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…5681011…102

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    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...

    We never going to know for sure what he meant. It's a lie though to claim Silverstein did not discuss controlled demolition with people on 9/11.


  • Options
    #213
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    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.

    I would accept Hulsey work if he said fires was the main cause for the building falling. I don't stick to one position like you do

    The NIST study is full of contradictions, errors and lies. Their own models and graphs and images are not accurate. How can you not see that when they have the building come down like a crushed soda can. Do you trust your own eyes Dohnjoe have you watched the actual collapse video of WTC7?

    NIST lied about the connections on the girder, they lied about where the fires were at different stages during the day. NIST had to be told by David Chandler WTC7 underwent freefall. They were denying freefall up till the time David Chandler contacted them about it. There so many things that just don't make sense.


  • Options
    #214
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    We never going to know for sure what he meant. It's a lie though to claim Silverstein did not discuss controlled demolition with people on 9/11.
    Sure. But the conspiracy explanation here is silly to the point of parody.

    You are claiming that he was involved with the conspiracy. Yet he only checked he'd get the money on the day of the event hours before the building was to collapse. And then in the process of calling, not only did he discuss it openly in front of people not involved in the conspiracy who would later talk about... he told the insurance company directly that he wanted to defraud them and asked them if they would still pay out money if he did.
    Then on top of that years later, he admits on camera that he's part of the conspiracy.

    Again, it's bizarre that you reject space lasers as silly, but believe this...


  • Options
    #215
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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.

    Something tells me that this will be the case regardless.


  • Options
    #216
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sure. But the conspiracy explanation here is silly to the point of parody.

    You are claiming that he was involved with the conspiracy. Yet he only checked he'd get the money on the day of the event hours before the building was to collapse. And then in the process of calling, not only did he discuss it openly in front of people not involved in the conspiracy who would later talk about... he told the insurance company directly that he wanted to defraud them and asked them if they would still pay out money if he did.
    Then on top of that years later, he admits on camera that he's part of the conspiracy.

    Again, it's bizarre that you reject space lasers as silly, but believe this...

    Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. So his comments are very important. You are of the opinion this did not occur. You have a different point of view, that fine.

    We don't know what his insurance company told him? Either way, NIST covered up what really happened so he got his insurance money anyhow.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Something tells me that this will be the case regardless.

    Dr Hulsey is highly respected in his field of study. He even gave a lecture to ASCE engineers. They're not all close-minded. Many professional groups disagree with the NIST findings. Even Skeptics on JREF forum believe the NIST study has problems.


  • Options
    #218
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    In my opinion Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. So his comments are very important. You are of the opinion this did not occur. You have a different point of view, that fine.

    We don't know what his insurance company told him? Either way, NIST covered up what really happened so he got his insurance money anyhow.

    Fixed that for you.


  • Options
    #219
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. So his comments are very important. You are of the opinion this did not occur. You have a different point of view, that fine.

    We don't know what his insurance company told him? Either way, NIST covered up what really happened so he got his insurance money anyhow.

    You are not understanding the problem with your conspiracy theory here.

    It makes no sense for him to do those things in the context of a conspiracy.
    The fact you can't see why those actions are so silly shows either how little you understand or how little you care your evidence.

    Why did he only check if he would get his money on the day? It makes no sense that he would do this.
    Why would he call the insurance company to check this? It makes no sense that he would do this.
    Why would he tell the insurance company that he intends to defraud them? It makes no sense why he would do this.
    Why would he do this in earshot of people not involved in the conspiracy? It makes no sense why he would do this.
    Why would he admit to being part of the conspiracy on camera? It makes so sense why he would do this.

    Again, I'm not saying that these things didn't happen. It's just that your interpretation is silly and not very well thought out.


  • Options
    #220
    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?

    Ok, maybe not broadcast LIVE but that phrase WAS used by Larry Silverstein on the day of the attacks and BROADCAST on the same day - I remember it on TV

    Either way, 3 buildings simply collapsed into their own footprints and one of them wasn't hit by a plane


  • Options
    #221
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Dr Hulsey is highly respected in his field of study. He even gave a lecture to ASCE engineers. They're not all close-minded. Many professional groups disagree with the NIST findings. Even Skeptics on JREF forum believe the NIST study has problems.

    I'm sure he is, I'm also sure that you guys will throw him under the bus if he cannot prove conclusively what you are claiming and will instead turn on him and claim he is part of the conspiracy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bessboroughboy wrote: »
    Ok, maybe not broadcast LIVE but that phrase WAS used by Larry Silverstein on the day of the attacks and BROADCAST on the same day - I remember it on TV
    But no, that video clip was not broadcast on 9/11. it from a documentary by PBS called “America Rebuilds”, released in 2002.
    https://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337570/

    That is the only time he utters those words. No conspiracy theorists point to any earlier videos. I think you are just remembering it incorrectly.

    And again, you've ignored my question. Why?

    Why do you believe he's admitting to the conspiracy when that idea does not make sense to you?


  • Options
    #223
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    You are not understanding the problem with your conspiracy theory here.

    It makes no sense for him to do those things in the context of a conspiracy.
    The fact you can't see why those actions are so silly shows either how little you understand or how little you care your evidence.

    What silly here you don't think people can slip up and saying things they should not have said.

    Skeptics have always claimed he meant pull the firefighters from the building?


    What they ignore is no firefighting effort was happening after 11 am so what they need to pull firefighters out? It makes sense for early in the day if they were trying to fight the fires and the decisions were made to leave.

    Silverstein says the best thing to do is pull it and we watched the building collapse.:confused: That doesn't read to me like he was telling the fire chief to get people out. Building 7 was empty of people for hours.


  • Options
    #224
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    What silly here you don't think people can slip up and saying things they should not have said.
    Ahh.. so he slipped, fell and accidentally told his insurance company and everyone in the room that he planned on committing insurance fraud against them...
    Then he also slipped and accidentally admitted to being involved in the biggest crime ever...

    Right....:rolleyes:

    Why, in conspiracy land, does he say that he's concerned about more people dying? Why would he care about that if there's no people in danger and that he'd already just helped kill 3000 people?


  • Options
    #225
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I'm sure he is, I'm also sure that you guys will throw him under the bus if he cannot prove conclusively what you are claiming and will instead turn on him and claim he is part of the conspiracy.

    I would not do that. I know this study has been done correctly and he looked at different fire scenarios that could have occurred. His even looked could diesel fuel have caused it. There was an electric substation next to WTC7 his even looked at to see if that was a cause.


  • Options
    #226
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ahh.. so he slipped, fell and accidentally told his insurance company and everyone in the room that he planned on committing insurance fraud against them...
    Then he also slipped and accidentally admitted to being involved in the biggest crime ever...

    Right....:rolleyes:

    Why, in conspiracy land, does he say that he's concerned about more people dying? Why would he care about that if there's no people in danger and that he'd already just helped kill 3000 people?

    Silverstein never told anyone he contacted the insurance company to inquire about controlled demolition payouts. His conversation was overheard. It happens not unusual he probably did not think about it.


  • Options
    #227
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I would not do that. I know this study has been done correctly and he looked at different fire scenarios that could have occurred. His even looked could diesel fuel have caused it. There was an electric substation next to WTC7 his even looked at to see if that was a cause.

    Quoted for future reference.


  • Options
    #228
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Silverstein never told anyone he contacted the insurance company to inquire about controlled demolition payouts. His conversation was overheard. It happens not unusual he probably did not think about it.

    lol, sure, that solves all of the problems I brought up.
    Good job.


  • Options
    #229
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Quoted for future reference.

    You don't have to wait. You can listen to this to find out what he been looking at.

    Take time to listen you see his very credible. You see what he's doing compared to what NIST did. What NIST did is a joke.



  • Options
    #230
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    lol, sure, that solves all of the problems I brought up.
    Good job.

    You speculating. We know on 9/11 he was ringing up his insurance to ask about controlled demolition.

    So why do you dismiss that Silverstein quote was about controlled demolition?

    Do you think its possible this firechief ( whoever he is) and Silverstein talked about this on the phone?


  • Options
    #231
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    you see his very credible.

    Confirmation bias at it's best


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You don't have to wait. You can listen to this to find out what he been looking at.

    Take time to listen you see his very credible. You see what he's doing compared to what NIST did. What NIST did is a joke.


    I dont have time to spend an hour listening to that, i quoted you for when he doesnt say what you want him to say and you change tactic and accuse him of being in on the conspiracy.


  • Options
    #233
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Confirmation bias at it's best


    Have you actually ever sat down and listened to his one of his presentations? I have a feeling you have not. You forming an opinion when you don't even know what the issues are.

    Watch the presentation I just posted.


  • Options
    #234
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You speculating.
    Again, go back and read my posts. My points are all there.

    The conspiracy explanation is profoundly stupid and silly.


  • Options
    #235
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I dont have time to spend an hour listening to that, i quoted you for when he doesnt say what you want him to say and you change tactic and accuse him of being in on the conspiracy.

    So you can't be bothered to find what the arguments are, got ya. Don't have to watch it all in one sitting anyways. You watch some of it and come back watch it again.


  • Options
    #236
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    So you can't be bothered to find what the arguments are, got ya. Don't have to watch it all in one sitting anyways. You watch some of it and come back watch it again.

    And i may later, as i said i quoted YOU so when you flip on your opinion of him i can quote your post again.


  • Options
    #237
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Have you actually ever

    As mentioned I have, and I have also read criticism of his preliminary findings. I've read that his own students have started questioning it.

    Without the final report, which is crucial, we can't know his final findings. He could literally turn around the conclude that he believes fire brought the building down

    I'm not sure you realise this.

    Having white hair, sounding "sciencey" about something and confirming your bias may be all you need, but back in real world his report (if finished, if challenging the WTC 7 investigation) will have to stand up to expert scrutiny


  • Options
    #238
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    watch some of it

    Yeah perhaps instead of repeatedly telling people to watch videos you could spend some time coming up with a shred of credible evidence for your personal theory that some unknown people blew up a building in front of the world's media

    12 pages of diversions and deflections


  • Options
    #239
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    As mentioned I have, and I have also read criticism of his preliminary findings. I've read that his own students have started questioning it.

    Without the final report, which is crucial, we can't know his final findings. He could literally turn around the conclude that he believes fire brought the building down

    I'm not sure you realise this.

    Having white hair, sounding "sciencey" about something and confirming your bias may be all you need, but back in real world his report (if finished, if challenging the WTC 7 investigation) will have to stand up to expert scrutiny

    I don't believe you watched it sorry. You read some random posts on a Skeptic forum and formed an opinion be truthful. Wrong none of his students questioned it. One of his students just graduated with a PhD so he no longer at the University.


  • Options
    #240
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    And i may later, as i said i quoted YOU so when you flip on your opinion of him i can quote your post again.

    Do its best way to judge if the information is reliable or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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.

    I’ve researched a lot of conspiracy theories in my time and this has to be the funniest thing I’ve ever read. It’s beyong bonkers to think like this.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement