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

King Mob

Again Cheerful, grainy photos you are stealing is not an answer the the point I'm making.
Please show an example or an experiment that shows thermite or nanothermite can produce a river of molten steel that can stay molten for 2 months.
Why not show an example of a skyscraper that was demolished by thermite that resulted in pools of molten metal?

Also again, please back up your lie about my statements or withdraw it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob claims he did not say this.

False melting the steel turns into molten Iron

Kingmob claims Molten steel is different from molten iron. Melting steel does not make it molten iron, it makes it molten steel.

And it's not iron because it's steel huh?

Steel is just a name for the Iron alloy.

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob Steel is 95 per cent Iron only 5 per cent makes up other alloys.

When the steel melts it liquifies back to molten Iron. When it produced in a foundry its molten Iron.

King Mob

Lol, nope.
Molten steel is it's own material seperate from molten iron.
https://www.reliance-foundry.com/blog/cast-iron-vs-cast-steel

But this raises a question cause your witnesses are saying that it was molten steel, not molten iron.
Why are they claiming they saw something that you apparently think doesn't exist?
Are they all lying now?

Also again none of my quotes you posted can be interpreted as me saying that steel wasn't made from iron. You were lying, but I think this was from your poor reading comprehension rather than malice or your typical outright dishonesty.

You have also again failed to produce anything to show your central premise that thermite etc can produce rivers of molten steel that can last for 2 months.

I don't understand why you can't just point to a skyscraper that was demolished by thermite etc that also had these large pools of molten metal.
Surely there's tons of examples?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, nope.
Molten steel is it's own material seperate from molten iron.
https://www.reliance-foundry.com/blog/cast-iron-vs-cast-steel

But this raises a question cause your witnesses are saying that it was molten steel, not molten iron.
Why are they claiming they saw something that you apparently think doesn't exist?
Are they all lying now?

Also again none of my quotes you posted can be interpreted as me saying that steel wasn't made from iron. You were lying, but I think this was from your poor reading comprehension rather than malice or your typical outright dishonesty.

You have also again failed to produce anything to show your central premise that thermite etc can produce rivers of molten steel that can last for 2 months.

I don't understand why you can't just point to a skyscraper that was demolished by thermite etc that also had these large pools of molten metal.
Surely there's tons of examples?

They saw Molten steel. Steel is 95 per cent Iron though Do you think it Molten Carbon or Molten Iron after the steel melts?

Well, when are you going to provide examples for fire collapsing steel framed buildings pre 9/11? Are you going to post Dr Judy wood peer review papers anytime soon?

I never not even one time claimed nano-thermite was used to demolish a building in the past pre 9/11. I did find examples of thermite used to demolish steel structures.

Can you prove to me that is not molten steel in the rubble? If you can let us all know your reasons.

King Mob

Sorry Cheerful that's not how it works. The "nyah nyah you can't either" tactic does not work off the play ground.

When steel melts it is molten steel.

Your witnesses said molten steel, not molten iron.
Why would they lie and say this?

So you say that you have examples of skyscrapers being demolished by thermite (not nanothermite or thermate ).
So please show where in these cases the thermite produced rivers or large pools of molten steel or other metal that stayed molten for months.

(note: you can't weasel out of that by claiming that only nanothermite can do this as earlier you claimed that thermate could do it, therefore also thermite.)

Also, I can prove there was no molten steel just as soon as you prove 100% that it wasn't a space laser or a mininuke.
Good luck with that.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This molten steel at a foundry

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

Here is a google images search for "molten steel 911", note how the first results or so images are of heated metal or liquid aluminium or paper/materials burning

It demonstrates how easy it is for people to mistake it for "molten steel"

Dohnjoe

Right this is getting absolutely beyond ridiculous

I am in work

Can someone circle the guy beside the "molten steel" in this pic (sorry I've missed a good few posts don't know if it's been pointed out

This man would be dead if that was molten steel.



It's a photo of a guy using cutting equipment

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Right this is getting absolutely beyond ridiculous

I am in work

Can someone circle the guy beside the "molten steel" in this pic (sorry I've missed a good few posts don't know if it's been pointed out

This man would be dead if that was molten steel.

I hadn't noticed him cause I was looking at the photo on my phone...:o



I also like how when you do a reverse google search for that photo, you get a bunch back of foundry workers that close to the molten steel. They are all in protective suits.

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Hold the phone.

So thermite/thermate caused the building to collapse and melted the steel.

That same thermite/thermate caused the now liquified steel to stay molten for over 6 weeks. The evidence for this is the unused thermite found at the scene.

How does unignited thermite (nano or otherwise) also cause steel to remain molten? Surely it would have to burn to keep the metal liquid?

Is this Schrodinger's Thermite?


Oh and to your earlier point, the insulating properties of rubble seem pretty incredible, why are we all bothering with researching insulating materials when plain old chunks of concrete can keep temperatures at > 1500 C without any fuel source ?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

I hadn't noticed him cause I was looking at the photo on my phone...:o

Likewise, was on phone

It's a man cutting metal with an acetylene torch or similar

Dohnjoe

GreeBo wrote: »

Oh and to your earlier point, the insulating properties of rubble seem pretty incredible, why are we all bothering with researching insulating materials when plain old chunks of concrete can keep temperatures at > 1500 C without any fuel source ?

Obviously not 1500c, but air channels can keep hot fires burning underground at high temps

King Mob

Also remember that this unburnt thermite that existed for some reason and somehow didn't go off during the fires or when all the molten metal was flying around, was sitting there mixed with the concrete somehow keeping it at a gentle simmer for months without losing heat.
It also somehow didn't eat through the concrete providing all this insulation despite being told by Cheerful earlier that thermite etc is capable to turning it to dust.
Also somehow the steel somehow stayed molten despite being no hotter then the 900 degrees C of the hottest hot spots...

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Also remember that this unburnt thermite that existed for some reason and somehow didn't go off during the fires or when all the molten metal was flying around, was sitting there mixed with the concrete somehow keeping it at a gentle simmer for months without losing heat.
It also somehow didn't eat through the concrete providing all this insulation despite being told by Cheerful early that thermite etc is capable to turning it to dust.
Also somehow the steel somehow stayed molten despite being no hotter then the 900 degrees C of the hottest hot spots...

Ah the good old highly convoluted mental gymnastics tale

I like how the real explanation is that it's simply a 911 worker cutting metal

GreeBo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Obviously not 1500c, but air channels can keep hot fires burning underground at high temps

I'm sorry, didn't *your* source, the super helpful fireman, tell us it was 1500C?

In case you have forgotten, here is *your* quote on the video.

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

Are you aware that at this point you are conspiring against yourself in part of the greatest coverup since the moon landings?

Dohnjoe

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm sorry, didn't *your* source, the super helpful fireman, tell us it was 1500C?

In case you have forgotten, here is *your* quote on the video.

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

Are you aware that at this point you are conspiring against yourself in part of the greatest coverup since the moon landings?

There are many sources on the molten iron present at ground zero after 911. Why would the firefighters and rescuers lie about liquified iron they saw with their own eyes? These are people who have to deal with building and high-rise fires on a regular basis, they are more than qualified to know what they are talking about..

Were you there? I highly doubt it, so how can you know more than the witnesses?

It's a well known fact that the fires burnt for 100 days after the towers came down, what do you think was fueling those fires?

Steel is 95% Iron. Yes you can look that up in google

Where is this coming from?

Dohnjoe

GreeBo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There are many sources on the molten iron present at ground zero after 911. Why would the firefighters and rescuers lie about liquified iron they saw with their own eyes? These are people who have to deal with building and high-rise fires on a regular basis, they are more than qualified to know what they are talking about..

How often do building fires burn hot enough to melt steel?
You can't use that argument on one hand and then use the opposite of it on another. Either a normal fire is hot enough to melt steel and so this is what happened on WT7 or it isnt and as such, firefighters would have no experience of melting steel.
Secondly, if we are all agreeing that steel melts at >1500C, no firefighter would be in that area, why would they? What would they be doing there? Its not like anyone would be alive to be resuced (unless they are using the miraculous insulating power of concrete of course!)

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Were you there? I highly doubt it, so how can you know more than the witnesses?

Being a witness doesnt mean having all the facts. The lads in Nagasaki were up close and personal to a bomb, do you think they can tell you what type of warhead it was?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a well known fact that the fires burnt for 100 days after the towers came down, what do you think was fueling those fires?

Sure fires can smoulder for weeks on end if there is fuel, heat and oxygen.
This is not the same thing as a *furnace* being kept going for 100 days hto enough to keep steel liquified without any heatsource.
Anything burning at 1500C is going to quickly use up all combustible material and put itself out.
So either something was magically supplying new material to keep the fire going or you think smouldering happens at 1500C?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Steel is 95% Iron. Yes you can look that up in google

Where is this coming from?

Were they using concrete-based heavy equipment for this cleanup?
I think it would be pretty stupid to use steel machinery to handle liquid steel...but I guess I'm no physicist!
:cool:

Dohnjoe

So.. tempting.. to .. keep.. going

More proof that "skeptics" can't read

GreeBo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So.. tempting.. to .. keep.. going

More proof that "skeptics" can't read

Please go on.
Show how during cleanup steel machinery would be used to lift molten steel.

Labeling "liquid metal" on things doesnt make them liquid metal.

its far, far FAR more likley that your ****ty quality photo us just more burning paper debris like in all the other photographs.




Oh look, that nonsense photo is from A&E911 who were earlier given as expert, independent witnesses.

Dohnjoe

GreeBo wrote: »

Please go on.
Show how during cleanup steel machinery would be used to lift molten steel.

That was some metal in an inbetween state - it doesn't just go liquid right away, everyone knows this

Labeling "liquid metal" on things doesnt make them liquid metal.

If you prefer I can use the term "molten steel" like the firefighters and witnesses actually said

its far, far FAR more likley that your ****ty quality photo us just more burning paper debris like in all the other photographs.

Looks the same quality as most other photos from 911. Doesn't look like burning paper to me.

Here's some burning paper

A&E911

You are referring to a group of 2,500 architects and engineers. I think you will find their consensus is worth a little more than the views of a random individual on the internet

I'm still waiting for the penny to drop

GreeBo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That was some metal in an inbetween state - it doesn't just go liquid right away, everyone knows this

Ok, but Im not sure what point you are making.
Why would you risk people and machinery moving 'molten steel' around?
If its sat there being molten for 100 days I reckon you can wait a few more for it to cool rather than risk lives?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you prefer I can use the term "molten steel" like the firefighters and witnesses actually said

Indeed. Do you know what molten means?

molten
adjective [ not gradable ] US ​ /ˈmoʊl·tən/
​
(esp. of metal or rock) melted or made liquid by being heated to very high temperatures

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Looks the same quality as most other photos from 911. Doesn't look like burning paper to me.

So we have molten steel and its just hanging around in the open beside all these other materials that are perfectly cool and solid? Dont you think if there is a pile of material at >1500C the things touching it would be, oh I dunno...hot?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are referring to a group of 2,500 architects and engineers. I think you will find their consensus is worth a little more than the views of a random individual on the internet

These engineers missed the fact that its a pile of burning paper. Yunno, paper, the thing all these buildings were full of, rather than the somewhat less likley scenario that we had pools of molten metal @ 1500C 100 days after the event.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm still waiting for the penny to drop

Would it be a molten penny by any chance?

Dohnjoe

Greebo, I started this thread, I don't maintain that 911 was an inside job, I believe you have me mixed up with someone else You maybe need to reread the last page or two

I was "playing the part" of a truther there

Jokes aside, demonstrates how easy it is to babble about insane stuff and tie people up in explanations

Timberrrrrrrr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Greebo, I started this thread, I don't maintain that 911 was an inside job, I believe you have me mixed up with someone else You maybe need to reread the last page or two

I was "playing the part" of a truther there

Jokes aside, demonstrates how easy it is to babble about insane stuff and tie people up in explanations

When i read your 1st post a couple of pages back i though cheerful had used a mind control device (we all know they exsist!) On you and turned you to the dark side :pac:

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

When i read your 1st post a couple of pages back i though cheerful had used a mind control device (we all know they exsist!) On you and turned you to the dark side :pac:

lol, an opportunity arose, couldn't resist. Act incredulous about everything, make insane arguments, tie people up with utter twaddle

GreeBo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Greebo, I started this thread, I don't maintain that 911 was an inside job, I believe you have me mixed up with someone else You maybe need to reread the last page or two

I was "playing the part" of a truther there

Jokes aside, demonstrates how easy it is to babble about insane stuff and tie people up in explanations

I know you started the thread and I wondered why you had seemingly lost your mind and were posting nonsense.

Tbh it doesnt really add to the thread and just hides the nonsense that cheerful is posting...I'd delete them.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I hadn't noticed him cause I was looking at the photo on my phone...:o



I also like how when you do a reverse google search for that photo, you get a bunch back of foundry workers that close to the molten steel. They are all in protective suits.

It not its reflection from the camera:D See the way the second guy standing in the picture!

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not its reflection from the camera:D See the way the second guy standing in the picture!

:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Its the reflection of this guy standing looking downwards. You even see his hand position is the same as the reflection.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Its the reflection of this guy standing looking downwards. You even see his hand position is the same as the reflection.

The bullsh/t you post is moving beyond the realms of ridiculous at this point! Every claim you have made has been shown to be a lie, every piece of "evidence has ben shown to be a lie!

Yet here you are yet again attempting to worm your way out of it by making a ridiculous claim. You're not worthy of anymore attention simply because EVERYTHING you post is a lie