Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…457910…102

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    She, on the other hand, was lost. She did not know the energy value used, did not know the energy weapon used. She had not carried out any tests in a lab to see if this was even possible. Her interview is a trainwreck a disaster. When you actually take time out to listen you have better idea of what i am saying!

    You've decided a sound, captured on audio, is explosive charges going off in a 47 story building 17 years ago, because you say it is. You claim someone secretly blew up that building in downtown New York but you have no evidence of who it was, how they did it or what their motive was

    You claimed it was impossible for an airliner to have hit the Pentagon, rejected all common sense replies on it, then randomly changed your mind and decided it did hit the Pentagon

    You randomly claimed someone was part of a cover-up. But you can't detail the cover-up nor can you provide a jot of evidence to back up that claim

    This is nothing but a creative writing exercise to you


  • Options
    #183
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Remind us Cheerful, how much thermite was used? Where was it placed?

    A 300,000 dollar WTC7 study is only weeks away from being released. We able to speculate then on this.

    Dr Hulsey was able to replicate the correct failures in WTC7. His computer model will show how the building fell down inside.


  • Options
    #184
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No, I asked you to tell us how much thermite was used. Fake Dr Hursleys fake paper isn't even looking at that.

    Do you not know how much thermite was used?


  • Options
    #185
    bessboroughboy
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭bessboroughboy


    I remember seeing the following clip live on the day it happened, Larry Silverstein clearly states that the decision was made to "pull it".

    https://youtu.be/-jPzAakHPpk


  • Options
    #186
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You've decided a sound, captured on audio, is explosive charges going off in a 47 story building 17 years ago, because you say it is. You claim someone secretly blew up that building in downtown New York but you have no evidence of who it was, how they did it or what their motive was

    You claimed it was impossible for an airliner to have hit the Pentagon, rejected all common sense replies on it, then randomly changed your mind and decided it did hit the Pentagon

    You randomly claimed someone was part of a cover-up. But you can't detail the cover-up nor can you provide a jot of evidence to back up that claim

    This is nothing but a creative writing exercise to you

    It going to be proven scientifically the building was taken down by demolition. Dr Hulsey has been able to model the actual collapse conditions.

    When his collapse model is shown and look exactly like the collapse in real time, its game over. Dr Hulsey will be showing scientifically how it was done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, I asked you to tell us how much thermite was used. Fake Dr Hursleys fake paper isn't even looking at that.

    Do you not know how much thermite was used?

    When his finds get released they're going to be a lot of backtracking in the 9/11 Skeptic community.


  • Options
    #188
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    bessboroughboy wrote: »
    I remember seeing the following clip live on the day it happened, Larry Silverstein clearly states that the decision was made to "pull it".

    https://youtu.be/-jPzAakHPpk

    Excuses were made for this. I guess nobody told Silverstein a girder fell down at column 79? Why did he think it was pulled down?


  • Options
    #189
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Again, I'm asking you to state how much thermite was used.

    You dismissed Dr Judy Wood who had way more expertise than you because she allegedly couldn't answer a question like that.
    Now you are dodging and deflecting it cause you don't know the answer and won't admit it.

    So should we dismiss you as a crackpot too?


  • Options
    #190
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bessboroughboy wrote: »
    I remember seeing the following clip live on the day it happened, Larry Silverstein clearly states that the decision was made to "pull it".

    https://youtu.be/-jPzAakHPpk
    Ok, so leaving aside the fact that that quote was not ever broadcast live...

    Why do you think he said this on camera? Why did he blow the whole conspiracy?


  • Options
    #191
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, I'm asking you to state how much thermite was used.

    You dismissed Dr Judy Wood who had way more expertise than you because she allegedly couldn't answer a question like that.
    Now you are dodging and deflecting it cause you don't know the answer and won't admit it.

    So should we dismiss you as a crackpot too?

    Her theory doesn't make any sense. The failures occurred inside WTC7.

    I don't believe a UFO passed overhead and shot down a laser and blew up WTC7.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Again Cheerful, you dismiss her because she didn't know the power of the laser used.
    You don't know how much thermite was used.
    By your own argument we should dismiss your theory as just as crackpot.


  • Options
    #193
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, so leaving aside the fact that that quote was not ever broadcast live...

    Why do you think he said this on camera? Why did he blow the whole conspiracy?

    Do you think he had an excuse ready in case they did look for explosives and found them? Oh ya, I remember now a fire chief who name is unknown told him that they did this on 9/11!

    This interview is pre NIST investigation I believe. Ready with the excuse just in case!


  • Options
    #194
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    You can't demolition a building in a few hours. Silverstein already knew they were in place to take down the building.


  • Options
    #195
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again Cheerful, you dismiss her because she didn't know the power of the laser used.
    You don't know how much thermite was used.
    By your own argument we should dismiss your theory as just as crackpot.

    There is a difference between her work and Dr Hulsey.

    Dr Hulsey work on wtc7 is grounded in science. Her work is science fiction.


  • Options
    #196
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But again, you dismiss her because supposedly she can't answer a question.
    You also cannot answer the same question.

    If we follow your argument we should dismiss you and your expert as crackpots.

    There is no difference between you two.


  • Options
    #197
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You can't demolition a building in a few hours. Silverstein already knew they were in place to take down the building.
    Lol you have argued previously that the buildings were rigged in secret in a matter of hours...
    You seem confused about your own theory.


  • Options
    #198
    bessboroughboy
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭bessboroughboy


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, so leaving aside the fact that that quote was not ever broadcast live...

    Why do you think he said this on camera? Why did he blow the whole conspiracy?


