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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So those firefighters are liars?
Or are they in on it?
Or...?

They were genuinely concerned on the day the building was going to collapse. What Skeptics ignore the firefighters believed the building would collapse due to the gash found on the south face (west side) of the building. We know this did not cause the building to collapse, the truthers don't believe that either does NIST.

The collapse started on the east side of the building. NIST claims a girder got so hot it expanded thermally and slid off its seat leading to a collapsing of floors across the width of the building. They base this analysis on fires present on floors 13 early in the day and the Penthouse falling in on eastside.

They ignore the kink on the east side is actually caused when the eastside steel central core columns are taken out.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They were genuinely concerned on the day the building was going to collapse.

Ah ok. you think they were idiots and you're a better firefighter and engineer. Got it.

Also, how's it going on finding something to show that Nanothermite can produce a river of molten metal?
Good I hope, cause I wouldn't want you think that you successfully dodged a question.

Dohnjoe

This thread is about alternative theories with credible supporting evidence

If someone don't understand the NIST report - that's not evidence of another theory

If someone can't grasp or misunderstands certain scientific concepts - again that is not evidence of some theory involving an unspecified inside job

This didn't happen a few months ago, this happened 17 years ago. That's a lot of people on their deathbeds, that's a lot of time for insiders, whistle-blowers, witnesses to come forward. Recognised engineering or architectural groups to bring up valid contradictions to any faulty reports or investigations. People on the internet to conduct their own studies of all the details and come up with credible plausible alternative theories concerning the event. Time for any of the hundreds of experts and investigators who worked on the case to reexamine details or go back on claims.

The entire of 911 was an inside job, including the controlled demolition of at least one high-rise building in the center of New York and no one knows a thing about it?

All the leaks from the White House, the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, but nothing on this?

Not a single piece of credible evidence to support it. Hell, the strongest proponents from AE911 who can bamboozle anyone with their knowledge of every nut and bolt in WTC 7 don't have a clue who did it and how

Not exactly a compelling case. So again, this is a thread about alternative theories with credible evidence. A simple request.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Maybe it wasnt steel so.



They "claimed" to have seen molten steel, unless they are experts on molten metals then their claim is baseless.

Have you ever seen a really bad accident? Or been involved in an armed robbery situation? I have and let me tell you, minutes after both events people were all giving statments as to what happened, very few of those statements matched up simply because if the trauma involved for them.

There a problem claiming it not molten steel and Iron. FEMA in 2002 reported finding a liquid made primarily of Iron and Sulphur!

We have positive proof in this Iron was melted. There no possible way in hell an office fire of 400c could have caused the steel in WTC7 to melt.

You only left with two options to consider. Explosive or nano-thermite did this? Or something in the rubble caused the steel to reach the stage of melting. I don't see what materials left in the rubble can melt steel?

Molten steel was reported by architects and engineers and construction crews also there during the cleanup. NIST denying anyone even said the words molten steel. Just in no way believable when you got video evidence testimony of these claims where molten steel was spotted days and weeks and months after 9/11.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Explosive or nano-thermite did this? .

Explosives cannot produce molten steel.
Thermite cannot produce pools or rivers of molten steel.

So no. You must reject those explanations.

Space lasers can melt steel however.
Too bad you're too closed minded to consider that...

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There no possible way in hell an office fire of 400c could have caused the steel in WTC7 to melt.

As explained many times, the steel was weakened (it doesn't have to "melt" to fail)

1. Steel supports can fail if they are weakened, I posted information about this, do you understand this concept, yes or no?

If yes, then there is no reason for you to keep bringing up this "melting" thing

If no, they explain what you need to help you understand (videos, sourced information, etc)

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow, just wow.

Maybe you should look at facts and science, instead of pseudo-science and an ever-morphing denialism

Perhaps go to an engineering or architectural forum instead of a conspiracy theory forum

Perhaps check with skeptics, you know, people who regularly debunk spurious theories like Holocaust denial, flat earth, climate change denial, Sandy Hook theories, anti-vaxxers, etc.

Just stop with the hyperbole ... Dont try to label me as a possible holocaust denier just because I have an issue with people who have a selective approach to science, investigations and evidence ...

