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

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

Poor old Larry Silverstein. A philanthropist, a charitable guy and a family man who lost a lot of friends and colleagues in the 9/11 attacks and he has a few thousands lunatics running about online accusing him of being a mass murderer. Based on no evidence whatsoever.

Hes being accused of killing his friends by people like Cheerful Spring.

Based on the idea that he confessed on camera in a government funded documentary for no reason.

mikekerry

"Poor old Larry Silverstein" ha, ha.
that's one thing larry certainly isn't with a net worth of around 3 billion!

Dohnjoe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yet he has used the term "evaporated steel/metal" several times.

I don't think he understands the word.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/evaporate

He's borrowing (and get confused with) truther arguments on slag at the scene (confused with "molten steel")
https://www.metabunk.org/fema-appendix-c-unusually-corroded-steel.t3803/

Complexity is something truthers abuse as a smokescreen to hide behind, and project their pseudo-science. I mentioned that this would happen in the opening post of this thread, anything to deflect away from giving direct evidence of this big inside job they keep going on about

The Nal

mikekerry wrote: »

"Poor old Larry Silverstein" ha, ha.
that's one thing larry certainly isn't with a net worth of around 3 billion!

Doesn't mean hes ok with people accusing him of killing 3000 people, destroying a big part of the city he lives in, committing treason and murdering a load of his friends and colleagues. Quite the accusation!

mikekerry

nal, it was a joke. take it easy.

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Just read the above posts again, you insist you are right always and yet you change you stance completely. The paragraph you just posted on sulphur is what I have been saying, it proves you incorrect, is that why you posted it.

Elemental sulphur was not found:
Appendix C of the well-known FEMA Report on the collapse of buildings at the WTC on September 11th,2001, focuses on two samples of badly corroded structural steel removed from the WTC debris field, /See Ref 1/. The authors of Appendix C, namely J. Barnett, R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson Jr., describe metallographic sectioning and EDS (X-ray fluorescence) analyses of two samples and show that iron sulfide, FeS, surface deposits are associated with the severe corrosion of the steel. Barnett et al. note that the sulfur could also have come from the contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics, or ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate.

I can't be bothered as you have such a poor understanding of science/logic, going to bed.

Untrue. Barnett speculating is it not obvious?

Rubber, plastics and ocean salts is the source for the sulphur they would have found other elements mixed in the liquid?

FEMA claimed the eutectic liquid was made of just sulphur and Iron. So again it obvious Iron content (steel melting) and sulphur was free and was not mixed with any other elements.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful has previously insisted that there was no such thing as molten steel in an attempt to sound educated.

Rubbish. I said when the steel melted is now a liquid of molten Iron. You and others kept denying by the way.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's borrowing (and get confused with) truther arguments on slag at the scene (confused with "molten steel")
https://www.metabunk.org/fema-appendix-c-unusually-corroded-steel.t3803/

Complexity is something truthers abuse as a smokescreen to hide behind, and project their pseudo-science. I mentioned that this would happen in the opening post of this thread, anything to deflect away from giving direct evidence of this big inside job they keep going on about

Firefighters are not describing slag. They saw rivers of molten steel flowing like a foundry in the rubble.

SlowBlowin

OK, if I give you some sulphur and a piece of iron, you can make a liquid from that.

WOW.

This is a totally new compound to science. Up until now all the chemists in the world can only make solid Iron Sulphide from that. Its all about how the 2 elements bond.

But hey, what does science know.

Cheerful Spring

You ignore this evidence also from the workers on site.

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

OK, if I give you some sulphur and a piece of iron, you can make a liquid from that.

WOW.

This is a totally new compound to science. Up until now all the chemists in the world can only make solid Iron Sulphide from that. Its all about how the 2 elements bond.

But hey, what does science know.

NIST claims nobody saw molten steel and nobody on any video said so and yet I just provided two pieces of video evidence. Please explain it?

Cheerful Spring

This NIST denying molten steel was found on video.

1 minute 6 seconds..

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Firefighters are not describing slag. They saw rivers of molten steel flowing like a foundry in the rubble.

[

They didn't. Barnett and others saw what they thought was molten steel. This concept of people, even experts, being initially mistaken has been explained to you many times that you have no excuse "not to understand it"

Yet you repeatedly "act dumb" to deny basic stuff. It's all about creating a circular argument so you can escape from actually supporting your bananas conspiracy theory - which is what this thread is all about

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They didn't. Barnett and others saw what they thought was molten steel. This concept of people, even experts, being initially mistaken has been explained to you many times that you have no excuse "not to understand it"

Yet you repeatedly "act dumb" to deny basic stuff. It's all about creating a circular argument so you can escape from actually supporting your bananas conspiracy theory - which is what this thread is all about

You are incredibly dishonest. NIST claimed on a video nobody reported finding molten steel in the rubble. That blatantly false and untrue. I posted two videos to prove it. There many more.

How would they know it was not Molten steel when they just said nobody reported it or even saw it? Think before you post.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST claims nobody saw molten steel and nobody on any video said so and yet I just provided two pieces of video evidence. Please explain it?

Your changing it again.

I am talking about your chemistry claims, as stated above.

How do you make this unknown to science liquid mix of iron and sulphur, or are you conceding that this is wrong ?

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Your changing it again.

I am talking about your chemistry claims, as stated above.

How do you make this unknown to science liquid mix of iron and sulphur, or are you conceding that this is wrong ?

Plastics are made of different elements. The Sulphur content is not just going to wander off on its own and separate when the plastic melts?

Cheerful Spring

mikekerry wrote: »

"Poor old Larry Silverstein" ha, ha.
that's one thing larry certainly isn't with a net worth of around 3 billion!

Yep he sued the insurance companies for 7 billion after the 9/11 attacks. His greedy old man. He only leased the twin towers and WTC7 for 3 billion two months before the attacks.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You are incredibly dishonest. NIST claimed on a video nobody reported finding molten steel in the rubble. That blatantly false and untrue. I posted two videos to prove it. There many more.

How would they know it was not Molten steel when they just said nobody reported it or even saw it? Think before you post.

Yah, as I explained earlier you have started "mirroring" people's valid criticism of you, like a child copying an adult who has scolded them

As for your "molten steel" spiel, there was none. You are simply being pedantic over it. Whether it's Silverstein's "pull it" comment or the NIST using the word "reported", you've decided the definitions based on your dogmatic belief in the conspiracy, not anything objective

You obsess over finding a "perceived" mistake, any mistake so you can claim all the findings are wrong. Coincidentally that is what Hulsey is doing, he is going to try to attack specific unrelated probabilities in the NIST report. The equivalent of trying to find an error in a World War 2 history book and therefore deciding the whole war didn't happen (but conveniently not having to explain what happened instead)

Sound familiar? it's your entire modus operandi in relation to everything. Similar to denialist thinking everywhere

All of these amateur dramatics are to distract everyone from asking you about your conspiracy which you change constantly and fail to support

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Plastics are made of different elements. The Sulphur content is not just going to wander off on its own and separate when the plastic melts?

You are changing it again.

Can you make a liquid by mixing iron and sulphur ?

NO. You make iron sulphide, which is a solid.

I said right at the start that the sulphur was most likely in the form of sulphur dioxide. But you can make elemental sulphur by heating gypsum in a reducing environment.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yep he sued the insurance companies for 7 billion after the 9/11 attacks. His greedy old man. He only leased the twin towers and WTC7 for 3 billion two months before the attacks.

Forget about that, he murdered a load of his friends and colleagues! Widowed countless friends and made orphans of their children.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yah, as I explained earlier you have started "mirroring" people's valid criticism of you, like a child copying an adult who has scolded them

As for your "molten steel" spiel, there was none. You are simply being pedantic over it. Whether it's Silverstein's "pull it" comment or the NIST using the word "reported", you've decided the definitions based on your dogmatic belief in the conspiracy, not anything objective

You obsess over finding a "perceived" mistake, any mistake so you can claim all the findings are wrong. Coincidentally that is what Hulsey is doing, he is going to try to attack specific unrelated probabilities in the NIST report. The equivalent of trying to find an error in a World War 2 history book and therefore deciding the whole war didn't happen (but conveniently not having to explain what happened instead)

Sound familiar? it's your entire modus operandi in relation to everything. Similar to denialist thinking everywhere

All of these amateur dramatics are to distract everyone from asking you about your conspiracy which you change constantly and fail to support

Unlike you, I don't ignore real evidence.

You keep saying it all pseudoscience and just conspiracy stuff. Well the truthers are right thought there no history or record of any steel beam framed high rise building falling due to just fire prior to 9/11. It is really a conspiracy?

History and the records do prove the truthers are right in their analysis.

A mistake? The firefighters and 9/11 clean up crews were finding molten steel in the rubble. We even have photographs of the lava-like molten steel near steel columns. This is tangible evidence.

Truthers have history on their side and what do we see on 9/11. Three steel framed high rise buildings come downing at freefall speeds on the same day, never happened in history before. You clearly see on video WTC7 fell down by controlled demolition. NIST invented impossible new fire scenario for WTC7. They had to manipulate the data, facts, the construction to get their model of progressive collapse to work.

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You are changing it again.

Can you make a liquid by mixing iron and sulphur ?

NO. You make iron sulphide, which is a solid.

I said right at the start that the sulphur was most likely in the form of sulphur dioxide. But you can make elemental sulphur by heating gypsum in a reducing environment.

According to FEMA, you can.

They found a liquid mixture of Iron and Sulphur.

Thats unlikely as sulphur dioxide is a gas, not a solid or a liquid.

The gypsum wallboard has already been debunked by scientific experimentation.

FEMA is claiming the sulphar+ 1000c heat melted the steel. In actual fact there no evidence at all the sulphur + heat was the cause. It only a theory never tested by FEMA or NIST.

An independent researcher an engineer did do the experiment to see if the sulphur content from the gypsum wallboard + heat could melt the steel. He found it did nothing to the steel and he even used diesel fuel and let it burn for 24 hours.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Forget about that, he murdered a load of his friends and colleagues! Widowed countless friends and made orphans of their children.

Why should we forget it? It shows he is a man who tried to sponge off the insurance companies and was looking for more money than he was entitled to.

You don't know him personally. You just assuming he some kind gentle old man who does nobody any harm.

Let's not forget he and his daughter and son just decided to take the day off on 9/11. And we know they were not taking the day off to attend a wedding a funeral, a family event and they were not sick.

Cheerful Spring

NIST believe the north side collapse resembled this is laughable.

NIST image of the collapse looking from the north.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

According to FEMA, you can.

They found a liquid mixture of Iron and Sulphur.

Thats unlikely as sulphur dioxide is a gas, not a solid or a liquid.

The gypsum wallboard has already been debunked by scientific experimentation.

FEMA is claiming the sulphar+ 1000c heat melted the steel. In actual fact there no evidence at all the sulphur + heat was the cause. It only a theory never tested by FEMA or NIST.

An independent researcher an engineer did do the experiment to see if the sulphur content from the gypsum wallboard + heat could melt the steel. He found it did nothing to the steel and he even used diesel fuel and let it burn for 24 hours.

OK, as you are unable to hold a rational argument/debate I went and had a look at the report myself.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

You have got totally the wrong end of the stick and come up with your own interpretation.

They only found Iron Sulphide, as I have said all along and you argued against, so all this time you have been arguing AGAINST the FEMA report, ironic hey..

They postulate about the "sulphur rich liquid", this term used by scientists means sulphur was present, NOT elemental sulphur. This sulphur could be from any sulphur compound. Note they also say Oxygen rich, but thats a gas !!!! Sulphur dioxide is a gas too, but because of this you ruled it out.

You have wasted my time on an argument that never existed, I agree with the report from a chemistry and science perspective (not its extrapolations), your interpretation of it is fantasy/lunacy.

please if you are going to argue, quote your sources reliably.

The Nal

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You have wasted my time on an argument that never existed

Thats what he does. On the various conspiracy threads here thats happened quite literally hundreds of times.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

please if you are going to argue, quote your sources reliably.

Not a chance of that happening I'm afraid. He just quickly googles things, skim reads it and if it vaguely looks like it might support some theory it gets posted. Then when hes asked anything tricky or his point is debunked (which it always is such as the case here) he'll just bomb the thread with another indecipherable word salad.

If you look up "bog standard conspiracy theorist" in the dictionary it has a picture of Cheerful Spring beside it.

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

OK, as you are unable to hold a rational argument/debate I went and had a look at the report myself.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

You have got totally the wrong end of the stick and come up with your own interpretation.

They only found Iron Sulphide, as I have said all along and you argued against, so all this time you have been arguing AGAINST the FEMA report, ironic hey..

They postulate about the "sulphur rich liquid", this term used by scientists means sulphur was present, NOT elemental sulphur. This sulphur could be from any sulphur compound. Note they also say Oxygen rich, but thats a gas !!!! Sulphur dioxide is a gas too, but because of this you ruled it out.

You have wasted my time on an argument that never existed, I agree with the report from a chemistry and science perspective (not its extrapolations), your interpretation of it is fantasy/lunacy.

please if you are going to argue, quote your sources reliably.

Sorry, i read it properly.

What they said




You got confused by this part. The liquid cooled to form Iron sulfide.




What the source for the Iron and Elemental sulphur?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

If you look up "bog standard conspiracy theorist" in the dictionary it has a picture of Cheerful Spring beside it.

Rest of it rubbish. This was funny made me laugh:D

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin you claim the source for sulphur has been clearly identified. FEMA says something entirely different.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

SlowBlowin you claim the source for sulphur has been clearly identified. FEMA says something entirely different.

Listen and digest.

1. Yes I read those bits in detail, and I understood them, that's why I quoted them.

2. Whats confusing ? I said they would have found Iron sulphide, and that's what they found. They were not there when it was or was not a liquid. You got confused by stating they found a liquid, which they did not, read your posts, you are 100% wrong. If you insist you are right and that they did find liquid, whats your source ? Its not FEMA. Just admit you got it wrong.

3. Wrong, where did I say "you claim the source for sulphur has been clearly identified" ? I don't. I merely point out every urban fire is rich in sulphur from gypsum and plastic, that it. Just simple fact you can argue this, or the earth is flat, whichever you wish, but both are wrong.