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

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Lol

The red/grey chips and an abundance of Iron microspheres in the dust is evidence of very high temps.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html

UGS(United States Geological Survey) also hide or was told not to publish in their study of the dust ( Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust) they found microspheres.“a molybdenum-rich spherule in the dust.

The truthers got their hands on one slide belonging to UGS by FOIA request and from this, we know fires did not bring down the building.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum requires a 2600 celsuis temp to melt

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you think the demolitions can be seen by the public? You can only access the steel central core by way of the elevator shafts and special access rooms. The public would have not noticed anything unusual.

They had plenty of time to bring in demolitions pre 9/11. They could have done this work at night and at weekends. We know for a fact repair men were constantly upgrading the facilities inside the buildings. One project was to modernise the elevators and was carried out by a company called A.C.E. Elevator Company. The company mysteriously disappeared in 2006 claiming bankruptcy though people speculate it was a front company got rid of it to hide the trail back to the conspirators

Why aren't you answering any of the questions?

You are claiming those are "explosive" squibs (in the conveniently silent gif you used), what silent explosive is that?

Who planted them? names?

Same "explosives" at the other buildings?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The red/grey chips and an abundance of Iron microspheres in the dust is evidence of very high temps.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html

UGS(United States Geological Survey) also hide or was told not to publish in their study of the dust ( Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust) they found microspheres.“a molybdenum-rich spherule in the dust.

The truthers got their hands on one slide belonging to UGS by FOIA request and from this, we know fires did not bring down the building.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum requires a 2600 celsuis temp to melt

Any chance you could answer this please?


https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057919635/202/#post109511223

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why aren't you answering any of the questions?

You are claiming those are "explosive" squibs (in the conveniently silent gif you used), what silent explosive is that?

Who planted them? names?

Same "explosives" at the other buildings?

Sudden failure= controlled demolition
Freefall speeds = controlled demolition. Natural collapse the fall rate speeds are much slower.
Asymmetrical fire damage= the building would then fall differently on the way down to the ground. It's the reason NIST collapse images show asymmetrical damage. When in reality WTC7 fell down symmetrically.
Eyewitnesses heard explosions when towers fell.
Dust clouds resembling a volcano exploding. Find me an example of a building collapsing like this?
Steel melted by high temps. NIST denied fires were hot enough to melt steel. FEMA another body says something different the steel melted because of high 1000 degree heat and sulphur

What do you find in the dust red/grey chips, iron microspheres and many other elements melted that require extraordinary temps an office fire is incapable of achieving.

storker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Sudden failure= controlled demolition
Freefall speeds = controlled demolition. Natural collapse the fall rate speeds are much slower.
Asymmetrical fire damage= the building would then fall differently on the way down to the ground. It's the reason NIST collapse images show asymmetrical damage. When in reality WTC7 fell down symmetrically.
Eyewitnesses heard explosions when towers fell.
Dust clouds resembling a volcano exploding. Find me an example of a building collapsing like this?
Steel melted by high temps. NIST denied fires were hot enough to melt steel. FEMA another body says something different the steel melted because of high 1000 degree heat and sulphur

What do you find in the dust red/grey chips, iron microspheres and many other elements melted that require extraordinary temps an office is incapable of achieving.

Wow...someone should rename this the Groundhog Day thread. Same old claims again and again regardless of how many times they've been debunked...

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Sudden failure= controlled demolition
Freefall speeds = controlled demolition. Natural collapse the fall rate speeds are much slower.
Asymmetrical fire damage= the building would then fall differently on the way down to the ground. It's the reason NIST collapse images show asymmetrical damage. When in reality WTC7 fell down symmetrically.
Eyewitnesses heard explosions when towers fell.
Dust clouds resembling a volcano exploding. Find me an example of a building collapsing like this?
Steel melted by high temps. NIST denied fires were hot enough to melt steel. FEMA another body says something different the steel melted because of high 1000 degree heat and sulphur

What do you find in the dust red/grey chips, iron microspheres and many other elements melted that require extraordinary temps an office is incapable of achieving.

lol you didn't answer any of the questions you just avoided them

So here they are again

You are claiming those are "explosive" squibs (in the conveniently silent gif you used), what silent explosive is that?

Who planted them? names?

Same "explosives" at the other buildings?

Cheerful Spring

storker wrote: »

Wow...someone should rename this the Groundhog Day thread. Same old claims again and again regardless of how many times they've been debunked...

Your reality is very different from mine. I posted a video where NIST denied steel melted and denied fires were hot enough to melt steel.

We know this untrue FEMA reported WTC7 had melted and their best analysis it was caused by 1000 degree heat and sulphur.

storker

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your reality is very different from mine.

Indeed it is; a fact for which I'm very grateful.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your reality is very different from mine. I posted a video where NIST denied steel melted and denied fires were hot enough to melt steel.

We know this untrue FEMA reported WTC7 had melted and their best analysis it was caused by 1000 degree heat and sulphur.

Can you answer the questions i have asked you above please in relation to the claims you made?

Cheerful Spring

storker wrote: »

Indeed it is; a fact for which I'm very grateful.

Delusion you suffering from. All this information is recorded on video and we have the FEMA report to confirm NIST lies.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Can you answer the questions i have asked you above please in relation to the claims you made?

I provided you the link to read it. It not broken on my end, not sure what up with your internet?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your reality is very different from mine.

I would wager most people's reality is very different from yours

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I provided you the link to read it. It not broken on my end, not sure what up with your internet?

It's a deep web browser and it wont open on my phone. I asked you questions so why won't tou answer them as you expect others to?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I would wager most people's reality is very different from yours

Of course, my reality is different.

You can't even show me one example of another western steel framed beam high rise building collapsing due to fire. Who position is stronger? Find one building pre 9/11 and after 9/11.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Of course, my reality is different.

You can't even show me one example of another western steel framed beam high rise building collapsing due to fire. Who position is stronger? Find one building pre 9/11 and after 9/11.

You cannot show.me one example of a building that was demolished by simultaneously detonating all charges at once.

King Mob

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You cannot show.me one example of a building that was demolished by simultaneously detonating all charges at once.

Or a building demolished by thermite of any variety.
Or any building of the size of the WTC buildings being demolished.
Or any building being demolished by secret demolitions of any type.
Or any building demolished after having a plane crash in it.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It's a deep web browser and it wont open on my phone. I asked you questions so why won't tou answer them as you expect others to?

There information in the link about setting off explosives using fibre cables and by using fibre optic detonators.

Demolitions- all you do is blowing up sections of the building to allow it to come down. Their various techniques you can deploy to achieve it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There information in the link about setting off explosives using fibre cables and by using fibre optic detonators.

Demolitions- all you do is blowing up sections of the building to allow it to come down. There various techniques you can deploy to achieve it.

And i told you the link does not work for me so please post the relevant parts to prove your claim.

Also show evidence of one building where this type of demolition has taken place.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You cannot show.me one example of a building that was demolished by simultaneously detonating all charges at once.

You believe there no technology available to set of charges all at once?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And i told you the link does not work for me so please post the relevant parts to prove your claim.

Also show evidence of one building where this type of demolition has taken place.

It not my problem you can't read the link. Upgrade your internet.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Or a building demolished by thermite of any variety.
Or any building of the size of the WTC buildings being demolished.
Or any building being demolished by secret demolitions of any type.
Or any building demolished after having a plane crash in it.

We have the evidence there no need for speculation. You guys can't read, have bad internet, also deny evidence it's crazy.

King Mob

Hold up.
Is cheerful now arguing that they didn't use cables to rig up the buildings, but instead used fiber optics?

I just wanna be really clear on that before we start pointing out why this is hilarious to him.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We have the evidence there no need for speculation. You guys can't read, have bad internet, or just deny evidence it's crazy.

Oh cool. Post of examples of them please.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Oh cool. Post of examples of them please.

I already did I posted the slides of nano-thermite under a microscope.

A calorimeter can't lie the chips released high energy at low temps.

Chips saw with a microscope


.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I already did I posted the slides of nano-thermite under a microscope.

A calorimeter can't lie the chips released high energy at low temps.

No sorry. You mis-read.
Post examples of the buildings I described thus:

Or a building demolished by thermite of any variety.
Or any building of the size of the WTC buildings being demolished.
Or any building being demolished by secret demolitions of any type.
Or any building demolished after having a plane crash in it.

No one believes your claims about science as you've shown yourself completely and utterly incompetent in that topic.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You believe there no technology available to set of charges all at once?

Always these incredulous questions dodging the fact; "you think they can't blow up a building?", "you think they can't fake the numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust?"

You're the one challenging history, suggesting something completely and utterly different happened. You have to be able to provide answers to at least the basic questions and support them with normal evidence

What explosive was used in WTC 1 and 2, the name and type of explosive? and was that explosive the same as the one you claim was used in WTC 7?

Who put them there? did they cut beams in WTC 1 and 2, how?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No sorry. You mis-read.
Post examples of the buildings I described thus:


No one believes your claims about science as you've shown yourself completely and utterly incompetent in that topic.

You don't understand the science. Dr Harrit paper was co-authored by different scientists.

The debunkers claim it just ordinary paint:D A paint that releases high energy and increases fire temp to well over 1500c.

High energy explosive paint.

What the point of debating this with you when you deny evidence anyways?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't understand the science.

No, I understand science quite well.

You cannot provide the examples I asked you for.
One reason no one takes you at all serious and why no one engages with your points is because you can't answer direct questions like the above.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, I understand science quite well.

You cannot provide the examples I asked you for.
One reason no one takes you at all serious and why no one engages with your points is because you can't answer direct questions like the above.

You don't understand science. Told you already.

UGS(United States Geological Survey) also hide or was told not to publish in their study of the dust ( Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust) they found microspheres.“a molybdenum-rich spherule in the dust.

The fact they found molybdenum melted in the dust is proof office fires did not collapse the building.

This is fact In its pure form, molybdenum is a silvery-grey metal with a Mohs hardness of 5.5, and a standard atomic weight of 95.95 g/mol.[9][10] It has a melting point of 2,623 °C (4,753 °F

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You believe there no technology available to set of charges all at once?

You made the claim it's up to you to show the proof!