 12 of 9/11 hijackers at the three airports.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What I do find strange is there is no photographs and video evidence of 12 of 9/11 hijackers at the three airports.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

There were 19 hijackers and the US government only released two videos. This video was said to show 5 of the 19 9/11 hijackers who boarded Flight 77 from Dulles. What people highlight and rightly so, the released security camera video is missing the timestamp and date? It was deliberately removed and left out and the question is why? The other video does show Atta at an airport in Portland Maine early in the morning of 9/11, where he got on a plane to head to Boston international airport. After that, he whereabouts were not tracked. We have no video of him and the nine or ten other hijackers at Boston International Airport. There also no video of the hijackers who boarded flight 93 from Cleveland.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The only record is the transporting of Jews to the east on trains. And that number is way below the 6 million figure.

It's in the history books, countless historians who have extensively and exhaustively studied the subject have reached a consensus figure of approx 6 million. In the same way they've reached the approx numbers of all casualty figures in WW2.

Conversely you're some person on the internet, not a historian, a clear passion for conspiracies, don't really have a theory, don't really have supporting evidence, if you don't like a fact you just discard it and make up one of your own and you do it all on a conspiracy theory forum, a "safe place" for that kind of thinking

Likewise you think 3 towers were blown up on 911, you state it as a fact, then you're unsure. According to you, a missile hit the Pentagon, then it was a military jet, then it was a plane, then it was flight 77 but a few degrees off. Your theories are vague, change day by day, it's like the truth of an event is entirely subjective to you

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's in the history books, countless historians who have extensively and exhaustively studied the subject have reached a consensus figure of approx 6 million. In the same way they've reached the approx numbers of all casualty figures in WW2.

Conversely you're some person on the internet, not a historian, a clear passion for conspiracies, don't really have a theory, don't really have supporting evidence, if you don't like a fact you just discard it and make up one of your own and you do it all on a conspiracy theory forum, a "safe place" for that kind of thinking

Likewise you think 3 towers were blown up on 911, you state it as a fact, then you're unsure. According to you, a missile hit the Pentagon, then it was a military jet, then it was a plane, then it was flight 77 but a few degrees off. Your theories are vague, change day by day, it's like the truth of an event is entirely subjective to you

That supporting evidence that you claim doesn't exist is now being presented to a
federal grand jury. If there was nothing there that evidence would be thrown out before it even reached that stage.

Consensus by the victors in a war.. There no doubt millions and millions of people died fighting the war. You claim there evidence 6 millions Jews were gassed has no supporting evidence. Provide one document that backs this up please, just one record?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That supporting evidence that you claim doesn't exist is now being presented to a
federal grand jury. If there was nothing there that evidence would be thrown out before it even reached that stage.

Consensus by the victors in a war.. There no doubt millions and millions of people died fighting the war. You claim there evidence 6 millions Jews were gassed has no supporting evidence. Provide one document that backs this up please, just one record?

You had your chance to explain your racist ass conspiracy theory. You failed utterly and embarrassed yourself completely.
You are doing so again now.

You are perfectly illustrating why no one takes you seriously. You are demanding an answer to a question that is wrong from the outset.

Either you know it's wrong (and you do as it's been explained to you many times) and you are being completely dishonest, thus there's no point engaging with you.
Or you don't understand why your question is wrong (and you just didn't read and/or didn't understand the previous responses) and you are simply incapable of engaging in a discussion.

You are no different from a creationist or a flat earther.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You had your chance to explain your racist ass conspiracy theory. You failed utterly and embarrassed yourself completely.
You are doing so again now.

You are perfectly illustrating why no one takes you seriously. You are demanding an answer to a question that is wrong from the outset.

Either you know it's wrong (and you do as it's been explained to you many times) and you are being completely dishonest, thus there's no point engaging with you.
Or you don't understand why your question is wrong (and you just didn't read and/or didn't understand the previous responses) and you are simply incapable of engaging in a discussion.

You are no different from a creationist or a flat earther.

Racist? I just dispute the numbers killed was 6 million. We know this number is inaccurate based on transporting of Jews from the Reich to the East on trains..

German Reich from 1939 to 1944 was all occupied countries in Europe. So we have a good picture of what was possible and not possible.

Did any jews die from shootings, stravation, illness, over work, war onging for 5 years? Did no Jews emigrate to other lands to escape?

20 million people got slaughtered by the Nazis when they invaded the Soviet Union. So there was no Jews killed in Soviet Union during this invasion?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Racist?

Yes, holocaust denial like you are doing, is racist.
It's a racist conspiracy theory.
It's invented and spread by racists.

Again, not engaging with you because you are not capable of arguing coherently.

JJayoo

OMG maybe it was Japanese knot-weed

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, holocaust denial like you are doing, is racist.
It's a racist conspiracy theory.
It's invented and spread by racists.

Again, not engaging with you because you are not capable of arguing coherently.

No is not anything of the sort. I know established facts are often wrong.

Just like to you guys think JFK murder and 9/11 happened just the way the US government claims, even though the evidence shows otherwise.

You guys don't understand engineering or bullet physics.

Cheerful Spring

Operation Northwoods was a real plan proposed by the joint chiefs of staff in the 1960s. In the 70 and 90's you be called a nut and conspiracy theorist if you claimed the Pentagon made plans to carry out false flags against US citizens, but we now today a crazy as it sounds that plan was signed off at the Pentagon and only got stopped or rejected by President Kennedy. So we know their people in the military as far back as the 1960s who thought false flags against American targets was reasonable and should be considered.

Cheerful Spring

The insanity of it.

Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal. A JCS/Pentagon document (Ed Lansdale memo) titled MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, 16 MARCH 1962 reads: "General Lemnitzer commented that the military had contingency plans for U.S. intervention. Also it had plans for creating plausible pretexts to use force, with the pretext either attacks on U.S. aircraft or a Cuban action in Latin America for which we could retaliate. The President said bluntly that we were not discussing the use of military force, that General Lemnitzer might find the U.S. so engaged in Berlin or elsewhere that he couldn't use the contemplated 4 divisions in Cuba."

The military was seriously looking to carry out false flags on US soil.

Following presentation of the Northwoods plan, Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963. U.S. military leaders began to perceive Kennedy as going soft on Cuba

Kennedy was dealing with men in power who were obviously crazy and were willing to do anything. We got lucky Kennedy was in power during the Cuban Missile crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Cheerful Spring

LBJ comes to power after Kennedy is murdered in a coup. And the administration sanctions a new war based on a false flag The Gulf of Tonkin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

This is part of American history and you guys are just ignoring that. Never mind the fact the CIA has a hand in multiple coups and overthrows of governments worldwide.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No is not anything of the sort.

No, it is racist.
It's spread by racists. It's believed and trumpeted by racists.

I don't think you are racist, you are just gullible and blindly accept what racists tell you and you are incapable of questioning what you are told.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You guys don't understand engineering or bullet physics.

Mm hmm?
How long would it take a ball to drop from the same height as WTC7?

buzzerxx

Those that believe the official story of 911 are gullible, stupid or have cognitive dissonance. They won't question the farsical explanation because it places them in a world they don't want to live in. Truthers present them with an inconvenient truth.

The Nal

buzzerxx wrote: »

Those that believe the official story of 911 are gullible, stupid or have cognitive dissonance. They won't question the farsical explanation because it places them in a world they don't want to live in. Truthers present them with an inconvenient truth.

Wow you're so woke.

Just a shame that the evidence completely points the other way.

King Mob

buzzerxx wrote: »

Those that believe the official story of 911 are gullible, stupid or have cognitive dissonance. They won't question the farsical explanation because it places them in a world they don't want to live in. Truthers present them with an inconvenient truth.

Ok.
So please provide what is asked for in the original post.

How do you think the building collapsed?
What method was used and how do you reach that conclusion?

buzzerxx

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
So please provide what is asked for in the original post.

How do you think the building collapsed?
What method was used and how do you reach that conclusion?

I think it was cotrolled demolition.
I reach this conclusion because I'm not an idiot. The speed of freefall defied all historical precedence for structures of that magnitude and level of engineering.

King Mob

buzzerxx wrote: »

I think it was cotrolled demolition.
I reach this conclusion because I'm not an idiot. The speed of freefall defied all historical precedence for structures of that magnitude and level of engineering.

Ok.
So when you say controlled demolition, what do you mean?
What method was used? And how do you know?

The Nal

buzzerxx wrote: »

I think it was cotrolled demolition.
I reach this conclusion because I'm not an idiot. The speed of freefall defied all historical precedence for structures of that magnitude and level of engineering.

How did they plant all of the explosives? And why bother? A load of planes crashing into buildings in America is enough justification for war.

How do you explain Bin Laden discussing organising the attacks?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
So when you say controlled demolition, what do you mean?
What method was used? And how do you know?

Ahh Mob ... that is all explained a few pages back .... are you suffering from selective memory ? Or are you looking for another victim you can bombard with the usual pedantic and obtuse nonsense?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That supporting evidence that you claim doesn't exist is now being presented to a
federal grand jury. If there was nothing there that evidence would be thrown out before it even reached that stage.

It's been accepted to be presented to a grand jury. It's now up to that jury if they want to throw it out or proceed. We all want the latter but it will likely be the former"

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sept-11th-legal-breakthrough-us-attorney-for-the-southern-district-of-new-york-agrees-to-comply-with-federal-law-requiring-that-he-submit-evidence-of-still-unprosecuted-federal-crimes-at-ground-zero-on-911-to-a-special-crimin-300756486.html

Considering it's a bunch of pseudo-scientific claims and ridiculous stuff like the BBC reporting the WTC fall before it happened, it doesn't stand much of a chance. I would bet money that if it's thrown out for being groundless/frivolous, that truthers will hail it as a victory because that will all be part of the "coverup"

Consensus by the victors in a war..

Consensus by German historians. You know, the guys who lost the war. You maintain you know more than the weight of German history on the subject-matter, but just on the figures concerning "the Jews". You don't challenge any other figures. That's a Holocaust denier.

Dohnjoe

buzzerxx wrote: »

I think it was cotrolled demolition.
I reach this conclusion because I'm not an idiot. The speed of freefall defied all historical precedence for structures of that magnitude and level of engineering.

Which begs the elementary questions

1. Who ordered that WTC 7 be blown up? what was the chain of command?
2. Who carried out the preparation of the building for demolition? names, details, etc
3. Why did they blow up WTC 7? motive?
4. If an answer is given for 3. why didn't they carry that out when they were preparing the entire building for demolition? alternatively why didn't they let fire do the job?
5. What was the added value of taking a risk to "blow up" a 47 story building in the middle of NY under the gaze of the world's media, governments, foreign intelligence agencies during the most significant event of the 21st century/
6. How was it coordinated with the rest of the attacks that day? what if the planes missed the towers, how would they explain this building in NY entirely rigged to explode?
7. There are constantly leaks from the White House, CIA, FBI, the NSA, why are there no leaks about this after 17 years?
8. Why are there no witnesses, no whistle-blowers, no deathbed confessions?

This is basic stuff. Motives, suspects, witnesses, credible evidence. Evidence has to corroborate other evidence. Any tribunal for reinvestigation would need this.

Here are some things that don't wash. Making personal claims like "it looks like a demolition to me so it has to be" isn't evidence. Personal acts of incredulity: "I can't believe a building fell down due to fire, that's impossible, therefore it must have been secretly blown up with silent explosives". Appeal to experts or authority is pointless if they only represent a highly isolated view. Likewise declaring that an inside job exists because "no one can prove the official story to me personally" - that's literally how flat-earthers validate their theory. And last but not least, calling people idiots for not accepting a very obviously far-fetched theory - unsurprisingly 911 is banned or harshly moderated on many engineering forums due to that kind of thinking

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You guys don't understand engineering or bullet physics.

From someone who doesn't understand how a bullet can exit a block of wood at a different point from where it entered.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

From someone who doesn't understand how a bullet can exit a block of wood at a different point from where it entered.

Nal there experiment is a fraud. They don't show the bullet moving from the point of entry (on the left side) going through the timber moving upward through the fibre of the wood to come out at the far right side corner of the wood. The bullet can not go straight through and not make a turn along the way to get there. If you don't understand this all hope is lost with you?

They don't show the break or cuts in the wood the bullet made along the passage from entry point A to the exit point B.

That how you prove the magic bullet can change and move direction when fired from a gun.