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…5657596162…102

Comments

  • Options
    #1742
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Can carbon based fires cause molten steel/pools of molten steel ... ?
    Nope.

    But that's not really here nor there.
    Your experts claim these pools exist.
    Controlled demolitions do not result in molten metal of any kind never mind large pools.

    So how do you resolve this issue with your theory?


  • Options
    #1743
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope.

    One step at the time

    How do you explain these being present in the rubble of the towers, what could have caused this ?

    these are not "my" experts

    They are reliable eye witnesses


  • Options
    #1744
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    One step at the time

    How do you explain these being present in the rubble of the towers, what could have caused this ?

    these are not "my" experts

    They are reliable eye witnesses

    No weisses, this thread is about alternative theories. I'm done allowing you to deflect.

    Let's just accept for the sake of argument that there was molten steel there and there's no official explanation for it and move on.

    Controlled demolitions do not result in molten metal.
    So where does it come from?


  • Options
    #1745
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Controlled demolitions do not result in molten metal.
    Where does it come from?

    So when I ask you I'm deflecting

    But its alright when you ask me ?

    What could have caused the molten pools of metal underneath all 3 wtc buildings after they collapsed ?

    These molten pools could have been part of an alternative theory

    Unless you have a valid scientific explanation for their presence ?


  • Options
    #1746
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    What could have caused the molten pools of metal underneath all 3 wtc buildings after they collapsed ?

    These molten pools could have been part of an alternative theory

    Unless you have a valid scientific explanation for their presence ?
    Been over that many many many times. You don't listen. I'm not going to convince you of it. I give up on that.
    So again, let's accept for the sake of argument that there was molten steel there and there's no official explanation for it and move on.
    (Before you try to misrepresent me: I don't now accept the conspiracy version of event or doubt the real explanation of events. I just accept that I cannot provide anything that would convince you.)

    How is it explained in your version of events?
    Where do you think they come from?
    Where do your experts, who are so versed in demolitions etc say it comes from?
    What's your valid scientific explanation for the presence of molten pools of metal?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1747
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Been over that many many many times. You don't listen. I'm not going to convince you of it. I give up on that.
    So again, let's accept for the sake of argument that there was molten steel there and there's no official explanation for it and move on.
    (Before you try to misrepresent me: I don't now accept the conspiracy version of event or doubt the real explanation of events. I just accept that I cannot provide anything that would convince you.)

    How is it explained in your version of events?
    Where do you think they come from?
    Where do your experts, who are so versed in demolitions etc say it comes from?
    What's your valid scientific explanation for the presence of molten pools of metal?

    Extreme heat caused the Molten steel/iron. Why annoys 9/11 researchers is NIST denied that anyone saw it. We know that a lie as there video evidence of eyewitnesses saying they saw it. It irrelevant if turned out to be not molten steel and iron, it's NIST denial that people question and wonder why they are not truthful about it?

    FEMA in 2002 confirmed they found a liquid slag made of primarily Iron and Sulphur. The iron had melted so it obvious the 9/11 truthers are correct and eyewitnesses are correct there was molten steel in the rubble.


  • Options
    #1748
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Been over that many many many times. You don't listen. I'm not going to convince you of it. I give up on that.
    So again, let's accept for the sake of argument that there was molten steel there and there's no official explanation for it and move on.
    (Before you try to misrepresent me: I don't now accept the conspiracy version of event or doubt the real explanation of events. I just accept that I cannot provide anything that would convince you.)

    Why move on ?

    You cannot provide anything that explains it ... Leave me out of it.

    You haven't explained it ..you cannot explain it ..you would have rubbed it all over this forum if you could explain it
    King Mob wrote: »
    How is it explained in your version of events?
    Where do you think they come from?
    Where do your experts, who are so versed in demolitions etc say it comes from?
    What's your valid scientific explanation for the presence of molten pools of metal?

    That is all in the explosive demolition hypothesis I posted ? didn't you look at it


  • Options
    #1749
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »

    Why move on ?

    You cannot provide anything that explains it ... Leave me out of it.

    You haven't explained it ..you cannot explain it ..you would have rubbed it all over this forum if you could explain it


    That is all in the explosive demolition hypothesis I posted ? didn't you look at it
    Yup, I can't explain it to you.

    So let's talk about your theory.

    Demolitions don't result in molten metal.
    So why do you think there was molten metal at the site?
    The posters and other things you have posted do not explain this.


  • Options
    #1750
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yup, I can't explain it to you.

    To me ? Or dont you have a clou either ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Demolitions don't result in molten metal.
    So why do you think there was molten metal at the site?
    The posters and other things you have posted do not explain this.

    I posted the relevant info in regards to this

    If you need to be spoon fed ..find someone else

    Best thing for you would be to explain the molten metal in all three collapse sites... Your theory of carbon fueled fires don't result in molten pools of metal.. fact


    And why do you agree with a group that don't believe NIST's single column failure ? .....


  • Options
    #1751
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    To me ? Or dont you have a clou either ?
    To you.

    weisses wrote: »
    I posted the relevant info in regards to this
    ..
    No you have not.
    Not once.
    Not ever.

    Molten metal is not a feature of controlled demolition. That is a fact.
    So how does your theory explain it?

    Even if the real explanation can't account for it, that doesn't matter much for your explanation. Your explanation must account for it. But it doesn't.

    Yet you still accept the theory.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1752
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    To you.



    No you have not.
    Not once.
    Not ever.

    Just checked .. and yes ... they include the reason of possible molten metal in their theory
    King Mob wrote: »
    Molten metal is not a feature of controlled demolition. That is a fact.
    So how does your theory explain it?

    Molten metal is not a feature of carbon fires ... how does the official narrative explain it ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Even if the real explanation can't account for it, that doesn't matter much for your explanation. Your explanation must account for it. But it doesn't.

    Yet you still accept the theory.

    Of course the official report must account for it ... molten metal was there (for weeks) ... it shouldn't be there ... according to the official narrative it couldn't be there

    And yet you still accept the theory

    You are very gullible Mob ...(as long as it suits whatever ludicrous theory you support )


  • Options
    #1753
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Just checked .. and yes ... they include the reason of possible molten metal in their theory
    No it doesn't. This is an outright lie.


  • Options
    #1754
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    No it doesn't. This is an outright lie.

    Checked again .... Yup its there

    And you are familiar with the Ae911 stance ..so don't be so obtuse

    I really like to know what was written in the official report about these molten pools of metal who were observed for weeks.


  • Options
    #1755
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Checked again .... Yup its there
    .
    Mm hmm. Still a lie.
    You can't explain it.

    Enjoy discussing it with Cheerful.
    You do wonders for the credibility of conspiracy theorists.


  • Options
    #1756
    Peatys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Peatys


    The twin towers were brought down just so they could bring down building 7? What the fúck was in there?


  • Options
    #1757
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Mm hmm. Still a lie.
    You can't explain it.

    Enjoy discussing it with Cheerful.
    You do wonders for the credibility of conspiracy theorists.


    Ahh running away when your asked to explain your point of view

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV9AR2UuBgc


    You sound like that NIST lead engineer ....


    Some first class investigating


  • Options
    #1758
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Peatys wrote: »
    The twin towers were brought down just so they could bring down building 7? What the fúck was in there?
    According to our resident conspiracy theorists:
    Papers they wanted to destroy.


  • Options
    #1759
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    So I came up with a viable collapse theory ...and all of a sudden all the skeptics stop posting when challenged

    Terrific


  • Options
    #1760
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    According to our resident conspiracy theorists:
    Papers they wanted to destroy.

    those burning papers brought down wtc7 ...........apparently


  • Options
    #1761
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,704 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    weisses wrote: »
    So I came up with a viable collapse theory ...and all of a sudden all the skeptics stop posting when challenged

    Terrific

    What is it with people on here? People who think 9/11 was an inside job etc are the skeptics. Not the other way around.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1762
    Peatys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Peatys


    King Mob wrote: »
    According to our resident conspiracy theorists:
    Papers they wanted to destroy.

    Removal truck lot less hassle in the long run


  • Options
    #1763
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,704 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Peatys wrote: »
    Removal truck lot less hassle in the long run

    They brought the entire building down to destroy some papers that weren't even guaranteed to be destroyed.


  • Options
    #1764
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    The Nal wrote: »
    What is it with people on here? People who think 9/11 was an inside job etc are the skeptics. Not the other way around.

    Its confusing ...skeptics... truthers...debunkers..... ;)


  • Options
    #1765
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The Nal wrote: »
    What is it with people on here? People who think 9/11 was an inside job etc are the skeptics. Not the other way around.
    He means skeptics as in people who are skeptical of things like 9/11 conspiracy thoeries, paranormal events and bigfoot.

    Folks like him and Cheerful are best described as deniers.


  • Options
    #1766
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Peatys wrote: »
    Removal truck lot less hassle in the long run

    Nope. According to conspiracy theorists, it's far easier to rig a whole building with experimental explosives in secret as well as 2 other buildings. Then also fake some hijackings and also involve every other agency...

    They couldn't just take the papers for... Reasons...


  • Options
    #1767
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    They couldn't just take the papers for... Reasons...

    of course they couldn't take the papers ... according to the official story the building wouldn't have collapsed then


  • Options
    #1768
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope. According to conspiracy theorists, it's far easier to rig a whole building with experimental explosives in secret as well as 2 other buildings. Then also fake some hijackings and also involve every other agency...

    They couldn't just take the papers for... Reasons...

    Why is that so hard when 9/11 had not happened. We know repair work was ongoing for years at the Twin Towers. All you need is time and access and they had that in spades.

    It very suspicious when Donald Rumsfield claims to not know WTC7 collapsed on 9/11. We have videotape of this. He was on the board for Solomon brothers before he got appointed as defence secretary. This financial firm occupied most of the floor space in this building. It well known he avoided his duty on 9/11 and disappeared for 40 minutes after the second plane hit.

    It obvious if you research it the White House broke the law and went to great lengths to stop the investigation that would link the 9/11 hijackers to the Saudi government. You only do this if you trying to stop the truth from coming out. That why there so many holes in the official story. We have not got full picture who backed them and were the pilots of the planes really bad pilots as reported by the mainstream press?


  • Options
    #1769
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    He means skeptics as in people who are skeptical of things like 9/11 conspiracy thoeries, paranormal events and bigfoot.

    Folks like him and Cheerful are best described as deniers.

    We are skeptics of the official story provided by the US government. Deniers is a strong word. Obviously, everything that happened on 9/11 is not fake.


  • Options
    #1770
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    They brought the entire building down to destroy some papers that weren't even guaranteed to be destroyed.

    Yep SEC had a business office in WTC7. They investigate corruption and financial crimes. Would they risk destroying documents and getting caught? You entering business offices then and destroying papers stored in lockers and on computers! 9/11 just made it easier to destroy the damaging evidence, just bring the entire building down the job done.

    They would not have controlled demolition even they knew the information would survive somewhere else. Would anyone investigate this crime after 9/11? The official line is the building collapsed due to fire on some floors, after nobody was going to look into this and investigate.

    NIST WTC7 investigation is problematic. Dohnjoe can claim their theory is supported by other bodies, who cares. They are supporting this fraud too.

    The truther movement has the Frankel construction drawings that show what elements were on the girder at column 79 (WTC7) NIST claimed the girder at column 79 had no shear studs or web plate or fasteners. These connections were not even modelled by NIST. So we know this omission changes everything. NIST is involved in a deception. If this building did not collapse on 9/11 the NIST study would be laughed at and thrown out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1771
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    We are skeptics of the official story provided by the US government. Deniers is a strong word. Obviously, everything that happened on 9/11 is not fake.
    Nope, deniers is accurate.
    Especially as you are a holocaust denier as well.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement