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

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Steel is an Iron based alloy.

Jesus Christ

banie01

King Mob wrote: »

:
Cause if so, this thread has reach peak ****ing stupid...

It passed that a lot of posts ago.
I'm torn between continuing to refute the B.S spouted, or placing certain posters on ignore.
But the fact is the demented rambling and changes of position are pure surrealism and I really think that a psychological study into what drives such convinced "belief" in the face of actual evidence is warranted!

It's like someone standing in the corner with their fingers in their ears, screaming that Santa is real whilst sharing pictures of someone in an Easter Bunny costume as definitive proof that Santa exists!

King Mob

banie01 wrote: »

It passed that a lot of posts ago.

I dunno, there's something more surreal about this...
Dozens of pages of him arguing that it was molten, flowing steel and that it was the only thing it could be and that none of the witnesses were wrong when they said steel and we were all stupid for thinking that they were wrong... and diagrams... and pictures...

Then whoop.... "molten steel doesn't exist. It was molten iron."

It'd be art if it wasn't so dumb.

Cheerful Spring

I definitely in the twilight zone. Now, we got people on denying steel is made of Iron.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I definitely in the twilight zone. Now, we got people on denying steel is made of Iron.

Lies.
No one has done that.
Quote where someone has said this.

Then go back and address the points you are ignoring.

Or here's a way out, admit you can't address them.

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Controlled demolition does not produce molten anything!

Wrong I told you already nanothermite is an incendiary its chemistry. If steel is melting then the slag runoff is Iron.

Iron and Steel both melt at 1500c. None of the fires in any of the buildings got that hot.

Ok, lets run with this one.

So it was thermite or some derivative that melted the steel. Lets suppose I accept that without any evidence to back it up.

Whats your explanation for it still being molten weeks later?
In other words, what was the energy source that kept the rubble at > 1500C for weeks on end?
You yourself have said that its impossible for a fire to achieve this, so what did it?
Was there a massive supply of thermite that we dont know about?
I thought one of the features of thermite is that it burns fiercely and quickly....how much thermite would you need to keep burning for weeks?
Seems like someone would have noticed your 8 lads wheel-barrowing it into the carpark?

If you can show me anything, any energy source in the area (or the world for that matter) that would keep pools of steel molten for weeks then I'll concede that you are correct.

bessboroughboy

King Mob wrote: »

Also, bull****. The Carbon content of steel is between 0.002% and 2.14%.
FFS.

This is the most stupid post of the entire thread

Cheerful tells King Mob that steel is 95% iron
and poor King Mob thinks that means Cheerful is saying the other 5% is carbon

banie01

GreeBo wrote: »

If you can show me anything, any energy source in the area (or the world for that matter) that would keep pools of steel molten for weeks then I'll concede that you are correct.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I definitely in the twilight zone. Now, we got people on denying steel is made of Iron.

You have more flip flops than a beach on a hot summers day!

Cheerful Spring

bessboroughboy wrote: »

This is the most stupid post of the entire thread

Cheerful tells King Mob that steel is 95% iron
and poor King Mob thinks that means Cheerful is saying the other 5% is carbon

He doesn't read his own posts and then he claims I am lying.

quote him and he said the same thing in other posts.

Steel is not iron however they are different materials.
You said that thermite produces molten iron, not molten steel.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He doesn't read his own posts and then he claims I am lying.

quote him and he said the same thing in other posts.

Steel is not iron however they are different materials.
You said that thermite produces molten iron, not molten steel.

FFS man just once answer a question!


Show us proof that steel/iron/ANY metal based material will stay molten for days/weeks/months on end and then you have an arguement!

King Mob

bessboroughboy wrote: »

This is the most stupid post of the entire thread

Cheerful tells King Mob that steel is 95% iron
and poor King Mob thinks that means Cheerful is saying the other 5% is carbon

That's the definition of steel.
Steel doesnt typically have 3 percent "other stuff".
Cheerful thought that steel is 95% iron.
This isn't true.

You guys are saying that theres no such thing as molten steel.

Could you please go back and address my points?
If not, please say that you are not going to then please explain why you are not.
I'm genuinely curious.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He doesn't read his own posts and then he claims I am lying.

You are lying. Most recently you claimed I said that steel wasn't made from iron.
This is not true. I never said anything of the sort.
You lied. I can point to countless otther examples.

Now go back and address the other points

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

That's the definition of steel.
Steel doesnt typically have 3 percent "other stuff".
Cheerful thought that steel is 95% iron.
This isn't true.

You digging your grave even further. Stop making a fool of yourself.


Typically Steels have 95% or more Iron with
relatively small alloy additions.

An Introduction to Steel
and Steel Metallurgy
https://www.timkensteel.com/what-we-know/~/media/39F3747366644D8C82212F01BF616549.ashx

King Mob

Cheerful, address my points.
Stop deflecting.
Stop dodging.
Stop lying.

You are fooling no one.
You aren't tricking anyone into thinking that you secretly can address any of the points made at you. You are not that clever and no one is dumb enough to fall for it.
It's very obvious to everyone you can't address any of them and you are making yourself into a joke with these deflections and tangents.

So let's start simple.
Provide a link to something that shows that thermite/nanothermite etc cab produce large pools of flowing molten steel or any other metal.
You stating that it is possible is not good enough. You rolling your eyes in dramatic way and claiming it's obvious is not a response to this question.
A link to a paper or an article from any engineering source will do. Doesn't have to be peer reviewed. A conspiracy website will not be considered.

If your next reply isn't you suppling exactly this, it will be taken as an admission by you that you cannot provide such evidence and that you admit that thermite etc is not capable of producing rivers of molten metal.
No if or buts here Cheerful. If you don't like those terms, then you don't have to post.

Or you could be honest and direct for a change and just directly admit the above.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, lets run with this one.

So it was thermite or some derivative that melted the steel. Lets suppose I accept that without any evidence to back it up.

Whats your explanation for it still being molten weeks later?
In other words, what was the energy source that kept the rubble at > 1500C for weeks on end?
You yourself have said that its impossible for a fire to achieve this, so what did it?
Was there a massive supply of thermite that we dont know about?
I thought one of the features of thermite is that it burns fiercely and quickly....how much thermite would you need to keep burning for weeks?
Seems like someone would have noticed your 8 lads wheel-barrowing it into the carpark?

If you can show me anything, any energy source in the area (or the world for that matter) that would keep pools of steel molten for weeks then I'll concede that you are correct.

/me waves

Hey there...any chance of a comment on the above?

bessboroughboy

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, address my points.
Stop deflecting.
Stop dodging.
Stop lying.

It's very obvious to everyone you can't address any of them and you are making yourself into a joke with these deflections and tangents.

Speaking for me now are you?
"obvious to EVERYONE"

I for one am impressed by Cheerful's knowledge, so your statement is false.

A simple pie chart may help you understand the concept of "all" and "some"

banie01

I see Cheerful has "made" himself a friend :pac:

King Mob

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Speaking for me now are you?
"obvious to EVERYONE"

I for one am impressed by Cheerful's knowledge, so your statement is false.

A simple pie chart may help you understand the concept of "all" and "some"

Gonna be addressing any of the points made to you any time soon?
Particularly the one put to Cheerful?

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, lets run with this one.

So it was thermite or some derivative that melted the steel. Lets suppose I accept that without any evidence to back it up.

Whats your explanation for it still being molten weeks later?
In other words, what was the energy source that kept the rubble at > 1500C for weeks on end?
You yourself have said that its impossible for a fire to achieve this, so what did it?
Was there a massive supply of thermite that we dont know about?
I thought one of the features of thermite is that it burns fiercely and quickly....how much thermite would you need to keep burning for weeks?
Seems like someone would have noticed your 8 lads wheel-barrowing it into the carpark?

If you can show me anything, any energy source in the area (or the world for that matter) that would keep pools of steel molten for weeks then I'll concede that you are correct.

There still heat in the rubble for weeks and week later, even months. I believe the last pocket of heat underneath the rubble was put out in Dec 2001.

There is additional heat in the rubble to keep the steel molten. Thermal Data collected on the 16th of September showed there were hot spots of 800c at the surface. Underneath was likely even hotter.

Here workers on the video are talking about the extreme heat 1500c six weeks after the 9/11 event.

In this kind of environment (molten steel insulted under the rubble) would not solidify. The molten steel is not exposed to air and cold.

The energy source? Molten steel is an obvious source for the extreme heat. If the steel is molten and buried beneath the rubble. It's trapped it going to be burning stuff left behind in the rubble. There lot of stuff in the rubble paper, wood, you name it that can be burned.

The Scientists found nano-thermite that did not ignite so this plus the heat in the rubble will keep the temp very hot.

My opinion is the high heat was caused by molten steel and other combustibles in the rubble! There was no fire of 1500c at Twin Towers or WTC7. The highest the Twin Towers got to in terms of heat was 900c+ if that and i have doubts about that? Even if did it was short because it only reached a temp that high in first 15 minutes when jet fuel ignited.

King Mob

But Cheerful, you've just admitted that thermite can't produce rivers molten steel in the first place.
Without that the rest of your post is as irrelevant as it is wrong and contradictory.

Unignited thermite can keep things warm?
Wood fires can keep steel molten?
You say that temp was "800 degrees Celsius but likely more" and "witnesses report temps of 1500"
But also that "you doubt it was as hot as 900"
Lol

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo This is same red/yellow liquid pouring out of the South Tower.

15 seconds in you see it in this video.

The liquid found a gap to pour out of the tower.

Skeptics claim its Aluminium. Aluminium when its melted is silver.

The reason, why i think its melted steel because behind the wall, is where steel trident and steel perimeter box columns are located.

You see them here they are placed along this side of the wall.

King Mob

But again Cheerful, you've admitted that thermite cannot produce rivers of molten steel.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But Cheerful, you've just admitted that thermite can't produce rivers molten steel in the first place.
Without that the rest of your post is as irrelevant as it is wrong and contradictory.

Unignited thermite can keep things warm?
Wood fires can keep steel molten?
You say that temp was "800 degrees Celsius but likely more" and "witnesses report temps of 1500"
But also that "you doubt it was as hot as 900"
Lol

They found Unignited nano-thermite in the dust. That means there Unignited nano-thermite in the rubble when the buildings collapsed. If that nano-thermite got exposed to heat in the rubble a reaction will be triggered.

You think heat ranges are all the same? Different spots will be hotter.

I said thermal images showed hotspots of 800c at the surface of the rubble. When workers started removing the rubble they claim I don't they heat was 1500c down there.

I doubt a fire blazed at 900c for over an hour in both towers. After jet fuel burned off max 500c or 600c.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But again Cheerful, you've admitted that thermite cannot produce rivers of molten steel.

False but you make up things in your own head.

King Mob

If it's false, please show something, anything to proves thermite etc can produce rivers of molten metal.
Otherwise you're admitting that you can't show this, therefore thermite can't do it.

I gave you fair warning about this.
The rest of your points are irrelevant nonsense until you can show your premise is true.

So again proof please.

Also I like how your back to saying the eyewitnesses are liars again.
It's really hilarious.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

If it's false, please show something, anything to proves thermite etc can produce rivers of molten metal.
Otherwise you're admitting that you can't show this, therefore thermite can't do it.

I gave you fair warning about this.
The rest of your points are irrelevant nonsense until you can show your premise is true.

So again proof please.

Also I like how your back to saying the eyewitnesses are liars again.
It's really hilarious.

I already provided an experiment thermate melts steel.

Just like you did not know steel was made of Iron you probably claim thermate is not another type of thermite?

Cheerful Spring

Kingmob I gave you fair warning about this.

Who appointed you to master in chief? You very demanding are you a secret moderator or just a poster like everyone else? I answer posts I want to answer.

King Mob

Your experiment did not show that it produces rivers of molten steel.
It produced a tiny amount of molten steel that hardened again quickly.
Also it was thermate, not nanothermite or thermite like you've been claiming was used.

That experiment doesn't help you.
Try again.

Maybe you can point an example of a skyscraper that was demolished using thermite etc.

And again I never said such a thing as steel not being made from iron. You are again lying. If you are not, quote where I said this.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Your experiment did not show that it produces rivers of molten steel.
It produced a tiny amount of molten steel that hardened again quickly.
Also it was thermate, not nanothermite or thermite like you've been claiming was used.

That experiment doesn't help you.
Try again.

Maybe you can point an example of a skyscraper that was demolished using thermite etc.

And again I never said such a thing as steel not being made from iron. You are again lying. If you are not, quote where I said this.

This molten steel at a foundry


Photographic evidence of it too near the steel columns on 9/11

This looks exactly like what the eyewitnesses described they saw in the rubble molten steel