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

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And you can tell this from.a grainy picture taken from so far away? :rolleyes:

Are you blind can you not see the pool of yellow liquid?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never said was thermite, like how many times do I have to tell you this?

Scientists are claiming they discovered nano-thermite.

Lol, again, you show your hypocrisy. You change between using thermite and Nanothermite whenever you find it convenient.
You point to examples of thermite being used, then say that those prove your theory. Now you say that it was nano thermite.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I also never said it was only nano-thermite was used to take down WTC7.

Great, then what are you saying it was? Nano-thermite and thermite?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If thermate is melting steel.

Wait... so it's thermate now? Make up your mind...

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What you think happens after this use your brain. Steel is made of Iron. It going to melt and you going to see a slag of iron dripping off. That going to mix with hot temp fire and other materials.

This statement makes no sense grammatically.

Please show something other than your own instance that thermite/nano-thermite/thermate can produce a pool of flowing molten metal that can last for hours and days.
No one will accept you just claiming this based on your own authority. You are a lair and you've proven dozens of times that you don't understand basic scientific and engineering concepts.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Are you blind can you not see the pool of yellow liquid?

There is no liquid visible in that photo you produced.
There is no way to tell it's flowing.

Please produce a source for this photo.
Show that it was actually taken at ground zero.
Show when it was taken and where exactly.
Show who took it and give them proper credit.
Show a better quality one.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if that photo wasn't actually from Ground Zero at all...

huh?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

huh?

This gif wasn't funny the first time you posted. You are not being clever.
You are dodging questions you can't answer.

You are a liar. You have claimed pictures show things that they don't and can't. You have twisted and misquoted things to pretend they prove your conspiracy. You have stolen pictures and text without attribution.
I wouldn't be surprised that you are doing the same again here to the point that I have suspicions that this photo isn't even from the rubble of the towers.

If it is, prove it. Post the source of the photo and answer the above questions.
Go back and answer the questions you are dodging.
Go back and withdraw your bald faced lie about my statements.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Are you blind can you not see the pool of yellow liquid?

No, i cant, please show it to me, also tell us who took the picture, where they say its 100% a "pool of molten metal/steel" and any other pictures of the same area from different angles to prove your point.

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No, i cant, please show it to me, also tell us who took the picture, where they say its 100% a "pool of molten metal/steel" and any other pictures of the same area from different angles to prove your point.

When a photo showing what appeared to be liquid metal flowing from WTC 2 was found, the 911 truthers (and self professed experts) described it as proof of molten steel to confirm their theory that "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams"

- It was explained that it was likely melted aluminium which melts at lower temps, temps that were likely to have occurred within WTC 2

The 911 truthers and "experts" shot back that melted aluminium is silvery/white in appearance

- It was explained that the melted alu likely contained impurities from the many office and other materials

In the Charlie Hebdo attack in France, truthers and conspiracy theorists pointed out that in one photo the attackers car had black wing mirrors and in another it had light coloured wing mirrors - according to them this was proof that the car had been switched. And indeed it was true, the wing mirrors were different colours

- It was explained that the wing mirrors were silver and were reflecting their surroundings which explained the different colours

The point of these examples (after this many years I can probably give countless examples) is that truthers and conspiracy theorists and people with that kind of thinking often have no solid alternative theory with credible evidence, so they resort to attacking the facts/details by demanding that things are 100% to them, relentlessly attacking reports.. failure to explain is "evidence" that it's somehow an inside job

That is exactly what is happening here. I knew it would happen, which is why I specifically asked for credible evidence. Ain't happening. So we get "this" kind of thread all over again.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That is exactly what is happening here. I knew it would happen, which is why I specifically asked for credible evidence. Ain't happening. So we get "this" kind of thread all over again.

I think it has been useful, as by not engaging with Cheerful's demands and whining about the WTC, we've gotten him to at least try to put forward positive claims about alternative theories.

It's just being shown to be completely hollow and he's not able to defend even his vague non committal suggestions.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

huh?

Yeah.

You have access to some photos and basic information (and disinformation) on the internet. The investigators had access to everything. Thousands of photos and documents, all the witnesses, fire fighters, experts, building owners, the material and physical evidence, everything

How come they didn't spot all this molten metal you keep bringing up, if it was "everywhere", why didn't they see it? did several hundred people working around the clock for 3 years just "miss" it?

If the buildings were blown up then how come all the firefighters and witness consensus isn't reporting the explosive charges? the non-explosive thump/sound you keep going on about is on NIST video/audio, did they all just coincidentally "miss" that also?

You don't have access to the physical evidence, they did. If there was a controlled demolition, how come they didn't find blast marks on the metal and supports from WTC 7?

Care to explain how they coincidentally missed all of this? (without "making up" answers)

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised that you are doing the same again here to the point that I have suspicions that this photo isn't even from the rubble of the towers.

Oh, really I posted a photo that has nothing to do with 9/11? Your suspicions are always wrong.

Just recently yesterday you denied 9/11 firefighters, demolition and removal crews, health workers, and architects and engineers saw molten steel in the rubble. Provided video testimony for this claim I did. I am the one telling lies on this thread though:cool:

Enough of your false claims and innuendos

Anyway

Sources are provided for the photograph here.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Additional_WTC_Hot_Spot_Information

Source
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/Images/IMSBiedermanA2.pdf

http://www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps

Apparently, this was a discovery on Nov 1, 2001, when they dug deep down they found this molten steel

Description reads.
Firefighters investigate a newly-exposed area of the World Trade Center disaster site in New York as welders and excavators continue their work early Thursday morning, Nov. 1, 2001

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was it a magical angle grinder?

Sparks dont fall to the ground and hang around they burn out and disappear. That not sparks that a yellow/red liquid.

It looks like exactly like molten steel.

By the way, I worked in a welding/engineering company roughly about 10 years ago.

If that was molten steel I dont think the two lads would be standing there watching it splash around them.

questions Id be asking if I was them:
1) Why is there molten steel splashing beside me?
2) Whats causing it to splash, if its splashing then there is a pool of it somewhere and its spilling
3) Shouldnt I have more protective gear on if Im in an environment thats hot enough to cause steel to flow?
4) Is that a themite space ninja I see over there in the corner?

Cheerful Spring

This email and it's legitimate because a sceptic site posted it and did confirm it.


I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Just recently yesterday you denied 9/11 firefighters, demolition and removal crews, health workers, and architects and engineers saw molten steel in the rubble. Provided video testimony for this claim I did. I am the one telling lies on this thread though:cool:

I never said that they didn't see something. I just don't believe that you are accurately reporting what they said. Several of the witnesses report "metal" not "steel" for example.
It's a lie that I denied anything.
You also claimed I denied that people hear explosions. This is lie too.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Anyway

Sources are provided for the photograph here.

Apparently, this was a discovery on Nov 1, 2001, when they dug deep down they found this molten steel

So we have the steel staying molten for months. (assuming it's actually steel and it's actually been there for months)
Thermite/nanothermite/thermate cannot melt steel down into pools that stay hot and molten for months.
Prove otherwise.

Firefighters investigate a newly-exposed area of the World Trade Center disaster site in New York as welders and excavators continue their work early Thursday morning, Nov. 1, 2001

Highlighting the operative point here.

Also, none of your links work. FFS.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Oh, really I posted a photo that has nothing to do with 9/11? Your suspicions are always wrong.

Just recently yesterday you denied 9/11 firefighters, demolition and removal crews, health workers, and architects and engineers saw molten steel in the rubble. Provided video testimony for this claim I did. I am the one telling lies on this thread though:cool:

Enough of your false claims and innuendos

Anyway

Sources are provided for the photograph here.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Additional_WTC_Hot_Spot_Information

Source
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/Images/IMSBiedermanA2.pdf

http://www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps

Apparently, this was a discovery on Nov 1, 2001, when they dug deep down they found this molten steel

Description reads.
Firefighters investigate a newly-exposed area of the World Trade Center disaster site in New York as welders and excavators continue their work early Thursday morning, Nov. 1, 2001

You mean the video you posted of the firefighter (your witness) clearly stating fire melted the metal?

Also your own link states "welders and excavators work" so the liklyhood is that is sparks flying where they are cutting through the steel beams!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This email and it's legitimate because a sceptic site posted it and did confirm it.

Provide the link then.
Which site? Who confirmed it?
No one believes you when you just claim things. How are you not getting that.

Or maybe stop introducing new claims and address the points being made to you.
Stop running away.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I never said that they didn't see something. I just don't believe that you are accurately reporting what they said.


.

That's bull**** because you hear them on video saying it. Are you claiming the video of them talking about it is fake?

Cheerful Spring

Did you actually listen?

Pick out where I misquoted them

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

I think it has been useful, as by not engaging with Cheerful's demands and whining about the WTC, we've gotten him to at least try to put forward positive claims about alternative theories.

Yeah but there's no attempt to preface any of this with "it's my opinion", or "its speculation"

It's all delivered as fact. On a public forum. We could make the excuse that it's ignorance, but there is a long history of stating spurious facts, then backtracking.

"Whatever I imagine is indisputable fact, until I randomly change my mind". It's incredibly dishonest.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's bull**** because you hear them on video saying it. Are you claiming the video of them talking about it is fake?

Lol pathetic.
I'm not claiming the video or testimony is fake. I just don't believe your narrow, dishonest and silly interpretation of it.

Ignoring my points don't make them go away.
You lied when I said that I denied anything.
You lied when I said that no one heard explosions.

Go back and address the other points.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah but there's no attempt to preface any of this with "it's my opinion", or "its speculation"

It's all delivered as fact. On a public forum. We could make the excuse that it's ignorance, but there is a long history of stating spurious facts, then backtracking.

"Whatever I imagine is indisputable fact, until I randomly change my mind". It's incredibly dishonest.

And we are showing that dishonesty and making that clear to anyone still reading.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did you actually listen?

Pick out where I misquoted them

Lol.
The title of the video is "Molten METAL"

Address the other points please. Stop posting new videos when you haven't address the points about your previous ones.
Stop demanding answers when you aren't addressing any point or questions.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol pathetic.
I'm not claiming the video or testimony is fake. I just don't believe your narrow, dishonest and silly interpretation of it.

Ignoring my points don't make them go away.
You lied when I said that I denied anything.
You lied when I said that no one heard explosions.

Go back and address the other points.

Has to be done.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Has to be done.

Again, still not funny or clever. It's childish and silly and frankly not even a clear joke.

You are dodging points you cannot answer.

You lied about my position multiple times.

Go back and address the points or stop posting.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
The title of the video is "Molten METAL"

Address the other points please. Stop posting new videos when you haven't address the points about your previous ones.
Stop demanding answers when you aren't addressing any point or questions.

Steel is a metal

Again I ask where did I misquote them? Are you denying they claim in this video they saw Molten steel?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Steel is a metal

Again I ask where did I misquote them? Are you denying they claim in this video they saw Molten steel?

Again, I didn't say you misquoted them either. Another lie.

And no, I don't deny that they saw molten metal.
I think that he either misidentified that metal it was, or he just mistakenly interchanged "steel" and "metal".
He offers no reason as to why he thought it was steel and there's no reason to think that he can identify steel by sight, especially if we factor in things like impurities affecting the color.
I don't think he's lying or even being neglectful in his description as the video is not meant to be a technical report.

Now, before you dismiss this interpretation and insist that a firefighter obviously can identify steel by sight and can't possibly misspeak, remember that you claimed earlier that a structural engineer's claim about fire being the cause of what he saw was invalid.
But this won't stop you as you are a hypocrite and have no problem arguing against you own points.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108375832&postcount=443
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108375891&postcount=446
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108375986&postcount=453

But regardless, you still ignore the fact that thermite/nanothermite/thermate cannot explain what these firefighters saw. It cannot explain the photo you provided.
If those things prove that there was flowing molten steel, then it can't be caused by thermite/nanothermite/thermate.
Thermite/nanothermite/thermate is not capable of producing rivers of molten anything.

Now go back and address the dozens of questions you've left hanging. I won't be responding to any more of your petty dishonest demands until you do.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Has to be done.

Idiotic post


If you can't answer the valid questions put to you then why bother posting in the thread at all?

Lies and hypocricy only make you look likea truther loon, post constructively and try gain a shred of self respect.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Idiotic post


If you can't answer the valid questions put to youthen why bother posting in the thread at all?

Lies and hypocricy only make you look likea truther loon, post constructively and try gain a shred of self respect.

You guys are claiming everyone who was involved in the rescue effort is wrong. They clearly state they saw molten steel

You then ignore NIST claims there not one eyewitness who saw it huh There no photograph evidence for it huh

This is what firefighters and his colleagues described on this video.

"You get down below and you'd see molten steel—molten steel running down the channel rail, like you're in a foundry, like lava."

And now take a look at the picture I provided that exactly what they saw!

bessboroughboy

Why all the fuss over steel or metal?

For those who don't know, steel is basically iron with carbon added.

What else would supporting beams be made of
lead, silver, gold, titanium, platinum, lithium, mercury?

And yes, I know they have widely varying melting points.

In short, I'll guess that the commonest metals used in construction are steel and aluminium.

Either some or all of the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition of it's just a coincidence that they all collapsed gracefully into their own footprint.

I think Occam's razor did it.

King Mob

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Why all the fuss over steel or metal?

For those who don't know, steel is basically iron with carbon added.

What else would supporting beams be made of
lead, silver, gold, titanium, platinum, lithium, mercury?

And yes, I know they have widely varying melting points.

In short, I'll guess that the commonest metals used in construction are steel and aluminium.

Either some or all of the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition of it's just a coincidence that they all collapsed gracefully into their own footprint.

I think Occam's razor did it.

How do you know that the metal comes from the supporting beams?
There's other metals in the buildings.
We haven't established how much was molten and flowing.

Also: And I've been repeating this several times and you guys seem to keep missing it: Controlled demolition does not produce molten anything!

Cheerful Spring

If an office fire lead to this it was a miracle.