    That quote WAS broadcast live, I remember seeing it on television on the day of the attack.
    I have no idea why he said it but I do believe he's referring to a demolition which would obviously necessitate the existence of previously positioned explosives.
    I agree with you, it does seem strange that he would say something that, one would imagine, would be better left unsaid.


  • Options
    #199
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol you have argued previously that the buildings were rigged in secret in a matter of hours...
    You seem confused about your own theory.

    Did i can you post the link where I said that? Was I talking about nano-thermite?

    If explosives were used it takes a lot longer than a few hours. If you use multiple teams to plant explosives you can cut down the time.


  • Options
    #200
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    bessboroughboy wrote: »
    That quote WAS broadcast live, I remember seeing it on television on the day of the attack.
    I have no idea why he said it but I do believe he's referring to a demolition which would obviously necessitate the existence of previously positioned explosives.
    I agree with you, it does seem strange that he would say something that, one would imagine, would be better left unsaid.

    His full quote
    "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

    People downplay this but it obvious he's referring to the building been pulled down by demolition.

    Decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. There no ambiguity.


  • Options
    #201
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    that quote WAS broadcast live, I remember seeing it on television on the day of the attack.
    I have no idea why he said it but I do believe he's referring to a demolition which would obviously necessitate the existence of previously positioned explosives.
    I agree with you, it does seem strange that he would say something that, one would imagine, would be better left unsaid.
    But that quote wasn't broadcast live. It comes from an interview much much later.
    But why do you believe that he's talking about a demolition when it doesn't make sense for him to be giving the game away?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol you have argued previously that the buildings were rigged in secret in a matter of hours...
    You seem confused about your own theory.

    Did i can you post the link where I said that? Was I talking about nano-thermite?

    If explosives were used it takes a lot longer than a few hours. If you use multiple teams to plant explosives you can cut down the time.
    Proof for this please. Please show that it is quicker to plant magic thermite charges.
    Also please outline how many charges they placed, where they were placed and how long it took.
    Otherwise it's on the crackpot pile with space lasers.


  • Options
    #203
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Proof for this please. Please show that it is quicker to plant magic thermite charges.
    Also please outline how many charges they placed, where they were placed and how long it took.
    Otherwise it's on the crackpot pile with space lasers.

    Kingmob watch this presentation.


    Your arguments are not sound they annoying and just wrong. Been over this with Dohnjoe already.

    When you familiarise yourself with Dr Hulsey work, you will understand why I support the controlled demolition theory for WTC7.

    Think of it as a debunking exercise if that helps you watch it? I off for the night.


  • Options
    #204
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yup, like Dr Judy Wood, you can't answer simple questions.
    So I'll take a page from your book and dismiss your theory as crackpot nonsense like you did with Dr Judy Wood's.
    You have not demonstrated any difference between the two.


  • Options
    #205
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bessboroughboy wrote: »
    I remember seeing the following clip live on the day it happened, Larry Silverstein clearly states that the decision was made to "pull it".

    At the time meant "pulling" firefighters from the building. There were mounting fears the building was close to collapse (a large bulge had developed on the side and it had been burning for hours)

    This was clarified a few years later in an interview


  • Options
    #206
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    When you familiarise yourself with Dr Hulsey work, you will understand why I support the controlled demolition theory for WTC7.

    He doesn't support the controlled demo theory. The only reason you "support" Hulsey is because he is paid by a conspiracy group to conduct research attempting to "disprove" the NIST

    If in the final report he comes out and claims that it couldn't be proved and that the NIST findings are correct you will likely disown him

    Again, the above has nothing to do with energy weapons or controlled demolitions

    You are still writing in this thread and you haven't supported your own theory yet

    It's a showcase for how individuals can support inane and absurd theories with absolutely no evidence, purely by attacking and attempting to discredit the real findings. Nothing else.


  • Options
    #207
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    When his finds get released they're going to be a lot of backtracking in the 9/11 Skeptic community.

    When is it being released?


    Why wait? If he has the smoking gun right now why not go public now?


  • Options
    #208
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    When is it being released?


    Why wait? If he has the smoking gun right now why not go public now?

    He's "building tension"

    Just kidding it was due early this year but has been delayed. One of two assistants is no longer working on the project and there are already multiple discrepancies in his preliminary findings

    He's really going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and that's before it gets subjected to peer-review

    When it was announced it stated that the results were going to discredit the NIST, that was before he even started his work - pretty hilarious for an "objective" study. They quickly changed the wording

    All that said, I'm keeping an open mind, perhaps it will be groundbreaking, but I wouldn't hold my breath


  • Options
    #209
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    At the time meant "pulling" firefighters from the building. There were mounting fears the building was close to collapse (a large bulge had developed on the side and it had been burning for hours)

    This was clarified a few years later in an interview

    Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/shame-on-jesse-ventura

    Silverstein was on the phone on 9/11 trying to find out of his insurance company would pay out for controlled demolition of WTC7. Skeptics can no longer claim he was just talking just about pulling firefighters out of the building. The firefighters were told not to fight the fires at 11 am on 9/11. That's insane I love to know who made that decision and why? That just give up saving a building that had a few fires on just a few floors. There were no eastside fires till after 2 pm.


  • Options
    #210
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Silverstein was on the phone on 9/11 trying to find out of his insurance company would pay out for controlled demolition of WTC7.
    Guess he forgot to check that before he got involved with the conspiracy. Whoopies...
    Also then maybe forgot that he probably shouldn't have told the insurance company that he planed to blow it up... I don't think they'd pay out for that...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    When is it being released?


    Why wait? If he has the smoking gun right now why not go public now?

    November or December this year.

    Everything has to be correct for peer review. If he released and something is not right then the whole study is worthless.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement