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

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

A worker with no hands and legs standing in a yellow liquid is more believable for you then it's just a reflection of one of the workers?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A worker with no hands and legs standing in a yellow liquid is more believable for you then it's just a reflection of one of the workers?

To coin a phrase you often use "are you blind?"

Its a worker standing there cutting a beam, the "yellow liquid" you (choose to) see is not liquid at all but sparks flying from the cutting tool (im guessing acetylene torch) in front of him.

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo wrote: »

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 ?

I don't rule out there was a combination of explosives and nano-thermite used to break the steel and connections and the building fell down.

Listen Professor Harrit and other scientists have discovered Unignited nano-thermite particles in the WTC dust. So it highly likely there was lots of nano-thermite particles Unignited still left on the steel, the concrete and girder connections.

I clearly said the heat in the rubble kept the molten steel liquified until it was unearthed and exposed to the elements cold, air and rain.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A worker

Just when i thought this couldn't get any more insane

There are 3 men in this photo

Dohnjoe

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Apologies. I was temporarily posting nonsense to highlight the sort of "make it up on the spot" faulty logic we are dealing with. Some of us have been doing this for over a decade. This one is especially bad and I often wonder if the thread is being trolled.

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't rule out there was a combination of explosives and nano-thermite used to break the steel and connections and the building fell down.

You didnt rule anything out other than reality.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Listen Professor Harrit and other scientists have discovered Unignited nano-thermite particles in the WTC dust. So it highly likely there was lots of nano-thermite particles Unignited still left on the steel, the concrete and girder connections.

So these unignited particles cant have contributed anything to keeping the steel molten in the aftermath....so what did?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I clearly said the heat in the rubble kept the molten steel liquified until it was unearthed and exposed to the elements cold, air and rain.

"heat in the rubble" doesnt mean anything though.
Heat doesnt just sit there like a brick, it trys its best to go warm up colder places. Thats why air conditioning is a thing.

Whats causing this heat, what fuel source is maintaining it at 1500C?

At the moment your argument is circular. The heat melted the beams and the beams are kept molten by the heat.
If thermite caused the initial heat we have 2 options:
1) it caused the heat by burning and is now burnt
2) it didnt burn and was found in the debris and hence caused no heat

so unless there were buckets loads of thermite about the place, simple logic is defeating you.

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A worker with no hands and legs standing in a yellow liquid is more believable for you then it's just a reflection of one of the workers?

OK its a reflection.

1) What is he reflected in?
2) Why is there a big mirror in the middle of the rubble?
3) Isn't there a big f-off girder in between this man and his reflection?
4) What state of the art material can show a perfect reflection through a big cloud of "molten steel smoke" and the distortion that would be present through 1500C air temperatures?

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Listen Professor Harrit and other scientists have discovered Unignited nano-thermite particles in the WTC dust.

No...
NO...
They did not, indeed they could not confirm any such thing as their study was flawed at the outset by the use of aluminium mounting media.
The Harrit study is hokum.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

You must be delighted with this little circle jerk;)

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is a thread asking simple questions about what alternatively happened with evidence

There are plenty of other alternative theories

You see people standing in fire the same way as Jesus appears on a toasted sandwich .... If you want to be taken serious i suggest stopping that nonsense

weisses

So after investigating the steel it was concluded that

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

Can any of the experts tell me what could have caused this to happen ?

If I missed it in this thread then pointing me to the relevant post would suffice

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

There are plenty of other alternative theories

With credible evidence

Please list them

You see people standing in fire

There are 3 people in that photo. "Standing in fire"? Nope looks plainly like a man cutting something with an acetalyine torch, thermic lance or similar



Shot in lower light, appears brighter

Of course if you believe that is "molten steel" in that photo, feel free to support it

weisses

The steel problem was “solved” by NIST by excluding most of the steel from being systematically examined for failure modes and heat excursions. The steel collected by the Port Authority, which has been stored in Hangar 17 at JFK Airport, was not included in the investigation except for 12 pieces. Of the 236 pieces that NIST possessed, many were excluded based on the circular argument that only columns from impact and fire floors were of interest in the investigation. Thus, NIST avoided having to discuss 51 of its 55 core columns. Sample 1 from FEMA’s Appendix C was also excluded.

Ohh quite the thorough investigation one would expect after such a disaster :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

There are plenty of other alternative theories

You see people standing in fire the same way as Jesus appears on a toasted sandwich .... If you want to be taken serious i suggest stopping that nonsense

It clearly to us it's reflection.

Dohnjoe and others believe this is a person standing in the yellow liquid with no hands or legs:D



They can't see this is a reflection of this person. The way the arm is positioned it same as the picture above. And he looks down!

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Ohh quite the thorough investigation one would expect after such a disaster :rolleyes:

There are plenty of threads where you can point out what you believe are flaws in the NIST. Obviously doing so on a conspiracy theory forum is a little odd (engineering or architectural forums would be a better choice)

This is more a thread for alt theories with credible evidence

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

With credible evidence

Please list them

That is difficult ..Even NIST is not a credible investigation ... I mean if joe public needs to point out their flawed conclusions over and over resulting in NIST having to revise their conclusions .... Their whole collapse theory on wtc7 is based on a hypothesis.

Some good work is done out there in regards to finding out what happened ... problem is that research is expensive, physical evidence was hastily disposed off ...I dont even blame NIST for bringing out that shoddy report .... but I dont take it as gospel

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

That is difficult ..Even NIST is not a credible investigation

That is your subjective opinion

flawed conclusions over and over resulting in NIST having to revise their conclusions

There are thousands of people (AE911) dedicated to discrediting the report, to date I haven't seen any of their points standing up to expert scrutiny (despite sounding convincing to the lay-person) If you have chosen to buy into their arguments that's your choice

Plenty of NIST threads here where you can express that

Some good work is done out there in regards to finding out what happened

Can you cite examples of this?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just when i thought this couldn't get any more insane

There are 3 men in this photo

Another reflection do you notice how the first guy, not the second guy standing?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There are plenty of threads where you can point out what you believe are flaws in the NIST. Obviously doing so on a conspiracy theory forum is a little odd (engineering or architectural forums would be a better choice)

This is more a thread for alt theories with credible evidence

Well if NIST knowingly left out important stuff that needed to be investigated ... if they refuse to share their data that supports their hypothesis with the excuse it jeopardizes national safety (despite no new building regulations where implemented after office fires brought down a skyscraper apparently ) that discussion belongs here

There are plenty of alternative theories ... you want conclusive evidence that support those theories .... You and I are here long enough to realize such evidence is not there ...Im not saying there isn't any evidence out there

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Another reflection do you notice how the first guy, not the second guy standing?

Cheerful any progress on finding those examples of thermite etc being used to demolish skyscrapers? Then use them to show how they had rivers of molten metal that stayed hot for months?

Not sure why that's taking you so long.

Could you also explain how you think steel can remain molten at temperatures below 1500 degress C?

Cheerful Spring

Is this what you're looking at Dohnjoe?



Reflection of this person

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

So after investigating the steel it was concluded that

Can any of the experts tell me what could have caused this to happen ?

If I missed it in this thread then pointing me to the relevant post would suffice

What's the conspiracy explanation?

It can't be caused by explosives, so that means that that conspiracy is debunked... right?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Another reflection do you notice how the first guy, not the second guy standing?

Lol.
Come on cheerful. You're embarrassing yourself...

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That is your subjective opinion

Based on much reading yes

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There are thousands of people (AE911) dedicated to discrediting the report, to date I haven't seen any of their points standing up to expert scrutiny (despite sounding convincing to the lay-person) If you have chosen to buy into their arguments that's your choice

Is that because they think the report is flawed ?(which some proved because of the revisions made by NIST)

If the report was of sufficient quality why are there people out there with more knowledge then you and I tearing it apart

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Can you cite examples of this?

I find A&E a good source ...And Hulsey ... And No I dont take everything they say as gospel either ... read some other interesting findings and conclusion over the years where i dont know the names of now by head

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

What's the conspiracy explanation?

It can't be caused by explosives, so that means that that conspiracy is debunked... right?

Please read my question and address it accordingly ... simples

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Please read my question and address it accordingly ... simples

No thanks. This thread is about alternative theories.

There is no alternative theories to explain this fact.
It disproves one of the most popular conspiracy theories as it's not a feature of explosive demolition.
I would wager it's not a feature of a thermite demolition either.

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo Do you not see this is steel? Steel at the twin towers was painted with red primer paint.

You can even see the see the steel was ripped to shreds and folded back.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can even see the see the steel was ripped to shreds and folded back.

But thermite can't do that...

Cheerful, stop throwing out tangents and focus on the points you have in front of you.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No thanks. This thread is about alternative theories.

Then don't quote my post and try to be a smart arse at the same time.

I know you seek refuge in your own opinion being sufficient when questions are getting difficult ... as is evident in some of our previous discussions

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Then don't quote my post and try to be a smart arse at the same time.

I know you seek refuse in your own opinion being sufficient when questions are getting difficult ... as is evident in some of our previous discussions

No, just often times your posts become unreadable, like the above statement: "seek refuse"?

Again, you're being a bit of a hypocrite here. If you aren't interested in discussing the alternative theories, why are you asking your question here?

Why not on engineering forums where you might get a complete and detailed answer from an expert?

I think this is another case of you doing a fly by posting and you'll be gone again in a few pages...

Any comments on Cheerful's theories? Do you believe that it was nanothermite?