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

King Mob

For a building to fall like it's a controlled demolition, then that means it has to rigged so that almost every support on a floor has to fail precisely at the same time. And this has to be done on several floors.
Cheerful has previously claimed that this was done in a matter of hours.
Now it was done by eight people apparently.

It also bears in mind that thermite isn't capable of doing the same job as explosives. Even if a thermite charge can be made that can cut through a steel beam, then it can't be used as part of a demolition.
No matter how magic or nanothermite it is, it requires time to melt through the metal. It cannot instantly sever a support like an explosive.
And its simply not possible for such a device to be timed precisely to finish at the same time, as the thermite is essentially a chaotic, but relatively slow chemical reaction.

Also lol, can't believe people still trot out the dancing Israeli notion..

Cheerful Spring

Ipso wrote: »

So was only one floor rigged for explosives or every one?
It might not be difficult to pass security once, but prepping an office building for demolition where there are workers in there every day isn't that easy.

Danny Jowenko is one of world's leading demolition experts. He was shown the WTC7 footage and he said it was controlled demolition. He was even shown designs of WTC7 steel core and he said that be easy and be done very fast. He even explains why Skeptics are wrong.

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo wrote: »

Why dont we have any videos showing multiple detonations on each floor as you would see in a controlled demo?

The bang you keep referring to is one bag, given the rest of the context at the time I would discount 1 bang. Also 1 bang is not how you do a controlled demo of a building.

That might be an echo of multiple explosives going off simultaneously. You have to remember this sound was picked up by a reporter mic and he was not near the building.

The sound is easy to hear in this video The noise has been focused on. It sounds like an explosion.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That might be an echo of multiple explosives going off simultaneously.

There were no recorded blasts from WTC 7

King Mob

How many explosives were there Cheerful? Where were they placed?
Why did they need to use explosives if they were using magic thermite?
If they used explosives what purpose did the thermite serve?
Why couldn't they rig it to collapse in a way that looks like it collapsed due to fire?
How would a collapse due to fire actually look, and what do you use to reach this conclusion.
If you don't know the answer to these questions, don't deflect, just say "I don't know."

Cheerful Spring

King Mob Simple google research.

Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[1]

MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, incendiary devices, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[2] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[3] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Compared to an actual conrtolled demolition of a tower block

If I can find one audio clip or one video shot with one "loud sound" or even a low "thump" - I can subjectively label that as "explosives" going off. If I take that as a dogmatic position - you will never convince me otherwise

You hear the explosive charges?

That's because no blast sounds were recorded. Only bangs and loud sounds produced throughout the day from lifts slamming into the ground, debris falling, the building themselves collapsing

None of that matters, because this thread is all about convincing one person who will never accept any of it (until they randomly flipflop)

Cheerful Spring

King Mob I think you should listen to a demolition expert and not Skeptics.

Skeptics claim Danny Jowenko retracted his statement, false. He doubled down on his original statement.

"Pull it" a demolition term he confirmed it in this phone call.

Strange thing is Danny Jowenko died very same year he gave that interview in a car crash on a road.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If I can find one audio clip or one video shot with one "loud sound" or even a low "thump" - I can subjectively label that as "explosives" going off. If I take that as a dogmatic position - you will never convince me otherwise

You hear the explosive charges?

That's because no blast sounds were recorded. Only bangs and loud sounds produced throughout the day from lifts slamming into the ground, debris falling, the building themselves collapsing

None of that matters, because this thread is all about convincing one person who will never accept any of it (until they randomly flipflop)

Did you not notice this person is further away?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

demolition expert

You keep highlighting individual and isolated "experts" who confirm your bias

Then ignoring the hundreds of experts who don't

You don't seem to grasp or understand the concept of consensus

https://www.psypost.org/2018/08/people-with-a-conspiracy-mentality-show-less-of-a-bias-in-favor-of-historical-experts-study-finds-52070

Is a book by a professional historian more trustworthy than a YouTube video created by an anonymous person? If you’re high in the personality trait known as conspiracy mentality, you might not see much of a difference.

