Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…2223252728…102

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I don't get your point here?

    Steel ripped apart and their evidence of melting . You clearly see the steel is resting on a yellow liquid +fire.


  • Options
    #723
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    If people thinking I am lying

    Quoting NIST
    Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

    https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    Bull****. A 47 story building collapsed a nobody keeps any WTC7 steel for investigation later? Did NIST forget FEMA collected steel samples from WTC7 and they were melted?


  • Options
    #724
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful. Why haven't you posted examples of skyscrapers being demolished using thermite etc?
    You said you had examples and that these examples showed that thermite etc can produce rivers of molten steel that can stay molten for months.

    Why the delay?
    Are you having trouble finding examples of this?


  • Options
    #725
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful. Why haven't you posted examples of skyscrapers being demolished using thermite etc?
    You said you had examples and that these examples showed that thermite etc can produce rivers of molten steel that can stay molten for months.

    Why the delay?
    Are you having trouble finding examples of this?

    I never claimed thermite was ever used to demolish Skyscrapers.

    I found evidence thermite was used in demolition of buildings in the past. Nobody is claiming thermite brought down the twin towers.

    Conspiracy side belief is nano-thermite a revolutionary new incendiary was used maybe in addition with explosive of some kind.


  • Options
    #726
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    Bull****.

    Personal incredulity is not evidence of an alternative theory

    You haven't supported your theory with any supporting evidence yet


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Personal incredulity is not evidence of an alternative theory

    You haven't supported your theory with any supporting evidence yet

    So you have found it plausible they could find one steel piece from WTC7?

    How would they even know the girder came off its seat at column 79? You have to see how hot the steel got to even know that was even possible. You can't guess this what NIST is doing.


  • Options
    #728
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I never claimed thermite was ever used to demolish Skyscrapers.

    I found evidence thermite was used in demolition of buildings in the past.
    Oh, ok then. Post those and show where they had rivers of molten metal that stayed molten for months.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Nobody is claiming thermite brought down the twin towers.
    :rolleyes:
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Conspiracy side belief is nano-thermite a revolutionary new incendiary was used maybe in addition with explosive of some kind.
    Cool.

    Can you provide some kind of evidence that nano-thermite can produce rivers of molten metal than can stay molten for months?
    Video? Paper discussing this...? Anything?

    The explosives can't produce molten metal, so we can rule them out as a cuase.

    Similarly, we can discount all the conspiracy theorists who claim it was explosives to the looney bin with Dr Judy Wood.


  • Options
    #729
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users Posts: 7,655 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    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

    So you’ve started a thread knowing well there is no alt theories with credibile evidence. Well done


  • Options
    #730
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The roof made of steel, you can even see the thermite reactions and the roof collapsing in. This wasa done in 1954



  • Options
    #731
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The roof made of steel, you can even see the thermite reactions and the roof collapsing in. This wasa done in 1954
    Ok. So the rivers of molten metal? Them staying molten for months?
    Cause that video shows that there was no molten metal left on the inside at all.. never mind enough for a river or lasting months...

    Also, why is this example relevant to anything at 9/11? That dome doesn't seem to share any design elements with the buildings at the WTC...?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok. So the rivers of molten metal? Them staying molten for months?
    Describes Thermite melting the steel to bring down a steel tower.
    https://books.google.ie/books?id=xd0DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA657&dq=Popular+Mechanics+thermite&pg=PA657&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=true


  • Options
    #733
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok. So the rivers of molten metal? Them staying molten for months?

    I have already posted how this occurred.I replied to greenbo and told him how.


  • Options
    #734
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,550 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Steel ripped apart and their evidence of melting . You clearly see the steel is resting on a yellow liquid +fire.

    Did you ever visit the twin towers? I did, they were massive! Steel falling from that height will easily get damaged like that as it crashes into other steel beams.


  • Options
    #735
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »

    Also, why is this example relevant to anything at 9/11? That dome doesn't seem to share any design elements with the buildings at the WTC...?

    Why would that matter? You using nanothermite thermite to break the steel connections, the concrete and steel columns, girders and beams to fall down.


  • Options
    #736
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Describes Thermite melting the steel to bring down a steel tower.
    https://books.google.ie/books?id=xd0DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA657&dq=Popular+Mechanics+thermite&pg=PA657&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=true
    There's no reference to rivers of molten metal that lasted for months...:confused:
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I have already posted how this occurred.I replied to greenbo and told him how.
    Yup sure you did. I'm asking you to provide an example to show that this is possible.
    Or something from a reliable source that agrees with your speculation.


  • Options
    #737
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why would that matter?
    And remind me, when people post examples of fires taking down steel framed buildings, they are invalid because...?


  • Options
    #738
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    There's no reference to rivers of molten metal that lasted for months...:confused:

    Yup sure you did. I'm asking you to provide an example to show that this is possible.
    Or something from a reliable source that agrees with your speculation.

    It not only possible it happened on 9/11.

    I believe the eyewitnesses, the photographic evidence and video. I don't believe NIST.

    It up to you a provide proof with this, the yellow/red liquid in the 9/11 rubble is not molten steel.

    Nano-thermite was only developed in the 90s so why would there be examples?


  • Options
    #739
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It not only possible it happened on 9/11.
    huh... Weird, cause that's not what you claimed earlier.

    So you can't show any previous examples of thermite etc producing rivers of molten metal that later for months...
    You can't show any independent sources that confirm this is possible...

    So why do you think that thermite etc can do this?
    It kinda sounds like it can't...

    Which part was only possible on 9/11?
    The producing rivers of molten metal?
    Or that metal lasting for months?


  • Options
    #740
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    And remind me, when people post examples of fires taking down steel framed buildings, they are invalid because...?

    There only one example in history, the paleto building in Iran there is no other examples .

    The building in Iran is shoddy and by the way it's a composite building not really a steel framed building with a central core. I suspect it came down from gas explosions. And it came down in non symmetrically way.


  • Options
    #741
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    There only one example in history, the paleto building in Iran there is no other examples .

    The building in Iran is shoddy and by the way it's a composite building not really a steel framed building with a central core. I suspect it came down from gas explosions. And it came down in non symmetrically way.
    Ah, right. Gotcha...:rolleyes:

    Why does it matter if it's "a composite building not really a steel framed building with a central core."
    Was the thermite demolition example you posted "a composite building not really a steel framed building with a central core."? It didn't look like one... It looked a bit more like a composite building and you said that didn't matter....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    So you’ve started a thread knowing well there is no alt theories with credibile evidence. Well done

    Highlighted


  • Options
    #743
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I
    It up to you a provide proof with this, the yellow/red liquid in the 9/11 rubble is not molten steel.

    Actually no, it's your claim that there was "molten steel" present after the attack (and AE911's claim around 2006 which they've since largely abandoned) - it's up to you to support it


  • Options
    #744
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah, right. Conspiracy. Gotcha...:rolleyes:

    Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim is a controlled demolition. I see evidence for gas explosions ( was a natural collapse). And you can see clearly in this video how it collapsed non symmetrically, the roofline and walls caved inwards on itself.




  • Options
    #745
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,977 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    the paleto building in Iran there is no other examples .

    The Plasco building. It was steel-framed. AE911 claimed it was impossible that a steel-framed building could fall due to fire. That was their precise claim. After it fell, they claimed it was an "inside job"


  • Options
    #746
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim is a controlled demolition. I see evidence for gas explosions ( was a natural collapse). And you can see clearly in this video how it collapsed non symmetrically, the roofline and walls caved inwards on itself.
    Bully for you!

    Why does it matter if it's "a composite building not really a steel framed building with a central core."
    Was the thermite demolition example you posted "a composite building not really a steel framed building with a central core."? It didn't look like one... It looked a bit more like a composite building and you said that didn't matter...

    It not only possible it happened on 9/11.
    huh... Weird, cause that's not what you claimed earlier.

    So you can't show any previous examples of thermite etc producing rivers of molten metal that later for months...
    You can't show any independent sources that confirm this is possible...

    So why do you think that thermite etc can do this?
    It kinda sounds like it can't...

    Which part was only possible on 9/11?
    The producing rivers of molten metal?
    Or that metal lasting for months?


  • Options
    #747
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah, right. Gotcha...:rolleyes:

    Why does it matter if it's "a composite building not really a steel framed building with a central core."
    Was the thermite demolition example you posted "a composite building not really a steel framed building with a central core."? It didn't look like one... It looked a bit more like a composite building and you said that didn't matter....

    Less resistant materials to stop a collapse. More robust the steel the less likely fire will bring it down.

    We have no clue if the Paleto building had adequate fireproofing on the steel. It's a building in Iran you have to be suspicious about the building standards and codes there.


  • Options
    #748
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Less resistant materials to stop a collapse. More robust the steel the less likely fire will bring it down.

    We have no clue if the Paleto building had adequate fireproofing on the steel. It's a building in Iran you have to be suspicious about the building standards and codes there.
    Ok, but your example of a thermite demolition would also be less resistant too, no. Yet you said that the differences didn't matter there.

    Kind of a double standard.
    Thanks, that's all I wanted to illustrate.


  • Options
    #749
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The Plasco building. It was steel-framed. AE911 claimed it was impossible that a steel-framed building could fall due to fire. That was their precise claim. After it fell, they claimed it was an "inside job"

    Have you the construction drawings?


  • Options
    #750
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, but your example of a thermite demolition would also be less resistant too, no. Yet you said that the differences didn't matter there.

    Kind of a double standard.
    Thanks, that's all I wanted to illustrate.

    I am claiming the building in Iran came down naturally. There is no evidence of controlled demolition.

    The building fell down non symmetrically

    WTC7 came down symmetrically with its roofline horizontal and walls came down straight. Clear evidence it was controlled demolition.

    A progressive collapse is non-symmetrical. The building has to fall non symmetrically when falling.

    That why NIST has all these roof and side wall deformations occurring in their collapse model.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I am claiming the building in Iran came down naturally. There is no evidence of controlled demolition.

    The building fell down non symmetrically

    WTC7 came down symmetrically with its roofline horizontal and walls came down straight. Clear evidence it was controlled demolition.

    A progressive collapse is non-symmetrical. The building has to fall non symmetrically when falling.
    Cool. Done with this tangent now.
    You can go back and address my other points.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement