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

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

Please show something that proves that thermite/whatever can produce a large pool of yellow/red liquid.

Also you are changing your story again. You claimed it was yellow liquid previously. Which is it? What is this liquid?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Example of thermite/whatever being used to take out a whole skyscraper?

You don't accept the examples of partial collapses or of different types of buildings or structures.
It would be hypocritical in the extreme for you to point to partial collapses or of different types of structures. But you've already done that...

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

But weiss was talking about explosives as he doesn't buy your silly theory.
Explosives do not produce melted steel or a swiss cheese effect.

And again, why are you talking about Thermate when you think it was nanothermite?
Can you show something that indicates that nanothermite produces this effect?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Yet you feel it's perfectly ok to claim that steel/metal stayed molten because it was

the result of laying in the rubble for an extended period of time? 

With zero evidence for this claim :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Please show something that proves that thermite/whatever can produce a large pool of yellow/red liquid.

Also you are changing your story again. You claimed it was yellow liquid previously. Which is it? What is this liquid?


Example of thermite/whatever being used to take out a whole skyscraper?

You don't accept the examples of partial collapses or of different types of buildings or structures.
It would be hypocritical in the extreme for you to point to partial collapses or of different types of structures. But you've already done that...


But weiss was talking about explosives as he doesn't buy your silly theory.
Explosives do not produce melted steel or a swiss cheese effect.

And again, why are you talking about Thermate when you think it was nanothermite?
Can you show something that indicates that nanothermite produces this effect?

What else could have caused it? Buildings have collapsed due to fire and never has anyone produced photographic evidence of red/yellow liquid in the rubble? On 9/11 the buildings supposedly only collapsed due to fire, therefore, you will have no problem finding other examples of this phenomenon occurring when you look online right?

The liquid is red/yellow the same colour as molten Iron/Steel. What is it exactly? I guess nobody thought at the time to take a sample and test it. I not surprised by this people were thinking back then the building came down from fires.

Partial collapses of what exactly a single floor, a roof a wall? A 47 building collapsing is not a partial collapse it's a full collapse.

I never ruled out explosives. Scientists discovered least one method used to destruct the buildings nano-thermites.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

AE911 truthers claimed it was impossible that steel framed buildings could fall due to fire. This was incorrect.

Office fires (fueled by normal carbon) can reach up to 1,100 degrees C. Steel can soften to 10% of it's strength at 1,000 degrees C.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That will be the FBI job.

You have answered none of the questions.

Do you have any credible evidence that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were demolished by controlled demolition? if so, please provide it, with proper sources

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What else could have caused it? Buildings have collapsed due to fire and never has anyone produced photographic evidence of red/yellow liquid in the rubble? On 9/11 the buildings supposedly only collapsed due to fire, therefore, you will have no problem finding other examples of this phenomenon occurring when you look online right?

But I'm asking you. You claim that it's some kind of thermite.
So it should be easy for you to produce something that shows thermite/nanothermite can produce a river or a pool of molten metal.
Please show an example of this.
Or a peer reviewed report that show this.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The liquid is red/yellow the same colour as molten Iron/Steel. What is it exactly? I guess nobody thought at the time to take a sample and test it. I not surprised by this people were thinking by then the building came down from fires.

Previously you were claiming that it was just yellow... now it's red/yellow?
Which is it?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Partial collapses of what exactly a single floor, a roof a wall? A 47 building collapsing is not a partial collapse it's a full collapse.

A full skyscraper that was taken down by thermite.
Please point to one.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never ruled out explosives.

Bully for you. But I wasn't making that point at you, was I?
And the point remains that explosives cannot produce a swiss cheese pattern nor produce molten steel.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Scientists discovered least one method used to destruct the buildings nano-thermites.

Lol, what even is this sentance?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

AE911 truthers claimed it was impossible that steel framed buildings could fall due to fire. This was incorrect.

Office fires (fueled by normal carbon) can reach up to 1,100 degrees C. Steel can soften to 10% of it's strength at 1,000 degrees C.

Name one steel framed building in Europe and America in the past 100 years has collapsed due to fire? 9/11 doesn't count.

The hottest temp in twin towers was only 800c and that when the jet fuel ignited. That only half the temp required to reach the melting point of steel and Iron (around 1500c)

WTC7 it was even lower hottest at any time was 600c and by 3 pm the temp was 400c, not even close to start the melting of steel

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Name one steel framed building in Europe and America in the past 100 years has collapsed due to fire? 9/11 doesn't count.

Point to one that was demolished with thermite or more importantly, nanothermite.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You have answered none of the questions.

Do you have any credible evidence that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were demolished by controlled demolition? if so, please provide it, with proper sources

Do you not realise NIST was unable to explain the full collapse, most people don't know that?

They only explained how the collapse started not its aftermath.

NIST claims it was the floor trusses that collapsed that brought the buildings down. In fact, the video evidence clearly shows the central steel core is what collapsed first. The TV antenna on top of twin tower sits above the hat truss that what moved first.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Point to one that was demolished with thermite or more importantly, nanothermite.

You find evidence office fires leave behind pools of yellow liquid after a collapse and then you have a point.

Scientists discovered nano-thermite in the dust from WTC collapse so that likely the cause for the yellow liquid.

Nano-thermite is the next gen of explosives so maybe we got our first look at what the result is?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The hottest temp in twin towers was only 800c

False

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
"(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit)"

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you not realise NIST was unable to explain the full collapse, most people don't know that?

They only explained how the collapse started not its aftermath.

NIST claims it was the floor trusses that collapsed that brought the buildings down. In fact, the video evidence clearly shows the central steel core is what collapsed first. The TV antenna on top of twin tower sits above the hat truss that what moved first.

Avoiding the question

To repeat

"Do you have any credible evidence that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were demolished by controlled demolition? if so, please provide it, with proper sources"

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

False

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
"(2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit)"

Dig deeper into this you find the steel samples NIST tested only showed heat ranges of 600c and 800c. 1000c is just another false claim by NIST to make their collapse seem more plausible.

1000c is not hot enough to melt steel.

Do you think Jet Fuel burned for over an hour +

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You find evidence office fires leave behind pools of yellow liquid after a collapse and then you have a point.

Scientists discovered nano-thermite in the dust from WTC collapse so that likely the cause for the yellow liquid.

Nano-thermite is the next gen of explosives so maybe we got our first look at what the result is?

But you've avoided the questions.
1. Can you point to an example of thermite being used to destroy a building. Yes or no?
2. Can you point to anything that shows that thermite etc. can produce pools of liquid? Yes or no?

The answers are clearly no because you keep avoiding saying that or answering them.
You know you can't provide these things.

And if you were applying your own logic fairly and without bias, you'd be rejecting the thermite explanation for the exact same reasons you claim you do for the real explanation.

"There are no examples of a fire bringing down a steel framed building."
There are no examples of thermite of any kind bringing down a steel framed building.

"Office fires cannot produce pools of molten metal"
Thermite etc cannot produce pools of molten metal.

Therefore if you say fires are not a possible explanation, then thermite is not a possible explanation.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But you've avoided the questions.
1. Can you point to an example of thermite being used to destroy a building. Yes or no?
2. Can you point to anything that shows that thermite etc. can produce pools of liquid? Yes or no?

The answers are clearly no because you keep avoiding saying that or answering them.
You know you can't provide these things.

And if you were applying your own logic fairly and without bias, you'd be rejecting the thermite explanation for the exact same reasons you claim you do for the real explanation.

"There are no examples of a fire bringing down a steel framed building."
There are no examples of thermite of any kind bringing down a steel framed building.

"Office fires cannot produce pools of molten metal"
Thermite etc cannot produce pools of molten metal.

Therefore if you say fires are not a possible explanation, then thermite is not a possible explanation.

I basing it on evidence.

There no examples of fires in buildings melting steel and leaving pools of red/yellow liquid in the rubble pile later.

You dismiss nano-thermite even though it established thermate can melt steel, melts to Iron and leaves gaping holes in the steel.

What best fits the evidence fires or nano-thermite?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You dismiss nano-thermite even though it established thermate can melt steel, melts to Iron and leaves gaping holes in the steel.

This has not been established. You also keep changing this to suit your position, betraying your dishonesty.

You claim that nano thermite can produce pools of molten metal.
Show this.

Showing thermate (a different substance) can produce a tiny amount of molten
steel that cools quickly is not proof of this.

So until you can either show that nano-thermite can produce a pool of molten metal or that it has been used in a demolition before,
why shouldn't I dismiss it for the same reasons you do with fire?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Avoiding the question

To repeat

"Do you have any credible evidence that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were demolished by controlled demolition? if so, please provide it, with proper sources"

NIST did not analyse the behaviour of the twin towers when they collapsed. They did not do that for obvious reasons because of the building imploded big plumes of smoke burst out from all sides. No way that building came down naturally. Why would concrete just turn to dust in mid-air makes no sense? Something odd and unusual is happening to the concrete when the buildings are falling down.

NIST explantation how the north tower collapsed is not believable. They claim the temp sagged floor trusses and they weakened and they pulled in the perimeter walls and columns in when it fell. The video evidence actually shows the first sign of collapse accorded near the roof, the central core started collapsing first down, and that collapse brought down the floors and the perimeter walls with it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

This has not been established. You also keep changing this to suit your position, betraying your dishonesty.

You claim that nano thermite can produce pools of molten metal.
Show this.

Showing thermate (a different substance) can produce a tiny amount of molten
steel that cools quickly is not proof of this.

So until you can either show that nano-thermite can produce a pool of molten metal or that it has been used in a demolition before,
why shouldn't I dismiss it for the same reasons you do with fire?

NIST doesn't even believe fires were hot enough in the buildings to melt steel. So we have this unusual phenomenon right away.

Fires could not have caused it. So just left with was done after the collapse?

Finding nano-thermite does explain the yellow liquid the 9/11 firefighters saw. The firefighters reported it and they likely saw it early in the cleanup. So very unlikely the steel was sitting in the rubble piles for months.

King Mob

Not talking about NIST, why are you bringing it up?

NanoThermite cannot produce a large pool of molten metal, so that can't explain the liquid.

Unless you can point to something that shows nanothermite can do this?
Or perhaps you can show an example of nanothermite being used to demolish a building.
If you can't do these, then you have to reject the thermite explanation.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Not talking about NIST, why are you bringing it up?

NanoThermite cannot produce a large pool of molten metal, so that can't explain the liquid.

Unless you can point to something that shows nanothermite can do this?
Or perhaps you can show an example of nanothermite being used to demolish a building.
If you can't do these, then you have to reject the thermite explanation.

It's important as they provide temp ratios for fires in these buildings. They are cheats so they presented the worse case scenarios. There was no fire in any of the buildings that could result in steel melting.

It was explosives + nano-thermite or some unusual phenomenon occurred in the rubble that resulted in the steel to melt?

You making definite statements nano-thermite cannot produce a river of molten steel? You have no proof that is true.

The liquid likely was mixed with dust and other materials I don't rule that out.

King Mob

I am making definitive statements because you can't produce anything to show that nano-thermite can produce pools of molten metal. I am applying your own logic and arguments to your explanation.
You are arguing against yourself and you don't even notice...

You are now inventing the idea that it's some unique combination of thermite and explosives and other stuff.
I will assume you likewise cannot explain this combination or show that it existed or that ot could produce a pool of molten anything.
It's fantasy. It's nonsense you're pulling out of your ass that's dumber than the notion of space lasers.

If it's not, show an example of a building that was destroyed with a combination of explosives and thermite.

You reject the fire explanation and other explanations as impossible even though you can't show proof of that.
You can't even prove the space laser explanation is impossible.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I am making definitive statements because you can't produce anything to show that nano-thermite can produce pools of molten metal. I am applying your own logic and arguments to your explanation.
You are arguing against yourself and you don't even notice...

You are now inventing the idea that it's some unique combination of thermite and explosives and other stuff.
I will assume you likewise cannot explain this combination or show that it existed or that ot could produce a pool of molten anything.
It's fantasy. It's nonsense you're pulling out of your ass that's dumber than the notion of space lasers.

You reject the fire explanation and other explanations as impossible even though you can't show proof of that.
You can't even prove the space laser explanation is impossible.

Why do you reject the possibility? We know thermate can melt steel and what drips off is a slag of molten Iron. Do you believe molten Iron dripping off cannot mix with other materials in a hot fire inside the twin towers? Their hundreds of thousands of tons of steel used in the construction of both towers.

And you failed to recognise or accept is people involved in the 9/11 events claimed they saw molten steel. You denying evidence.

You have not produced a credible explanation or alternative to what melted the steel. Yep, it happened just leave it at is that that your way of doing things?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You find evidence office fires leave behind pools of yellow liquid after a collapse and then you have a point.

Which you claim is steel but could easily be other metals

Scientists discovered nano-thermite in the dust from WTC collapse so that likely the cause for the yellow liquid.

No they didn't!

Nano-thermite is the next gen of explosives so maybe we got our first look at what the result is?

Or more than likely you and your ilk NEED an outlandish explaination and have run with this one to suit your agenda.

King Mob

I reject the possibility for the same reasons you claim yo reject the possibility of fire.
You cant show that thermite can produce a river or pool of molten anything.
I've asked repeatedly and clearly and you dodge the question every time.
Now you are clinging to the pathetic argument that "it's possible if combined with other stuff" while again not showing anything to back that up.

Further the two examples you have dishonestly twisted (as they do not involve a skyscraper or nanothermite.) show that thermite does not produce much molten metal at all. Those examples did not show a pool or a river.
They showed a tiny amount of molten melt produced by a huge amount of thermite.

I've asked you to explain how much molten metal nanothermite produces. But you avoided the question cause you don't know.
I asked you to explain how much thermite was used. But you don't know.

Your explanation isn't credible. It's not realistic.
The space laser laser theory is so much more sensible than yours.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

1000c is not hot enough to melt steel.

Steel didn't melt

Third time asking

"Do you have any credible evidence that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were demolished by controlled demolition? if so, please provide it, with proper sources"

Dohnjoe

As has been repeated throughout the thread, fire can weaken steel to the point of failure. This is a fact in the steel construction industry

https://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_and_steel_construction

The strength of hot rolled structural steel decreases with temperature. Following an extensive series of standard fire tests, that strength reduction has been quantified. Recent international research has also shown that the limiting (failure) temperature of a structural steel member is not fixed but varies according to two factors, the temperature profile and the load.

For small, fully loaded hot rolled sections, exposed on all four sides, the inherent fire resistance without added protection can be as little as 12 minutes. For very large, hot rolled sections, lightly loaded and with some partial protection from concrete floor slabs on the upper flange, this can be as high as 50 minutes. Where the heated perimeter is further reduced by the method of the construction (e.g. shallow floor systems), up to 60 minutes inherent fire resistance can be achieved.

It's why steel framed buildings (like WTC 1 and 2) have fire-proof cladding.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Steel didn't melt

Third time asking

"Do you have any credible evidence that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were demolished by controlled demolition? if so, please provide it, with proper sources"

Denying evidence again I see.

This is an official FEMA report in 2002 that states the steel they had melted during a high temp corrosion attack.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

This was never addressed by NIST. They even made a statement they could recover any steel pieces from WTC7 after it got removed from the collapse site. Someone was in a great hurry to get rid of evidence. Obviously, if independent researchers got their hands on more steel from WTC7 it can be tested to see the stresses and temps the steel got heated to.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As has been repeated throughout the thread, fire can weaken steel to the point of failure. This is a fact in the steel construction industry

https://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_and_steel_construction



It's why steel framed buildings (like WTC 1 and 2) have fire-proof cladding.

Nobody ever said steel can not weaken at certain temps. You state it as a fact that's why the towers came down?

The problem with that analysis is Skeptics are of the belief a localised collapse event can lead to a full collapse

They are then unable to show good solid examples of steel framed builds collapsing due to fire. Do you think fires have never engulfed steel framed buildings before? They ignore this as if not relevant. The steel is locked in place with stiffeners, shear studs, fasteners and web plates to stop buckling and weakening of steel during a fire.

When has an office fire pulverised concrete floors in mid-air?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Maybe you should look at content rather then names ...maybe it will change your opinion on NIST

There is no alternative theory backed by solid evidence yet .... There also isn't an official story that passes the smell test ..... What solid evidence is there that supports the hypothesis of a single column failure due to office fires resulting in a 47 story skyscraper falling down in an almost symmetrical fall reaching free fall acceleration ???


Yeah .. those pesky truther sites

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wwf-report-reveals-a-60-decline-in-wildlife-populations-since-1970/5658508

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Steel didn't melt

So what did firefighters see that looked like stuff you would find in a foundry ?