King Mob

And you dodged all of my questions as per usual.
You can't answer them. You aren't honest enough to admit that.

I have no interest in watching youtube videos that have nothing to do with the points I made.
You should just get a blog.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe Video I posted belongs to CBS news. Maybe they had better mics? They were closer to the scene. Do you think CBS news added in the bang?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And you dodged all of my questions as per usual.
You can't answer them. You aren't honest enough to admit that.

I have no interest in watching youtube videos that have nothing to do with the points I made.
You should just get a blog.

You don't know what nano-thermite is. You keep blabbering on about thermite constantly. Your questions are not worth my time.

King Mob

Also I like how the people behind the conspiracy use new magic thermite that apparently makes the bombs more powerful, but also magically quieter.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did you not notice this person is further away?

I can't tell if you are real sometimes

Explosive charges, blasts reverberating. Even louder in a city environment. There are hundreds of clips like this.

This is why 911 truthers go for the "silent" explosives theory, in my experience you are the only one to go with this bizarre "I heard a vague thump in one of the NIST videos" spiel.

Again, it doesn't matter, none of this is for you. It's to demonstrate to others how weak and ridiculous the argument is. Plus the absolutely lack of credible evidence after over a decade and a half.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your questions are not worth my time.

Mm hmm. That kinda looks like you can't answer them and you're deflecting them in a petty, trumpian style.

You know you can't answer them.
You know that they poke massive holes in your conspiracy.
So level with us Cheerful. No on here actually believes you are being genuine anymore. So there's no point in pretending.
Why do you argue for the conspiracy when you know it's flawed and stupid and can't explain anything?
Why do you continue to argue for it when you have to be so evasive and dishonest?

Timberrrrrrrr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If I can find one audio clip or one video shot with one "loud sound" or even a low "thump" - I can subjectively label that as "explosives" going off. If I take that as a dogmatic position - you will never convince me otherwise

You hear the explosive charges?

That's because no blast sounds were recorded. Only bangs and loud sounds produced throughout the day from lifts slamming into the ground, debris falling, the building themselves collapsing

None of that matters, because this thread is all about convincing one person who will never accept any of it (until they randomly flipflop)

Exactly, any demolition of a tower block always requires multiple explosions yet cheerfull reckons they all went of in a microsecond lol

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't know what nano-thermite is. You keep blabbering on about thermite constantly. Your questions are not worth my time.

The only on "blabbering on about thermite" is yourself!

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Exactly, any demolition of a tower block always requires multiple explosions yet cheerfull reckons they all went of in a microsecond lol

I watched the whole event live on TV, there were no explosive charges, just the very clear sound of the building crashing down, it was "only" replayed like 100 times on TV

But hey fantasists need something to fantasize about

Timberrrrrrrr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I watched the whole event live on TV, there were no explosive charges, just the very clear sound of the building crashing down, it was "only" replayed like 100 times on TV

But hey fantasists need something to fantasize about

Yep, sounds of lifts crashing diwn and debris in the minds if cheerful and co = explosions.

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yep, sounds of lifts crashing diwn and debris in the minds if cheerful and co = explosions.

We basically didn't switch off the TV for days, most news channels ran non-stop footage, interviews, replays and analysis. Firefighters, fire chiefs, eye-witnesses, paramedics, building staff, cops, you name it

At no ****ing point was there any sense that somehow WTC 7 was "blown up"

It's only when the paranoid later trawled through hundreds of hours of footage and interviews did they extract any tiny reference or out of context reference to stitch together their "inside job" narratives .. all of which have morphed so many times over the years I've lost count

King Mob

And again it bares mentioning that the idea of an explosion is incompatible with the notion of thermite/nanothermite/thermite/magicthermite.
Thermite of any variety does not explode.

The idea of thermite was suggested yow explain the lack of explosions.
Now we're being told that it's explosives and thermite which has never once ever been used in a demolition, yet somehow it looks like every other demolition apparently.

bessboroughboy

King Mob wrote: »

Also I like how the people behind the conspiracy use new magic thermite that apparently makes the bombs more powerful, but also magically quieter.

Just a thought but what do I know?

Welding equipment doesn't make a bang but it does melt metal.

The clue is in the name, ther-mal, ther-mite.

Far as I know, nano-thermite is directly applied along the line of the intended cut and when it ignites it causes intense heat rather than an explosion.
If applied diagonally in the vertical plane to supporting steel, the resulting diagonal cuts will allow gravity to cause a collapse.

Please note that I HAVEN'T suggested that nano-thermite was used in 911 so don't start talking about magic & aliens & tin foil hats.

storker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your theory is ridiculous.

It's not a theory, it's an observation.

That's just hogwash. You have to talk to every engineer and architect in America and ask them.

Quite. So you'll agree then that .2% is too insignificant a sample from which to draw a conclusion, yes?

(If you could apply the same level of critical thinking to some of the pseudo-evidence you put forward we might actually start getting somewhere.)

Timberrrrrrrr

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Just a thought but what do I know?

Welding equipment doesn't make a bang but it does melt metal.

The clue is in the name, ther-mal, ther-mite.

Far as I know, nano-thermite is directly applied along the line of the intended cut and when it ignites it causes intense heat rather than an explosion.
If applied diagonally in the vertical plane to supporting steel, the resulting diagonal cuts will allow gravity to cause a collapse.

Please note that I HAVEN'T suggested that nano-thermite was used in 911 so don't start talking about magic & aliens & tin foil hats.

But how would the demo team get the thermite (nano or otherwise) to ignite and burn simultaneously to cause a controlled fall as cheerful is claiming? Also why the noisy explosions that he claims to hear?

King Mob

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Far as I know, nano-thermite is directly applied along the line of the intended cut and when it ignites it causes intense heat rather than an explosion.
If applied diagonally in the vertical plane to supporting steel, the resulting diagonal cuts will allow gravity to cause a collapse.

But this isn't what happens in controlled demolitions. Even leaving aside how such a rig could be installed secretly. And how such a rig could survive the fires, where thermite is set off by heat....

Controlled demolitions rely on the supports of a building all failing at once in an instant. Thermite of any kind is not able to do this as it takes time to melt through the steel. The charges or whatever they were would take different times to eat through different thicknesses of supports.
If thermite was used, then the supports would not all fail at the same time. It would be undermining the central conspiracy claim here.

If the entire conceit is that it was a controlled demolition because it looks like a typical one, it can't be that it uses an atypical method to do it.

Secondly, Cheerful Spring is arguing that there was an explosion (just one), which is not something thermite does.

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Please note that I HAVEN'T suggested that nano-thermite was used in 911 so don't start talking about magic & aliens & tin foil hats.

Again, this is what cheerful spring and many conspiracy theorists are suggesting.

You yourself have suggested similarly silly things however, such as someone like Larry Silverstien admitting on camera he was involved...
Suggesting that it's just normal thermite over nanothermite isn't much of an improvement.

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't know what nano-thermite is. You keep blabbering on about thermite constantly. Your questions are not worth my time.

Can you link to some buildings that were demolished via nano thermite so we can compare?

Timberrrrrrrr

GreeBo wrote: »

Can you link to some buildings that were demolished via nano thermite so we can compare?

Well if course he can't! Sure that sort of thing has only ever been done in secret places like area 51 so no one knows about it or has ever seen it before.

storker

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well if course he can't! Sure that sort of thing has only ever been done in secret places like area 51 so no one knows about it or has ever seen it before.

Who told you about Area 51? :eek:

King Mob

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well if course he can't! Sure that sort of thing has only ever been done in secret places like area 51 so no one knows about it or has ever seen it before.

Or he'll point to the two examples he found because those are the ones parroted by the conspiracy theory believers.
He will ignore the fact that the involve normal thermite, not nano thermite, despite all the times he whines about us using the term interchangeably.
He will also forget that they will be different structures and not at all comparable to a skyscraper. He will then whine about that very same thing should someone point out the examples of steel framed buildings that collapsed due to fire.