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

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST did a 6-year study and after 6 years they did not even know the building underwent freefall?

Again, you do not understand what freefall is or how it works.
You are also unable to do a simple math problem based around it.
You claimed that "gravity works differently in buildings".

Cheerful Spring

This is documented history cannot be denied. Listen to what NIST claimed.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

9/11 commercial airliners hit buildings in different cities. People seem to forget the day was crazy and insane.

banie01 wrote: »

What other high rise steel frame buildings other than WTC 1 and 2, in which other cities were directly impacted by commercial airliners on 9/11?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can make an excuse for WTC1 and WTC2.

How do you explain a 47-floor building coming down from a few random fires on a few floors on 9/11?

NIST did a 6-year study and after 6 years they did not even know the building underwent freefall? Explain how they did know? Why did David Chandler understand the collapse and NIST did not?

We have a video of NIST employees claiming in summer of 2008, freefall could not have happened.

Cheerful, please!
Less of the deflection and BS!
Answer the very simple question you were asked in relation to your statement above?
I'll quote it again here, you said

9/11 commercial airliners hit buildings in different cities. People seem to forget the day was crazy and insane.

I'll ask again in case you didn't comprehend, and to ensure the actual question asked isn't lost on you.

What other high rise steel frame buildings other than WTC 1 and 2, in which other cities were directly impacted by commercial airliners on 9/11?

You have made the claim, I'd appreciate if you could elucidate it.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Cheerful, please!
Less of the deflection and BS!
Answer the very simple question you were asked in relation to your statement above?
I'll quote it again here, you said


I'll ask again in case you didn't comprehend, and to ensure the actual question asked isn't lost on you.

What other high rise steel frame buildings other than WTC 1 and 2, in which other cities were directly impacted by commercial airliners on 9/11?

You have made the claim, I'd appreciate if you could elucidate it.

Are you claiming a plane made of aluminium destroyed a 110 story building? How explain your theory?

You can't ignore another high rise building fell on 9/11. Was not hit by a plane.

If WTC7 was rigged and taken down, then it highly likely WTC1 and WTC2 also was brought down.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Are you claiming a plane made of aluminium destroyed a 110 story building? How explain your theory?

You can't ignore another high rise building fell on 9/11. Was not hit by a plane.

If WTC7 was rigged and taken down, then it highly likely WTC1 and WTC2 also was brought down.

I'm honestly starteing to believe that you have issues with written comprehension.

You made a statement that other buildings in other cities were hit by commercial airliner on 9/11.
That is your statement and your assertion!
Not mine.

I have repeatedly asked you to outline which other high rise steel frame buildings were directly impacted by commercial airliners on 9/11?
I am asking you to that again now?

Could you please, re-read your post and my question...
And answer it, rather than wiggle around and post meningless deflective drivel?

You made a specific statement!
I am asking you to back it up!

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

I'm honestly starteing to believe that you have issues with written comprehension.

You made a statement that other buildings in other cities were hit by commercial airliner on 9/11.
That is your statement and your assertion!
Not mine.

I have repeatedly asked you to outline which other high rise steel frame buildings were directly impacted by commercial airliners on 9/11?
I am asking you to that again now?

Could you please, re-read your post and my question...
And answer it, rather than wiggle around and post meningless deflective drivel?

You made a specific statement!
I am asking you to back it up!

Pentagon is a building Pentagon is in Washington DC not New York.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Pentagon is a building Pentagon is in Washington DC not New York.

Yep so my worries about your comprehension skills seem to be well founded.

Is the Pentagon a high rise steel frame building?
Further to that, what bearing does the Pentagon crash have or any damage induced or experienced to that structure have on WTC7?
Why even introduce the topic of other planes and cities? If not to actually deflect?

The thread is specific to WTC7 and lets be fair it has included the other WTC buildings aswell as the same 2 impacts are generally accepted as the "root" cause of all damage in the WTC area.

And from the above, I can take it that you cannot back up the statement you made.
Thanks for the confirmation.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Yep so my worries about your comprehension skills seem to be well founded.

Is the Pentagon a high rise steel frame building?
Further to that, what bearing does the Pentagon crash have or any damage induced or experienced to that structure have on WTC7?
Why even introduce the topic of other planes and cities? If not to actually deflect?

The thread is specific to WTC7 and lets be fair it has included the other WTC buildings aswell as the same 2 impacts are generally accepted as the "root" cause of all damage in the WTC area.

And from the above, I can take it that you cannot back up the statement you made.
Thanks for the confirmation.

Did I say it was?

You just quoted what I said

9/11 commercial airliners hit buildings in different cities. People seem to forget the day was crazy and insane. ][/B]

Maybe you need help with comprehension?

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did I say it was?

You just quoted what I said

9/11 commercial airliners hit buildings in different cities. People seem to forget the day was crazy and insane. ][/B]

Maybe you need help with comprehension?

Then maybe you could explain why you feel that it has any bearing on the outcome of WTC7?
Whlst the events are tied together under 9/11 the outcome of one has no bearing on the other, hence it plays no part in what happened to WTC7.
The mention of it is deflection, hence why I asked what other high rise steel frame buildings were hit on 9/11....
At least then, there would be a relationship however tenuous in the outcome.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Then maybe you could explain why you feel that it has any bearing on the outcome of WTC7?

It was a statement about what occurred on 9/11. Before 9/11 who would have thought four planes would be hijacked and three of them would be flown into different buildings? If I said that to you in 2000 you probably say that crazy and insane never happen. You only saw that in movies pre 9/11.

I saying WTC7 came down the same day in suspicious circumstances. And we know now NIST study was fraudulent and they lied.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It was a statement about what occurred on 9/11. Before 9/11 who would have thought four planes would be hijacked and three of them would be flown into different buildings? If I said that to you in 2000 you probably say that crazy and insane never happen. You only saw that in movies pre 9/11.

I saying WTC7 came down the same day in suspicious circumstances. And we know now NIST study was fraudulent and they lied.

So unrelated to the WTC7 outcome and yet another example of an attempt at verbose deflection.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

So unrelated to the WTC7 outcome and yet another example of an attempt at verbose deflection.

Yes, it is related. The fire excuse does not hold up.

NIST claimed freefall was an impossibility in the final draft of their report in 2008. They claimed their analysis showed (6 years of work by the way) there still was structural resistance underneath. Their analysis was truly and easily debunked by David Chandler and he is work has shown WTC7 was controlled demolition.

NIST claimed there was no explosive noise heard on the video above a level of 130db. False a blatant lie. We have a video and you can clearly hear noise above 130db one second prior to Penthouse falling. Why did NIST lie?

NIST own computer simulation is not an accurate representation of the real collapse. That further proof what they claim is untrue. Their images of the collapse show external crushing, not seen on news video.

NIST claimed nobody saw molten steel or melted steel. A false claim I have proven with video and providing FEMA documentation from 2002.

NIST claimed there were no shear studs, fasteners or web plate attached to the girder at column 79 Floor 13. False and a lie. The truth movement got their hands on the WTC7 construction drawings by FOIA request in 2013..

This alone is enough to question the official account.

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

So unrelated to the WTC7 outcome and yet another example of an attempt at verbose deflection.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, it is related. The fire excuse does not hold up.

NIST claimed freefall was an impossibility in the final draft of their report in 2008. They claimed their analysis showed (6 years of work by the way) there still was structural resistance underneath. Their analysis was truly and easily debunked by David Chandler and he is work has shown WTC7 was controlled demolition.

NIST claimed there was no explosive noise heard on the video above a level of 130db. False a blatant lie. We have a video and you can clearly hear noise above 130db one second prior to Penthouse falling. Why did NIST lie?

NIST own computer simulation is not an accurate representation of the real collapse. That further proof what they claim is untrue. Their images of the collapse showing external crushing not seen on video.

NIST claimed nobody saw molten steel or melted steel. A false claim I have proven with video and providing FEMA documentation from 2002.

NIST claimed there were no shear studs, fasteners or web plate attached to the girder at column 79 Floor 13. False and a lie. The truth movement got their hands on the WTC7 construction drawings by FOIA request in 2013..

This alone is enough to question the official account.

And yet more deflection
This exchange started out as my seeking clarification from you regarding your conflation of the Pentagon crash with WTC7.
So rather than just stick to a point, or concede that you were once again deflecting.
You have repeated a river of specious drivel that has on numerous occassions already been debunked and challenged on this thread with no actual coherent rebuttal from yourself other than your actual single bloody minded stubborn belief in a conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

And yet more deflection
This exchange started out as my seeking clarification from you regarding your conflation of the Pentagon crash with WTC7.
So rather than just stick to a point, or concede that you were once again deflecting.
You have repeated a river of specious drivel that has on numerous occassions already been debunked and challenged on this thread with no actual coherent rebuttal from yourself other than your actual single bloody minded stubborn belief in a conspiracy.

It is, not deflection, i providing facts.

I even provided a video of what NIST stated themselves in 2008. Listen to their words if you think its all hot air.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST claimed freefall was an impossibility in the final draft of their report in 2008.

Again, as has been demonstrated:
You don't understand what freefall is.

Cheerful Spring

Found an interesting article.

I definitely agree with this statement, it seems to common thread among debunkers attack the person, don't debate the evidence.

Quote
The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) purports to defend the official story of 9/11. But its “defence” consists mainly of ad hominem attacks against critics of the official tale – a strong indication that the government’s version of 9/11 cannot be defended using logic and evidence.

Most of the JREF smear artists hide behind pseudonyms. Compare the short list of anonymous, un-credentialed mud-slingers at JREF to the long list of real people with real credentials using real names atPatriotsQuestion911.com­, and ask yourself: Why are so many people willing to risk their jobs and reputations for the truth, while so few will openly defend a lie at no real risk to themselves? The question, I suspect, answers itself. The key word is integrity.

JREF’s latest humiliation: Losing a $1,000 debate challenge from the Association for 9/11 Truth Awareness (ANETA). Last month Rick Shaddock and Michael Frishman of ANETA began posting the 9/11 Physics Debatechallenge on the JREF forum. At issue is whether or not the official story of 9/11 violates the laws of physics. Qualified physicists with a Hirsch Index of 50 or higher were invited to participate. (The Hirsch Index is a rating of scholarly stature.)

Dr. David Griscom, a Ph.D. in physics from Brown University, stepped forward to defend the proposition that yes, the official story of 9/11 does indeed violate the laws of physics, including Newton’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd laws. Dr. Griscom’s Hirsch Index is a very respectable 52.

ANETA posted the debate challenge on the JREF forum, hoping that an equally credentialed physicist would quickly step forward to defend mom, apple pie, and the official myth of 9/11. Unfortunately, it seems there are few real names at JREF, and even fewer people (if indeed the JREF entities are actual people) with scholarly credentials. Rather than respond to the challenge, the JREF moderators kept removing ANETA’s debate challenge posts.
But one of the few JREFers with a real name and a modicum of integrity – a certain Chris Mohr – took it upon himself to create his own thread: “9/11 Physics Debate – Any Takers?” The result was typical of JREF: Lots of insults, but no qualified people willing to defend the official story. The only person at JREF willing to debate Dr. Griscom was an entity labeled Frank3373″ who claimed to hold a BA in Liberal Arts with no science courses – and a Hirsch Index of zero!
Couldn’t the JREFers, who fancy themselves experts in everything pertaining to the defencse of the official myth of 9/11, find even ONE credentialed physicist willing to debate Dr. Griscom? At stake: $1,000 for the winner to donate to a charity of his or her choice.

When the date of the big debate arrived – Saturday, March 15th – there was a resounding silence from the official story side. Evidently no qualified physicist on earth could explain how the government’s version of the destruction of the World Trade Center can coexist with the basic laws of physics.

https://www.meetup.com/tr-TR/StLouis9-11Questions/messages/boards/thread/42714932

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I definitely agree with this statement, it seems to common thread among debunkers attack the person, don't debate the evidence.

Which group planted the "explosives" in WTC 7? (with evidence)
What were their names? (with evidence)
When exactly did they plant these "explosives"? (with evidence)
Did they also plant explosives in WTC 1 and 2, or was that a different group? (with evidence)

Interesting how you don't like the evidence part when it comes to your whacky creations

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which group planted the "explosives" in WTC 7? (with evidence)
What were their names? (with evidence)
When exactly did they plant these "explosives"? (with evidence)
Did they also plant explosives in WTC 1 and 2, or was that a different group? (with evidence)

Interesting how you don't like the evidence part when it comes to your whacky creations

We have evidence WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. You are nonsensical questions do not make sense when you know how the building fell down.

Who did it question requires an investigation. The FBI and other agencies would need to look for the people involved. It not up to the truthers to find this out.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr. David Griscom, a Ph.D. in physics from Brown University, stepped forward to defend the proposition that yes, the official story of 9/11 does indeed violate the laws of physics, including Newton’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd laws. Dr. Griscom’s Hirsch Index is a very respectable 52.

Again, you don't understand physics.

Define these laws without googling them.
I bet real money you cannot.

Cheerful Spring

Pretty interesting debate between Professor Harrit and David Rancourt, a Physic and materials scientist

https://soundcloud.com/marley-engvall/the-great-thermate-debate-harrit-v-rancourt

David is a skeptic the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition and argued his points. He had some interesting points about the collapse, that I open to

He believes WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the towers no.

But why would the conspirators only demolition one building? If they doing one would not just demolish all three?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We have evidence WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. You are nonsensical questions do not make sense when you know how the building fell down.

No you don't have evidence. You just cobble together random disjointed bits and pieces and describe that as "evidence". It's your personal description.

A piece of hair on the ground is "evidence" that Bigfoot exists according to irrational people who passionately believe Bigfoot exists. An interview on national television with the owner of the building is "evidence" that he secretly blew up the building according to the group of irrational people who believe he blew the building up.

It's not evidence to anyone rational

If you stood in front of a judge with your "evidence" as a basis for reopening an investigation into 911 he would suggest you seek mental help

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No you don't have evidence. You just cobble together random disjointed bits and pieces and describe that as "evidence". It's your personal description.

A piece of hair on the ground is "evidence" that Bigfoot exists according to irrational people who passionately believe Bigfoot exists. An interview on national television with the owner of the building is "evidence" that he secretly blew up the building according to the group of irrational people who believe he blew the building up.

It's not evidence to anyone rational

If you stood in front of a judge with your "evidence" as a basis for reopening an investigation into 911 he would suggest you seek mental help

I know I am right when you look at NIST evidence for the collapse. The truther groups knew more than NIST after six years. It was embarrassing NIST came out and said in 2008 freefall was an impossibility because their analysis showed that there was still resistance underneath. After David Chandler embarrassed them they reworked their analysis in three months and now stage 2 included Freefall. With no real explanation of why they are analysis was wrong for 6 years and how fires caused a symmetrical progressive collapse.

I amazed any official body still supports this study. How can a model be accurate when the connections were not modelled correctly. You not doing an analysis correctly if you remove constructions fittings from a girder that failed. You have to model the condition present and see what happens. Girder at Column 79 on Floor 13 was not unsupported that a lie to claim otherwise a fraud.

Then NIST lying about steel found that was melted, claiming nobody saw that molten steel in the rubble (fairy tale stuff when their video of firefighters stating they saw and clean up workers saw it. They claim no noise heard during collapse more bull****. They also state temps to be hot in places when the evidence shows otherwise.

Then their own graphs of collapse show the external walls crushing when the building coming down. NIST is bull****ting again their walls did not bow in and there was no crushing of the building face when collapsing.

You have forgotten the evidence is presented to a grand jury in New York.

Cheerful Spring

You can't not make this stuff up when you can see clearly on video, how WTC7 fell down.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I know I am right when you look at NIST evidence for the collapse. The truther groups knew more than NIST after six years. It was embarrassing NIST came out and said in 2008 freefall was an impossibility because their analysis showed that there was still resistance underneath. After David Chandler embarrassed them they reworked their analysis in three months and now stage 2 included Freefall. With no real explanation of why they are analysis was wrong for 6 years and how fires caused a symmetrical progressive collapse.

Again. You don't understand what free fall is and got a basic physics question wrong after 100s of posts dodging it.
You don't understand what you are talking about here.
You are embarrassing conspiracy theorists.
You are embarrassing yourself.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I know I am right

"It's a fact", "it's evidence", "it happened"

Using assertive words doesn't mean anything when your "evidence" and theories are gooblygook

"It's a fact" that Princess Diana was murdered by the Queen, the "evidence" is rock solid, "no one can dispute it", the "proof" is overwhelming. "I know I am right"

Words.

You have forgotten the evidence is presented to a grand jury in New York.

Yup and a Holocaust denier not just presented evidence, but actually went to court (and got his nonsense utterly eviserated). Presenting evidence means little. In this case it's an eclectic mix of disjointed nonsense presented by a bunch of truthers. It's very likely to be thrown out. I'd cut off my right arm to see those guys make it to court

"but the BBC predicte"
"Case dismissed"

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"It's a fact", "it's evidence", "it happened"

Using assertive words doesn't mean anything when your "evidence" and theories are gooblygook

"It's a fact" that Princess Diana was murdered by the Queen, the "evidence" is rock solid, "no one can dispute it", the "proof" is overwhelming. "I know I am right"

Words.



Yup and a Holocaust denier not just presented evidence, but actually went to court (and got his nonsense utterly eviserated). Presenting evidence means little. In this case it's an eclectic mix of disjointed nonsense presented by a bunch of truthers. It's very likely to be thrown out. I'd cut off my right arm to see those guys make it to court

"but the BBC predicte"
"Case dismissed"

Why you mixing different conspiracies with 9/11.

Diana driver was drinking alcohol, he crashed trying to escape photographers. I doubt anyone like the Queen would have ordered a hit on Diana and would happen on a public road in Paris.

It was a libel case. You are talking about David Irvine correct? It was dismissed because Irving could not prove his reputation was damaged. To overturn the historical record is almost an impossible feat. Irvine may have presented some good evidence, but that has to be weighed against the eyewitnesses accounts and what the world thinks about the Holocaust. I would not expect any judge to side with David Irvine about holocaust denial.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why you mixing different conspiracies with 9/11.

Same faulty thinking. There are many people who believe that Diana's death was an inside job using the same hokey logic you use to believe that 911 was an inside job

To overturn the historical record is almost an impossible feat. Irvine may have presented some good evidence, but that has to be weighed against the eyewitnesses accounts and what the world thinks about the Holocaust. I would not expect any judge to side with David Irvine about holocaust denial.

More faulty thinking. Agian, you display this incredible ability to believe you know more than the combined consensus of German and world historians on the subject. Historians challenge and revise history all the time. David Irving was a rabid anti-semite.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Same faulty thinking. There are many people who believe that Diana's death was an inside job using the same hokey logic you use to believe that 911 was an inside job



More faulty thinking. Agian, you display this incredible ability to believe you know more than the combined consensus of German and world historians on the subject. Historians challenge and revise history all the time. David Irving was a rabid anti-semite.

Not true, there literally dozens of conspiracies I dismiss as nonsense. Diana death is one of them.

Regarding the Holocaust, the event is not as simple as you portray it to be. My mine issue with the Holocaust is claiming six million Jews were murdered by gas over a period of three years. That just nonsense. I don't care what the Jewish groups or holocaust historians claim on the web.

Did the Nazis carry out a genocide against the Jews in Europe, yes I believe that to be true.

King Mob

"I don't believe in silly conspiracy theories and I don't deny the holocaust. I just believe that a small cabal of Jews somehow control the entire field of history and are falsely inflating the numbers killed in the holocaust up to and including faking gas chambers and hiring actors."
You are so precious Cheerful.

Also you are again lying. No one claims that 6 million Jews were gassed. That is a lie of your own invention.
You have read far to much to claim that and blame it on your usual ignorance.
You know that's not what people claim. You pretend it is anyway.
It's perfect representation of your dishonesty.
The fact you lie to prop up and promote a theory that pretty much every one agrees is racist and born from neo nazis and fascists speaks volumes about your morality and intelligence.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

"I don't believe in silly conspiracy theories and I don't deny the holocaust. I just believe that a small cabal of Jews somehow control the entire field of history and are falsely inflating the numbers killed in the holocaust up to and including faking gas chambers and hiring actors."
You are so precious Cheerful.

Also you are again lying. No one claims that 6 million Jews were gassed. That is a lie of your own invention.
You have read far to much to claim that and blame it on your usual ignorance.
You know that's not what people claim. You pretend it is anyway.
It's perfect representation of your dishonesty.
The fact you lie to prop up and promote a theory that pretty much every one agrees is racist and born from neo nazis and fascists speaks volumes about your morality and intelligence.

Stop lying. You did claim 6 million Jews gassed in the Holocaust thread.

You even doing it now. You are sticking with the position that number is correct.
Quote by you
I just believe that a small cabal of Jews somehow control the entire field of history and are falsely inflating the numbers killed in the holocaust

Difference between me and neo-Nazis I know they were mass murders and their ideology was evil.

The Holocaust was not just about the extermination of Jews, it was about getting rid of people, the Nazis believed to be an inferior race. Slavs, Poles and Soviets were rounded up and send to camps and were murdered. Gypies, Gay, and Lesbians all enemies of the Reich and they too were sent to concentration camps in Poland. Hilter invaded the Soviet Union because he despised communists just as much as he did the Jewish race.

The problem with Holocaust denial as I see it. If there were no gas or massing shootings taking place in these camps, then more family members should be alive after the war. Where did the children go if not murdered? The problem with holocaust researchers they ignore a war was happening in the east and million of Soviets and including Jews got killed in the fighting. Plus we know Jews were not all gassed, a lot died from hunger and disease and work conditions that kept the Germany economy ticking over during the war.