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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Was thermite used to demolition steel structures in the past, yes or no?

Can you point to an example of fire bringing down modern steel framed high rising building pre-2001 can you?

Don't you guys claim there is the first time for everything?

Nanothermite was engineered to be an explosive by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the 90s.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf

I don't have to speculate was nano-thermite used it was. Nano-thermite was found in WTC dust.
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

10 Qualified Scientists worked on this. One Scientist opposed the study. He was involved in a scandal where they downplayed the risks to health from WTC dust.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was thermite used to demolition steel structures in the past, yes or no?

Can you point to an example of fire bringing down modern steel framed high rising building pre-2001 can you?

Note here your very deliberate hypocrisy and dishonesty.

How come you only have to supply evidence for just a steel structure and not a high rise like you're demanding from us?

Would you accept it if we pointed to just steel structures that fell due to fire?
If not, please explain in detail why not and why you don't have to do the same.

You will ignore all of these questions because you are a dishonest hypocrite.

Cheerful Spring

Here is a patent for nano thermite to pulverise concrete. This feature was noticed in the destruction of the towers on 9/11


https://patents.google.com/patent/US5532449

If they destroyed concrete. Then all the columns and steel and girders are going to come down. The floors are made of concrete.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Here is a patent for nano thermite to pulverise concrete. This feature was noticed in the destruction of the towers on 9/11


https://patents.google.com/patent/US5532449

If they destroyed concrete. Then all the columns and steel and girders are going to come down. The floors are made of concrete.

But this refers to thermite, not nano thermite.

I thought you were arguing that the thermite was used on the steel. Now it's used on the Concrete?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But this refers to thermite, not nano thermite.

I thought you were arguing that the thermite was used on the steel. Now it's used on the Concrete?

Nano-thermite is the next generation of explosive. You think it can't destroy concrete? The weaker thermite can

Nano-thermite can be used to destroy steel, girder, concrete, the connections.

Livermore labs created it in gel form. So it can be sprayed on to steel or fireproofing or concrete and nobody would notice.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite is the next generation of explosive. You think it can't destroy concrete? The weaker thermite can

Nano-thermite can be used to destroy steel, girder, concrete, the connections.

Livermore labs created it in gel form. So it can be sprayed on to steel or fireproofing or concrete and nobody would notice.

But the device you just linked to only works for thermite and not in a gel form...

So now you are saying that it was sprayed around in a gel.

Do you have any examples of any structure ever being destroyed by such a method?

Also, are you now saying that there was no explosives?
As both the gel and the device you linked to would not result in explosions.

You seem to be very confused as to your own theory....

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite is the next generation of explosive. You think it can't destroy concrete? The weaker thermite can

Nano-thermite can be used to destroy steel, girder, concrete, the connections.

Livermore labs created it in gel form. So it can be sprayed on to steel or fireproofing or concrete and nobody would notice.

You are persisting with the magical nano thermite.
You have yet to explain how the nano-thermite was ignited?
Or how the magical nano-thermite was in a a quantity that could destroy a building yet not cause numerous eye injuries or AV equipment failures via the amount of UV that is released?

banie01

Nano thermite explosive is a misnomer BTW.
Nano thermite or any form of thermite is not an explosive nor is it used as such.

In reality it is used to enhance conventional explosives in the same manner as a fuel/air bomb.
The particles are dispersed in a cloud and ignited by an explosive charge delivering a blast an order of magnitude greater than the conventional charge alone.
It basically supercharges an explosion, with the attendant noise and blast.
Where was this blast at WTC7?

King Mob

banie01 wrote: »

Or how the magical nano-thermite was in a a quantity that could destroy a building yet not cause numerous eye injuries or AV equipment failures via the amount of UV that is released?

You need to simplify the language here a bit.

Cheerful, he is saying that thermite, when burning is very very bright.
So much so that it can cause eye damage if you look at it, much like when it hurts when you look at the Sun.
Presumably, nano-thermite would burn even brighter.

So how come no one reports this? How come it's not on camera or film?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe, of course, dismisses any expert who disagrees with the official story.

Danny Jowenko was one of the worlds top demolition experts. He was even a contributor to ImplosionWorld production of "A History of Structural Demolition in America".

He looked at the evidence, even the Penthouse falling in. His opinion that was not done by fire.

He agreed with the conspiracy theorists that Dohnjoe thinks are nuts.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe, of course, dismisses any expert who disagrees with the official story.

Danny Jowenko was one of the worlds top demolition experts. He was even a contributor to ImplosionWorld production of "A History of Structural Demolition in America".

He looked at the evidence, even the Penthouse falling in. His opinion that was not done by fire.

He agrees with the conspiracy theorists that Dohnjoe thinks are nuts.

Dr Judy Wood is one of the worlds top experts in Mechanical Engineering.

She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.

You have dismissed her as nuts, part of the conspiracy and called into question her credentials based on nothing.

Again, you are a hypocrite.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Dr Judy Wood is one of the worlds top experts in Mechanical Engineering.

You have dismissed her as nuts, part of the conspiracy and called into question her credentials based on nothing.

Again, you are a hypocrite.

If she has co-authored 60 peer review papers. Can you list him here for us so we can read them? You an expert about her after all?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

expert who disagrees with the official story.

There is no official story. There's a widely accepted theory with supporting evidence, witnesses, scientific and forensic evidence - all corroborated by the events that happened on that day

You don't even have a motive for a personal theory so vague and hypothetical it seems to change every other day

You can keep lifting stuff from AE911 and paste-dumping it here all you want - this thread demonstrates perfectly that anyone can deny anything while refusing to provide a shred of credible evidence for their own theory

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If she has co-authored 60 peer review papers. Can you list him here for us so we read? You an expert about her after all?

Lol, what would listing them prove exactly?

She's an expert. You dismiss her based on nothing.
Then you whine and complain falsely that that's what we are doing.
Again, you are a massive, unabashed hypocrite who can't even see how bad he is making himself look.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You need to simplify the language here a bit.

Cheerful, he is saying that thermite, when burning is very very bright.
So much so that it can cause eye damage if you look at it, much like when it hurts when you look at the Sun.
Presumably, nano-thermite would burn even brighter.

So how come no one reports this? How come it's not on camera or film?

The building was evacuated between hours of 11 am and 12pm. There was no firefighting effort taking place up to its collapse. Nobody took any pictures or video of fires inside the building.

The fires seen are near the windows on the North side.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You don't even have a motive for a personal theory so vague and hypothetical it seems to change every other day

So far it's gone:
It was thermite.
It was Nano-thermite.
It was Nano-thermite gel.
It was explosives.
There were no explosives.
There were fires.
There were no fires.
It would take only a few hours to rig.
It would take a while to rig, but they had all the time in the world.
It was only a small conspiracy and a small team.
It involves every major organisation in America.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The building was evacuated between hours of 11 am and 12pm. There was no firefighting effort taking place up to its collapse. Nobody took any pictures or video of fires inside the building.

The fires seen are near the windows on the North side.

Did anyone take any pictures of the thermite or nanothermite?

So by your twisted logic..

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was thermite used to demolition steel structures in the past, yes or no?

Can you point to an example of fire bringing down modern steel framed high rising building pre-2001 can you?

Don't you guys claim there is the first time for everything?

Nanothermite was engineered to be an explosive by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the 90s.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf

I don't have to speculate was nano-thermite used it was. Nano-thermite was found in WTC dust.
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

10 Qualified Scientists worked on this. One Scientist opposed the study. He was involved in a scandal where they downplayed the risks to health from WTC dust.

Please explain how they planted a highly combustable componant into an already burning building and then got it to all ignite at the same time to perform a controlled demolition.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The building was evacuated between hours of 11 am and 12pm. There was no firefighting effort taking place up to its collapse. Nobody took any pictures or video of fires inside the building.

The fires seen are near the windows on the North side.

So they could see inside the building. So then they could see the very very bright light caused by burning thermite.

Your two comments contradict each other.

Do you have any pictures of the thermite burning or of the charges before hand?
If not, then by your argument earlier, you must conclude that there was no thermite.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So far it's gone:
It was thermite.
It was Nano-thermite.
It was Nano-thermite gel.
It was explosives.
There were no explosives.
There were fires.
There were no fires.
It would take only a few hours to rig.
It would take a while to rig, but they had all the time in the world.
It was only a small conspiracy and a small team.
It involves every major organisation in America.

One of the World top demolition experts said it was a controlled demolition.
Evidence found in the WTC dust - nano thermite.
Steel melted by extreme temperatures in WTC7.
Yellow liquid found in the rubble by firefighters and work clean up crews.
Loud audible noise heard on video a second before the Penthouse collapsed.
NIST study was unable to match the actual collapse on 9/11.
NIST lied about the connection on the girder that fell at column 79.
NIST collapse calculations are wrong.

The evidence is very strong controlled demolition took down WTC7

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

One of the World top demolition experts said it was a controlled demolition.
Evidence found in the WTC dust - nano thermite.
Steel melted by extreme temperatures in WTC7.
Yellow liquid found in the rubble by firefighters and work clean up crews.
Loud audible noise heard on video a second before the Penthouse collapsed.
NIST study was unable to match the actual collapse on 9/11.
NIST lied about the connection on the girder that fell at column 79.
NIST collapse calculations are wrong.

The evidence is very strong controlled demolition took down WTC7

You have yet to present any evidence at all???

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The evidence is very strong controlled demolition took down WTC7

Yet you can't actually produce any of this evidence...
And everything you do produce either doesn't make sense in a conspiracy, or doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny...

And you continually have to resort to lies, hypocrisy and dishonest tactics you know are dishonest.

That's not strong at all.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So they could see inside the building. So then they could see the very very bright light caused by burning thermite.

Your two comments contradict each other.

Do you have any pictures of the thermite burning or of the charges before hand?
If not, then by your argument earlier, you must conclude that there was no thermite.

The core columns are strategically placed in the middle of the building they extend from bottom to the top. There also perimeter columns.

You can't see them through the windows.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Evidence found in the WTC dust - nano thermite.
Steel melted by extreme temperatures in WTC7.
Yellow liquid found in the rubble by firefighters and work clean up crews.
Loud audible noise heard on video a second before the Penthouse collapsed.

These are all self contradicting.

Thermite doesn't result in pools of molten steel.
Controlled demolition of buildings doesn't use thermite and doesn't result in melted steel.
Neither thermite nor controlled demolition results in "Yellow Liquid".
Thermite does not produce explosions.

So your own evidence excludes the possibility that it was thermite.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You have yet to present any evidence at all???

You know steel doesn't melt till it reaches 1500 Celsius right?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The core columns are strategically placed in the middle of the building they extend from bottom to the top. There also perimeter columns.

You can't see them through the windows.

But again, you argue that we should have seen the fires.
We can see into the building. So by your argument, we should see the flares of intense light.

We should have also gotten reports of it from people close to the buildings. Do you have such reports.

Also, if this is the case, and the thermite was burning to produce flares of light, it's not exploding.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You know steel doesn't melt till it reaches 1500 Celsius right?

Wait... you're now back to saying the thermite was used on the steel and not the concrete?

Which was it? Both?
You really need to get your story straight and lay out how you think they actually did it.

You're looking very foolish right now...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

These are all self contradicting.

Thermite doesn't result in pools of molten steel.
Controlled demolition of buildings doesn't use thermite and doesn't result in melted steel.
Neither thermite nor controlled demolition results in "Yellow Liquid".
Thermite does not produce explosions.

So your own evidence excludes the possibility that it was thermite.

FEMA found a eutectic liquid on the WTC7 steel sample they had. It contained melted Sulphar and Iron. When steel melts it turns to Iron.

FEMA was puzzled by the Sulphur they could figure out where it came from?

Sulphar is known to be used in thermate because it helps steel and iron melt faster and more quickly.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FEMA found a eutectic liquid on the WTC7 steel sample they had. It contained melted Sulphar and Iron. When steel melts it turns to Iron.

FEMA was puzzled by the Sulphur they could figure out where it came from?

Sulphar is known to be used in thermate because it helps steel and iron melt faster and more quickly.

Well first, bull****. Proof please.

Second, you said that they found pools of Yellowish liquid. Not liquid on some sample.

Third, thermite does not result in any such liquid being produced. And again, it does not result in pools of molten liquid.

Fourth, why would FEMA announce such a thing if it's evidence for the conspiracy?

And now you're arging it was Thermate, not thermite? Again, your story has changed....

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You know steel doesn't melt till it reaches 1500 Celsius right?

King Mob wrote: »

Wait... you're now back to saying the thermite was used on the steel and not the concrete?

Which was it? Both?
You really need to get your story straight and lay out how you think they actually did it.

You're looking very foolish right now...

KingMob beat me to it.
There is no consistency at all to the demented ramblings.
I am starting to think that rebuttal only heightens C.S's belief that he is the harbinger of truth

C.S, for the good of the thread present actual evidence?Q
Not minority report refutations of the agreed consensus that have been torn apart on each review.
I'm all for following a lead, but your total and utter devotion to truther B.S is blinding you to reason...
Its becoming akin to poking fun at a creationist, you keep saying it happened your way....
You present no actual evidence, the muck you do try to pass off as evidence is debunked and already refuted.

You are a messiah in search of a cause, please.....
Never
Ever
Go to Israel!