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

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

False again. Actually, listen to someone who did this type of work. Explosions don't have to go off at the same time.

Nope. Not going to let you deflect.
It can't be thermite as thermite does not produce rivers of molten metal.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Explosions where heard far away from any impact zone ... described by firefighters

Explosions from which buildings and at what times?

You compared wtc7 with plasco .... which is something you cannot do .... unless you want to be disingenuous

AE911 categorically stated it was impossible for a steel framed building to fall due to fire. in 2017 Plasco was a steel framed building and fell due to fire. They then claimed it was an "inside job"

So WTC 7 and Plasco were two steel framed buildings that fell due to fire - unless you can explain how they really fell (with evidence)

Uhh I posted directly from their testimony ... and there are many more ... so it has nothing to do with my interpretation of it

There are many witnesses and people who reported loud bangs and what they thought were explosions. This is because there were many on the day - elevators crashing to the ground, transformers exploding, etc

Are you trying to hint these were the sounds of controlled demolitions?

If so, then naturally I have many questions as to how you have come to that conclusion

Now tell me this looks like the wtc7 collapse and why my views are incredulous.

You are comparing two different buildings and seem to be of the presumption that steel framed buildings that fall due to fire fall a certain way

Are they supposed to fall the same way each time?

Even the official story lacks evidence

According to you.

people below agree with this

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

I can't check that site, I'll look at it later, but if it's another conspiracy/truther site it will be ignored, only credible sources for this thread (as per the original post)

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I dont recall firefighters talking about thermite and or controlled demolition, other then the way it came down.... Many heard explosions which weren't investigated

The fact you have firefighters and other first responders hearing explosions in random locations should raise an eyebrow .... or two

Why would the explosions raise eyebrows?
Why would they raise eyebrows when they are not consistent with the idea of a controlled demolition?

Why do you reject the thermite theory that Cheerful is proposing?
Why reject the space laser theory when that adequately explains the explosions?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Thats not what i asked

What is the significance of those 2 elements seeing as you often quote yhat they were found?

The steel was blasted by heat above the temps of an office fire! Never found molten Iron in a steel framed building on fire before. Why is there no evidence for this as many steel framed buildings were engulfed with fire in the past?

The steel should be sagging and bending. Finding holes in steel can only be caused by explosives or nano-thermite.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The steel should be sagging and bending. Finding holes in steel can only be caused by explosives or nano-thermite.

What's this based on?
Do you have an example of this?
Please post it...

Not sure why you are having trouble doing so...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. Not going to let you deflect.
It can't be thermite as thermite does not produce rivers of molten metal.

False FEMA stated they found a liquid made of primarily Iron and Sulphur.

Thermate melts steel what you think happens the Iron just disappears?

How do you know nano-thermite does not melt steel and produce rivers of molten Iron? Are you an expert on nanotechnology. You didn't even know steel is made of Iron. What you state is fact is likely untrue;)

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

What's this based on?
Do you have an example of this?
Please post it...

Not sure why you are having trouble doing so...

Carrington Fire tests. Steel beams were heated to various temps from low temp to very high above 1000c.

The steel beams only sagged and slightly bent. None of the steel beams melted.

If steel beams were melting during building office fires this phenomenon would be reported and peer reviewed.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How do you know nano-thermite does not melt steel and produce rivers of molten Iron?

Because so far, the only two examples you can point to show that thermite stuff does not produce any large amount of molten metal that stays molten for more than a few seconds.
And most importantly, you can't provide any source that shows that nanothermite can do so.

No one here believes a word you claim.
You have proven yourself to be dishonest and incompetent, so your word that nanothermite can just do that is not worth anything.
So you need to prove it can.

And until you do, then we can conclude it can't.

If you are unhappy with this, then feel free to prove a space laser can't melt steel.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Carrington Fire tests. Steel beams were heated to various temps from low temp to very high above 1000c.

The steel beams only sagged and slightly bent. None of the steel beams melted.

If steel beams were melting during building office fires this phenomenon would be reported and peer reviewed.

First, source. You are a lair who has trouble with reading comprehension. I don't believe you.

Second, did they use nanothermite, if not, it's irrelevant.
Third, did it produce the holes you claimed, if not, irrelevant.

Please provide a peer reviewed report that shows that nanothermite can do anything you claim it does.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Because so far, the only two examples you can point to show that thermite stuff does not produce any large amount of molten metal that stays molten for more than a few seconds.
And most importantly, you can't provide any source that shows that nanothermite can do so.

No one here believes a word you claim.
You have proven yourself to be dishonest and incompetent, so your word that nanothermite can just do that is not worth anything.
So you need to prove it can.

And until you do, then we can conclude it can't.

If you are unhappy with this, then feel free to prove a space laser can't melt steel.

Why would molten Iron and steel ( a liquid) just disappear after a few seconds when it enclosed beneath the rubble? Do you understand the molten steel and iron was protected from the cold and air and rain?

I have shown you thermate melts steel and slags that runs off is molten Iron. You did not watch the video so you continue to just post random false assertions. Do you not realise there literally many hundred thousands of tons of steel used to construct the twin towers, even if only 5 per cent of this steel got melted this could easily produce a river of molten Iron.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why

Just in case you missed my earlier question

You state you believe WTC 7 fell due to controlled demolition

Do you believe that controlled demolitions brought down WTC 1 and WTC 2?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would molten Iron and steel ( a liquid) just disappear after a few seconds when it enclosed beneath the rubble? Do you understand the molten steel and iron was protected from the cold and air and rain?

Deflection.
I'm asking you to show that nanothermite can do this.
Put up or shut up.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have shown you thermate melts steel and slags that runs off is molten Iron. You did not watch the video so you continue to just post random false assertions.

Yes, a very small amount of steel compared to a very large amount of thermate. And that steel cooled quickly and could not be described as a river.
Barely can be described as a drop.
But why are you bringing up thermate? Nanothermite is not Thermate...

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you not realise there literally many hundred thousands of tons of steel used to construct the twin towers, even if only 5 per cent of this steel got melted this could easily produce a river of molten Iron.

Cool. So 5 percent of the steel in the towers was made molten.
How much thermite did this take?
Cause if we go by your video it would take 100s of times more thermite to do so.
So that's 500 percent the weight of the towers in thermite...

And this is not counting the thermite that didn't go off and the stuff that went off over months to keep the steel molten...

But you say that they only needed 8 guys to plant this?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just in case you missed my earlier question

You state you believe WTC 7 fell due to controlled demolition

Do you believe that controlled demolitions brought down WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Yes, I do. Aeroplanes are made of aluminium not a change in hell that brought down the buildings. Nobody even stating that was the cause it blamed on fires.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, I do. Aeroplanes are made of aluminium not a change in hell that brought down the buildings. Nobody even stating that was the cause it blamed on fires.

So you believe it was a controlled demolition yes?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Deflection.
I'm asking you to show that nanothermite can do this.
Put up or shut up.


Yes, a very small amount of steel compared to a very large amount of thermate. And that steel cooled quickly and could not be described as a river.
Barely can be described as a drop.
But why are you bringing up thermate? Nanothermite is not Thermate...

Cool. So 5 percent of the steel in the towers was made molten.
How much thermite did this take?
Cause if we go by your video it would take 100s of times more thermite to do so.
So that's 500 percent the weight of the towers in thermite...

And this is not counting the thermite that didn't go off and the stuff that went off over months to keep the steel molten...

But you say that they only needed 8 guys to plant this?

Nano thermite particles were found in WTC dust confirmed independently by different scientists. Those particles should not be there if the building fell due to office fires.

Do you have a belief office fires caused steel to melt? Is that what you believe state your position clearly?

Why would not bring up thermate when there is evidence it can melt steel. Thermate is part of thermite family. Why would nano-thermite be excluded from melting steel in the towers?

Wrong he barely used any thermate to break the connections and melt the steel.

Wrong molten steel and iron can't cool in a heated debris pile. The liquid was buried underneath the rubble for weeks.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano thermite particles were found in WTC dust confirmed independently by different scientists. Those particles should not be there if the building fell due to office fires.

Cool.
Please show something that proves nanothermite or whatever can produce a river of anything.

Please show a peer reviewed report.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would not bring up thermate when there is evidence it can melt steel. Thermate is part of thermite family. Why would nano-thermite be excluded from melting steel in the towers?

Because, you, you giant hypocrite, whinge whenever we interchange thermite/thermate/nanothermite.
You change when these are comparable based on when it suits you. This is dishonest.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Wrong he barely used any thermate to break the connections and melt the steel.

Cool
How much thermate produced how much molten metal?
Please give numbers. A ratio would be fine, cause to me it looked like 100:1

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Wrong molten steel and iron can't cool in a heated debris pile.

Cool. Show an example of this happening in a case where any type of thermite is used.
I don't believe your word as you are a liar who doesn't understand basic engineering or physics.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano thermite particles were found in WTC dust confirmed independently by different scientists. Those particles should not be there if the building fell due to office fires.

Nah, common components were found

Do you have a belief office fires caused steel to melt?

Fire can cause steel to weaken (to the point of failure)

Why would not bring up thermate when there is evidence it can melt steel. Thermate is part of thermite family. Why would nano-thermite be excluded from melting steel in the towers?

Thermite is part of the conspiracy theory family - to date no one has provided any credible evidence for it's use in any of the buildings

Wrong molten steel and iron can't cool in a heated debris pile. The liquid was buried underneath the rubble for weeks.

This is a circular sideshow. I knew this would happen (because it's a 911 thread) so I deliberately asked for proper alternative theories with substantiated evidence

In 60 odd pages no one has provided such theories with such evidence, not even close. So the usual "convince me! explain this!" sideshow of incredulity and pseudo-science continues - that in itself is pretty telling 17 years after the fact

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So you believe it was a controlled demolition yes?

Yes..

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nah, common components were found



Fire can cause steel to weaken (to the point of failure)



Thermite is part of the conspiracy theory family - to date no one has provided any credible evidence for it's use in any of the buildings



This is a circular sideshow. I knew this would happen (because it's a 911 thread) so I deliberately asked for proper alternative theories with substantiated evidence

In 60 odd pages no one has provided such theories with such evidence, not even close. So the usual "convince me! explain this!" sideshow of incredulity and pseudo-science continues - that in itself is pretty telling 17 years after the fact

Dr Milette even admits in his study he carried out no DSC tests to confirm the high temp spikes of the chips. He also claims he found no elemental aluminium in the red-grey chips if he had this would have confirmed the chips as nano-thermite.

The problem is 14 scientists involved in this some not involved with the truth movement initially found elemental aluminium in their testing

14 scientists word against one scientist who was involved in the official study of WTC dust, basically a government employee like NIST was.

Rubbish steel is protected by fireproofing. Steel is not unsupported it held together by elements that stop it from failing. That's why no steel framed building collapse due to fire. If fires lead to steel failing it would not be used. This a tired old argument used by 9/11 sceptics and you taking from that long ago debunked crap.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes..

Okay, same again for WTC 1 and WTC 2

1. Who planted the explosives and when?
2. Who gave the order to do this?
3. Which floor(s) were the explosives planted on on WTC 1 and 2?
4. What type of explosives were used?
5. What was the motive?

Again, try not to make up or imagine all the answers, just credible evidence only

I suspect you've just arbitrarily adopted this conspiracy in the last few hours because of the flow of this thread. Then again that would be par for the course in here.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Steel is not unsupported it held together by elements that stop it from failing.

Steel absolutely can weaken to the point of failure due to fire. Can't fact-check now but the last info I read was that fires of 1600c can weaken steel by 90% (will check that later)

That's why no steel framed building collapse due to fire.

Plasco fell. Several have partially collapsed due to fire.

If fires lead to steel failing it would not be used.

This is bad even for you. Steel is a great building material. It doesn't mean it can magically survive everything including aircraft strikes and unchecked fires

GreeBo

This frogs position is less precarious than yours.

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would molten Iron and steel ( a liquid) just disappear after a few seconds when it enclosed beneath the rubble? Do you understand the molten steel and iron was protected from the cold and air and rain?

I have shown you thermate melts steel and slags that runs off is molten Iron. You did not watch the video so you continue to just post random false assertions. Do you not realise there literally many hundred thousands of tons of steel used to construct the twin towers, even if only 5 per cent of this steel got melted this could easily produce a river of molten Iron.

Its melts, rolls off and pretty rapidly cools back to regular old metal.
It doenst magically stay at 1600C+, even with the nano-fairiesthermite

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Steel absolutely can weaken to the point of failure due to fire. Can't fact-check now but the last info I read was that fires of 1600c can weaken steel by 90% (will check that later)



Plasco fell. Several have partially collapsed due to fire.



This is bad even for you. Steel is a great building material. It doesn't mean it can magically survive everything including aircraft strikes and unchecked fires

If you really are interested have a read through this

Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7.

Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. [16]

The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” [18]
But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered. [19]

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

If you really are interested have a read through this

Globalresearch is a borderline conspiracy/fringe site (well blogs actually)

Conspiracy bloggers and truthers are not credible sources. Again, this thread is for alternative theories with supporting credible evidence and sources

Otherwise this thread (like other 911 threads funnily enough) will just get clogged up with countless conspiracy videos and blogs, each requiring detailed explanations to select posters who won't accept those explanations

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

If you really are interested have a read through this

Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7.

Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. [16]

The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” [18]
But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered. [19]

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

But how do explosives explain this phenomenon?
Explosives cannot melt steel nor do they produce a "Swiss cheese" effect. And neither of these things are an effect seen in controlled demolitions.

Does this mean that it wasn't explosives? It can't be explosives if you apply your logic fairly.
It can't be thermite either for the same reasons...

So why does your expert claim then it was explosives when the evidence he points to shows it can't be explosives?

Also why do you point out that some people are professors?
Dr Judy Wood is a professor also...

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Steel absolutely can weaken to the point of failure due to fire. Can't fact-check now but the last info I read was that fires of 1600c can weaken steel by 90% (will check that later)



Plasco fell. Several have partially collapsed due to fire.



This is bad even for you. Steel is a great building material. It doesn't mean it can magically survive everything including aircraft strikes and unchecked fires

That you can only find one example 'Plasco' should be evidence enough it's not normal steel framed buildings to collapse due to fire.

I did some reading on the Plasco fire collapse. The Iranians reported 30 building safety violations. The steel also had no shear studs according to one researcher who was not involved in the truth movement, discovered in his investigation.

Steel weakening and steel melting are different things, you're confusing the debate here.

Steel was recovered with gaping holes. Skeptics claim this was the result of laying in the rubble for an extended period of time? Nice try but what in the rubble causes steel to melt? Is it rubbish, paper and dust, and wood, what materials exactly?

A plane is made of aluminium it's weak material that will vaporise quickly. That's why there was hardly any plane wreckage at Shanksville and at the Pentagon.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But how do explosives explain this phenomenon?
Explosives cannot melt steel nor do they produce a "Swiss cheese" effect. And neither of these things are an effect seen in controlled demolitions.

Does this mean that it wasn't explosives? It can't be explosives if you apply your logic fairly.
It can't be thermite either for the same reasons...

So why does your expert claim then it was explosives when the evidence he points to shows it can't be explosives?

Also why do you point out that some people are professors?
Dr Judy Wood is a professor also...

There no debate FEMA gathered steel from the twin towers and WTC tower ( 1o r 2) and it had melted.

We even have evidence of a large pool of yellow/red liquid in the rubble flowing just as the 9/11 firefighters described.

So if office fires normally do this we should be finding plenty of examples of this, shouldn't we? That we only see this on 9/11 suggests something else was involved in bringing down the towers and WTC7.

NIST denials only added fuel to the conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Again stop posting false narratives. Thermate actually cut through steel and melted it like Swiss chess also.

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo wrote: »

Its melts, rolls off and pretty rapidly cools back to regular old metal.
It doenst magically stay at 1600C+, even with the nano-fairiesthermite

No, it doesn't if under thousands of tons of steel for days and weeks. How is exposed to the elements air rain and cold underneath rubble? Heat is trapped underneath rubble.

I did not claim the molten steel was 1600c underneath the rubble. The steel was already melted so even at 700c it still is hot to keep liquefied.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, same again for WTC 1 and WTC 2

1. Who planted the explosives and when?
2. Who gave the order to do this?
3. Which floor(s) were the explosives planted on on WTC 1 and 2?
4. What type of explosives were used?
5. What was the motive?

Again, try not to make up or imagine all the answers, just credible evidence only

I suspect you've just arbitrarily adopted this conspiracy in the last few hours because of the flow of this thread. Then again that would be par for the course in here.

That will be the FBI job.

The evidence is overwhelming the buildings were controlled demolition. NIST fake WTC7 study only confirms the truther suspicions.

If NIST was able to solve this and presented the facts honestly and without bias, the truthers would have a hard time convincing people of their claims. NIST own actions in this have only pushed people to believe the 9/11 conspiracy is real.