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A kind reminder you're in the same category as energy weapons, Alex Jones, holograms, etc here. After 17 years you have no witnesses, no insiders, no suspects, no motive, no credible evidence, nothing.

Are you unable to read ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A high-rise building being demolished in a secret controlled demolition in a massive giant secret coverup, in the middle of New York, under the scrutiny of the world's media, foreign intelligence agencies, the works.. yeah

A high rise building affected by partially burned out office fires all of a sudden collapses in a near symmetrical fashion reaching free fall acceleration, where every single expert claims it looks like controlled demolition .... but hey, that is normal right ?

Then there is NIST conducting a bogus investigation resulting in a valid discussion

Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation
adhering to the scientific method should have seriously
considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not
started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a
preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began
with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was
caused by fires

Sorry to post up a link from another possible holocaust denier

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There a problem claiming it not molten steel and Iron. FEMA in 2002 reported finding a liquid made primarily of Iron and Sulphur!

Cool, show us the report where this mystery liquid was examined and the results of the examination.

We have positive proof in this Iron was melted. There no possible way in hell an office fire of 400c could have caused the steel in WTC7 to melt.

Again, results of the tests that were carried out please.

You only left with two options to consider. Explosive or nano-thermite did this? Or something in the rubble caused the steel to reach the stage of melting. I don't see what materials left in the rubble can melt steel?

Well lets see thise results 1st that prove it's steel.

Molten steel was reported by architects and engineers and construction crews also there during the cleanup. NIST denying anyone even said the word molten steel is not believable when you got video evidence of them claiming molten steel was spotted days and weeks and months after 9/11.

Are these experts in molten metals? What examinations did they do? What tests did they do on samples?

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This thread is about alternative theories with credible supporting evidence

Is having solid supporting evidence necessary in the ct forum ? ...

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Just stop with the hyperbole ... Dont try to label me as a possible holocaust denier just because I have an issue with people who have a selective approach to science, investigations and evidence

Cheerful spring is a holocaust denier, just fyi.
See the holocaust thread.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Cool, show us the report where this mystery liquid was examined and the results of the examination.



Again, results of the tests that were carried out please.



Well lets see thise results 1st that orove it's steel.



Are these experts in molten metals? What examinations did they do? What tests did they do on samples?

Official US government paper in 2002. This is pre NIST investigation of the twin towers collapse and WTC7 collapse.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

They clearly state a liquid made of Iron and Sulphur was found.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I've explained this to you in other threads many times.

Nope ... stop lying

King Mob wrote: »

This thread is not about the official explanation.

My question to you wasn't either ... stop dodging

King Mob wrote: »

However, my point is that you guys are massive hypocrites.

Am I a Hypocrite ?

Can you point out to the exact post cheerful claimed thermite was used to demolish skyscrapers prior to 9/11

King Mob wrote: »

So you say that you have examples of skyscrapers being demolished by thermite (not nanothermite or thermate ).

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Official US government paper in 2002. This is pre NIST investigation of the twin towers collapse and WTC7 collapse.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

They clearly state a liquid made of Iron and Sulphur was found.

From that link.

Suggestions for Future Research
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear
explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is
possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It
is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel
structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if
any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful spring is a holocaust denier, just fyi.
See the holocaust thread.

He was quoting me

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful spring is a holocaust denier, just fyi.
See the holocaust thread.

Not really. I just researched it unlike you have done. You don't research any historical topic you accept it all as fact. I never denied the holocust i dispute some findings about it.

weisses

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

From that link.

A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if
any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Was a detailed study conducted by NIST ?

Timberrrrrrrr

weisses wrote: »

Was a detailed study conducted by NIST ?

He quoted FEMA as some sort of gotcha moment, the FEMA report says damage was due to fire. Does he accept the FEMA report that fire caused the damage or is he going to (yet again) cherry pick certain sentences to suit his narrative?

I know which option i would lay my money on

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Just stop with the hyperbole ... Dont try to label me as a possible holocaust denier just because I have an issue with people who have a selective approach to science, investigations and evidence ...

No need for the dramatics. At no point did I label you a holocaust denier (so don't twist my words thanks)

Are you unable to read ?

Again no need for this, thanks

A high rise building affected by partially burned out office fires all of a sudden collapses in a near symmetrical fashion reaching free fall acceleration, where every single expert claims it looks like controlled demolition .... but hey, that is normal right ?

Personal incredulity.

How many 47 story buildings of that type have fallen due to fire - so what basis of comparison do you have? perhaps they would fall in a similar manner

Then there is NIST conducting a bogus investigation resulting in a valid discussion

Bogus according to you. This thread isn't about your personal subjective non (or mis) understanding of that report. Your incredulity is not evidence of an alternative theory.

Which is what this thread is about. There are other threads to attack the NIST in. People are being incredible patient with posters here considering the subject matter and large amount of faulty logic, deflections, dishonesty, and general denialism

Again, you are representing an extreme view here (don't pretend otherwise) you are trying to suggest there was a controlled demolition, some people suggest there were hologram planes, some suggest energy weapons, but you refuse to support that notion with valid witnesses, suspects, motives, anything

Therefore you aren't even on the same level as people suggesting those "whacky" theories

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

From that link.

And did you read the report?

They speculated for the WTC7 steel to start melting like it did there would need to have been a temp of 1000 celsius and huge amounts of sulphur present to start the process. They were unable to identify the source of the sulphur in building 7

Then here's the problem it documented by NIST no fire at any time of the day got above 600c.

The hottest any fire got was 600c and lasted only 15 minutes when the combustible burned out the temp dropped to 400c.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Nope ... stop lying

I haven't lied. I have explained the real explanation several times and it has been repeated to you above.

weisses wrote: »

My question to you wasn't either ... stop dodging

But your question has been answered.
You haven't answered mine, because you can't as you know it undermines your silly conspiracy theory.

weisses wrote: »

Am I a Hypocrite ?

Yup, cause you reject the fire explanation, but won't reject the thermite or explosive explanations when your logic is applied to them.

There's no examples of steel buildings collapsing due to fire (according to you), therefore the fire explanation is impossible.
You can't show any examples of buildings being demolished by thermite or nanothermite or by secret stealth explosives... So therefore those explanations must be impossible too...

It's impossible for fire to make molten pools of metal and there's no explanation for how fire can produce them, so therefore the fire explanation is impossible.
But you guys can't show that explosives or thermite can produce pools of molten metal either, so therefore it must be impossible too.

You are not applying your logic equally because you are a hypocrite.

weisses wrote: »

Can you point out to the exact post cheerful claimed thermite was used to demolish skyscrapers prior to 9/11

Sure, the second you show the exact post I claimed he did.
Cause I never claimed he did either. I know he didn't as he knows there's no such example.
Yet he keeps harping on about how "there's no example of a fire taking down a building".
But hypocritical don't you think?

weisses wrote: »

He was quoting me

Mm hmm. He didn't call you a holocaust denier either. What's your point?
Cause it's a bit undermined when the only person on your side is a holocaust denier...

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Is having solid supporting evidence necessary in the ct forum ? ...

It's necessary to be taken seriously

Unless people have extreme theories - in which case they should be presenting and prefacing them as personal opinion, instead of fact

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He quoted FEMA as some sort of gotcha moment, the FEMA report says damage was due to fire. Does he accept the FEMA report that fire caused the damage or is he going to (yet again) cherry pick certain sentences to suit his narrative?

I know which option i would lay my money on

FEMA report is the gotcha moment it exposes the NIST lies that came later.

The fireS could not have caused the steel to melt in WTC7 we know that to be true in 2018 in 2002 they did know that.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No need for the dramatics. At no point did I label you a holocaust denier (so don't twist my words thanks)

Dramatics moi ?? ... I dont feel the need to bring in other CT scenarios

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Again no need for this, thanks

It probably is because most if not all these points were presented

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Personal incredulity.

Au contraire

WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that
matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed
it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that
has no structural components below it.” But in the case
of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance
that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high
school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics
professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article),
who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge
a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet
NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall,
nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have
had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario
involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the
thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining
girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder
then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other
girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left
a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to
buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated
the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the
exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns
then allegedly buckled over a two-second period
and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting
or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to
its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model
(see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead
showing large deformations to the exterior that are not
observed in the videos and showing no period of free
fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be
independently verified because NIST has refused to release
a large portion of its modelling data on the basis
that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”

Then the people below who drafted up this article suffer from that condition as well

Steven Jones a former full professor
of physics at Brigham Young University.

Robert Korol a professor emeritus of
civil engineering at McMaster University
in Ontario, Canada, as well as a fellow
of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering
and the Engineering Institute
of Canada.

Anthony Szamboti a mechanical design
engineer with over 25 years of structural
design experience in the aerospace and
communications industries

Plus a couple of thousand who did not work on this article

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which is what this thread is about. There are other threads to attack the NIST in. People are being incredible patient with posters here considering the subject matter and large amount of faulty logic, deflections, dishonesty, and general denialism

Again, you are representing an extreme view here (don't pretend otherwise) you are trying to suggest there was a controlled demolition, some people suggest there were hologram planes, some suggest energy weapons, but you refuse to support that notion with valid witnesses, suspects, motives, anything

Therefore you aren't even on the same level as people suggesting those "whacky" theories

What extreme view am I representing ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Steven Jones a former full professor
of physics at Brigham Young University.

Robert Korol a professor emeritus of
civil engineering at McMaster University
in Ontario, Canada, as well as a fellow
of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering
and the Engineering Institute
of Canada.

Anthony Szamboti a mechanical design
engineer with over 25 years of structural
design experience in the aerospace and
communications industries

http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/dr-judy-wood-biography/

Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Can you point out to the exact post cheerful claimed thermite was used to demolish skyscrapers prior to 9/11

1. Do you support CS's theory that all three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) were demolished by controlled demolition?

If yes, what is the supporting and credible evidence are you basing those views on?

If no, then your view of 911 is entirely different and in contradiction to CS's view. His view to you will be as "incorrect" as the widely established version of events

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/dr-judy-wood-biography/

Still waiting on you producing her 60 peer-reviewed papers. The people Weiss listed have credible backgrounds you can google search them and find they worked at these educational places.

Dr Judy theory is backed only by herself. She has no credibility. I would not be surprised if she is got involved in the 9/11 conspiracy movement to debunk the real evidence. She goes out of her way to claim controlled demolition could not have happened, very strange.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

What extreme view am I representing ?

That 911 was an inside job. That's a pretty extreme view.

Most people would discard that in the same way you would discard people who believe that e.g. Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing was an inside job

Doesn't matter how much you "passionately believe" your theory - you can't support it with any credible evidence

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Still waiting on you producing her 60 peer-reviewed papers. The people Weiss listed have credible backgrounds you can google search them and find they worked at these educational places.

Dr Judy theory is backed only by herself. She has no credibility. I would not be surprised if she is got involved in the 9/11 conspiracy movement to debunk the real evidence. She goes out of her way to claim controlled demolition could not have happened, very strange.

Lol. Again, you show your hypocrisy. You are inventing a whole new wing of your conspiracy just to explain how your experts are flawless and couldn't possibly wrong.

But since this is apparently a viable tactic for you: All of your experts are fake with falsified credentials.:rolleyes:

How's it going finding that proof that nanothermite can produce a river of molten metal?
Still having trouble?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I haven't lied. I have explained the real explanation several times and it has been repeated to you above.

Nope you didn't

King Mob wrote: »

But your question has been answered.

Nope it hasn't

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, cause you reject the fire explanation, but won't reject the thermite or explosive explanations when your logic is applied to them.

Yes as many more people who know more about this then you and me are also stating ?

I wont reject it because it hasn't been properly investigated ... and yes I find that theory more plausible then space lasers

Maybe look up the meaning of the word hypocrite

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, the second you show the exact post I claimed he did.

I did

King Mob wrote: »

Cause I never claimed he did either. I know he didn't as he knows there's no such example.
Yet he keeps harping on about how "there's no example of a fire taking down a building".

Uhh yes you did

Why keep asking for evidence of something the other poster never claimed existed in the first place ?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FEMA report is the gotcha moment it exposes the NIST lies that came later.

The fireS could not have caused the steel to melt in WTC7 we know that to be true in 2018 in 2002 they did know that.

This is your opinion.