nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Dohnjoe

Straightforward enough, explain what alternatively caused the building to collapse with normal evidence, sources and information (not infowars, conspiracy sites and random blog stuff please)

Since I have a long history with this whole 911 thing, it's highly likely that individuals may attempt to divert or deflect back to attacking the NIST or details - many other threads cover that, this is a thread about alternative theories and looking at the supporting evidence behind those theories

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was the nano-thermite used in all three buildings? Or just the Twin Towers?

Lol... now you're back tracking entirely. Pathetic.

You've been arguing that nano-thermite or thermite or Thermate was in WTC7.
Why are you pretending that the question is open now?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Could you answer this please?

There the conditions you want. If there no fire the nano-thermite would not ignite.

The problem with the nano-thermite theory it was found in the WTC dust.

You got three buildings coming down that day. Was the nano-thermite used in all three buildings? Or just the Twin Towers?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you think this guy is a liar? He was head of one of the removal companies who took the steel away?

Neither thermite nor a controlled demolition can leave molten metal that is still hot hours and days later.
His testimony proves your theory can't be true.

Are you calling him a liar...?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you think this guy is a liar? He was head of one of the removal companies who took the steel away?

He says the fires melted the steel, do you agree with your own "expert witness" video?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She has no backers no scientists from the mainstream support her. You can't produce any bona fides for her background (still waiting) She doesn't know her own work that interview proved it.

Again, you are arguing against yourself. :rolleyes:
Your theory has no backers from anyone in the mainstream. Your position is in the extreme minority.
You have no expertise or qualifications. You can't do high school level physics.
Dr. Judy Wood's qualifications are real. You know they are real. If you think they aren't real, then prove it.
If you think that you don't have to prove your baseless accusations, then all of your experts can be likewise dismissed.

You don't know your own theory. You can't answer a single question about it. You admit you can't explain where the magic thermite was placed or how much of it was there. You can't even explain what flavour of thermite it is.
You ramble and rant with no actual rhyme or reason and your posts are often riddled with grammar mistakes to the point they are unreadable at times.

You dismiss Dr Judy Wood, someone far, far more qualified than you (and is able to do math) because you think she can't answer simple questions and because you don't like how she speaks.

Your own arguments prove how silly your position is.
You are being a hypocrite. Or you might actually just not realise how you are contradicting yourself.

Cheerful Spring

GreeBo wrote: »

I have highlighted the most pertinent fact from your post.

Do you think this guy is a liar? He was head of one of the removal companies who took the steel away?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, your hypocrisy shines through.

Where is your peer review paper disproving the claims of Dr Judy Wood.

Is your only argument that not as many people agree with her?
We should look at what the majority of qualified scientists think?
:rolleyes:

You don't read your own posts, do you?

She has no backers no scientists from the mainstream support her. You can't produce any bona fides for her background (still waiting) She doesn't know her own work that interview proved it.

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

One of the World top demolition experts said it was a controlled demolition.
Evidence found in the WTC dust - nano thermite.
Steel melted by extreme temperatures in WTC7.
Yellow liquid found in the rubble by firefighters and work clean up crews.
Loud audible noise heard on video a second before the Penthouse collapsed.
NIST study was unable to match the actual collapse on 9/11.
NIST lied about the connection on the girder that fell at column 79.
NIST collapse calculations are wrong.

The evidence is very strong controlled demolition took down WTC7

I have highlighted the most pertinent fact from your post.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FEMA found a eutectic liquid on the WTC7 steel sample they had. It contained melted Sulphar and Iron. When steel melts it turns to Iron.

FEMA was puzzled by the Sulphur they could figure out where it came from?

Sulphar is known to be used in thermate because it helps steel and iron melt faster and more quickly.

Could you answer this please?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Please explain how they planted a highly combustable componant into an already burning building and then got it to all ignite at the same time to perform a controlled demolition.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She is only one supporting this theory from what I see looking online. Has anyone else supported her theory with documentation? Has any other scientist stepped forward, and said she is correct?

...

No peer review paper exists disproving their claims of finding nano-thermite in WTC dust.

Again, your hypocrisy shines through.

Where is your peer review paper disproving the claims of Dr Judy Wood.

Is your only argument that not as many people agree with her?
We should look at what the majority of qualified scientists think?
:rolleyes:

You don't read your own posts, do you?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Literally a top materials scientists claimed it was energy beams dustifying the buildings

Nah, not really

Extreme heat from the types of fires that burnt in WTC 7 (and WTC 1 and 2) weakened steel to the point of failure

Semantics mainly. Place a poker in a fire, it will glow red hot. To some people that is "molten steel". Burning papers/materials were also confused for "molten steel"

Loud audible noise heard on video a second before the Penthouse collapsed.

No explosive charges were heard or recorded

It was a computer model designed to demonstrate the internal forces - not a CGI mirror image of the building falling

The NIST findings have been widely accepted, results have been further peer-reviewed and no significant challenge has been presented

You haven't provided a single shred of evidence for it

Who pressed the button to blow the building up?
What was their motive?
Witnesses?
Suspects?

Nothing so far

She is only one supporting this theory from what I see looking online. Has anyone else supported her theory with documentation? Has any other scientist stepped forward, and said she is correct?

Yes really, 10 scientists worked on it and found nano-thermite. Two independent scientists asked for samples and they too confirmed Harrit findings. Only one scientist on Skeptic side has stepped forward disputing their findings. No peer review paper exists disproving their claims of finding nano-thermite in WTC dust.

It was not weakened steel. A US government agency FEMA discovered WTC7 steel with holes in it. It was melted. Why don't you question NIST claims of not finding even one piece of WTC7 steel from a collapsed building on 9/11?

What poking a fire that red-hot got to do with a yellow liquid found in the rubble? Does your fire at home leak a yellow liquid? You do not realise there are pictures of this yellow liquid in the rubble on 9/11. There are even pictures of concrete and steel molten and fused together online it looks like a volcanic rock!

Wrong. Are you claiming the CBS video of the collapse is fake? Are you denying there is a bang at the beginning of this video?

Wrong. The computer simulation is showing progressive collapse. They also showing you the pressures exerted inside and outside the building. You have also ignored their math calculations are not accurate.

I have but like NIST you prefer to deny the evidence.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I still waiting for you to produce the 60 peer review papers she co-authored will I have to wait long for you to find them?

And I'm still waiting for you to explain what this would prove or why you are asking.
You are either insinuating that she's not actually an author of these papers, which you have no basis for. Or you are just asking it to waste time and pretend that you've somehow countered the point. Neither of these things help you.

She is an expert. You are dismissing her without actually looking at her claims and you are insulting her and calling her qualifications into question.

Yet if we did the same with your experts, you would whine. You have already whined that we don't just accept their opinions because you've declared them "the foremost" in their field.
Because, again, you are a massive hypocrite.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She is a fruitloop. There no way her theory is anyway credible.

Again, you can't answer any questions about your own theory.
You cannot explain where the thermite was, how much there was... even what kind it was...

Your theory is no more credible.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you are a hypocrite.

You are also lying again. You tried to claim that her qualifications were faked, based on nothing. You insulted her and dismissed her.
You did pretty much everything you just falsely accused Dohnjoe of. Only worse.
You didn't "just disagree with her."

I still waiting for you to produce the 60 peer review papers she co-authored will I have to wait long for you to find them?

She is a fruitloop. There no way her theory is anyway credible.

Her trainwreck interview starts at 3 minutes 30 seconds. A real scientist was asking her questions about her theory.

By the way, 9/11 online conspiracy people attacked the interviewer for asking hard questions.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She doesn't know the theory she promoting and she should because she is one promoting it on video and websites.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't confess to know where they placed the nano-thermite.

Again, you are a hypocrite.

You are also lying again. You tried to claim that her qualifications were faked, based on nothing. You insulted her and dismissed her.
You did pretty much everything you just falsely accused Dohnjoe of. Only worse.
You didn't "just disagree with her."

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Your post wasn't really an answer to mine. Just seemed to be ramblings about a topic you don't actually understand that no one was discussing.
Please try to focus on the points people are making, thanks.

Well if you don't know where they placed the nano-thermite or thermite or thermate or whichever you're claiming now... then you have no alternative theory. Your thermite/thermate explanation is exactly the same as a space laser explanation.

Your explanation doesn't really explain anything. You can't answer a single question about it.
That was reason enough for you to dismiss and insult Dr. Judy Wood.

That's rich when I ask you guys a question no response.

I have already answered these questions

Did I not post a video of Judy Wood in this thread? I probably now know more about her than you do! I 100 per cent guarantee you did not watch that video, be honest? You using her as a debating tactic.

I told you why I disagreed with her. I listened to how she responded to questions. I came away unimpressed. She doesn't know the theory she promoting and she should because she is one promoting it on video and websites.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't confess to know where they placed the nano-thermite.

WTC7 was not brought down by fire though.

Your post wasn't really an answer to mine. Just seemed to be ramblings about a topic you don't actually understand that no one was discussing.
Please try to focus on the points people are making, thanks.

Well if you don't know where they placed the nano-thermite or thermite or thermate or whichever you're claiming now... then you have no alternative theory. Your thermite/thermate explanation is exactly the same as a space laser explanation.

Your explanation doesn't really explain anything. You can't answer a single question about it.
That was reason enough for you to dismiss and insult Dr. Judy Wood.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

WTC7 was not brought down by fire though.

"Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams"

We've reached that stage

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Wait... you're now back to saying the thermite was used on the steel and not the concrete?

Which was it? Both?
You really need to get your story straight and lay out how you think they actually did it.

You're looking very foolish right now...

FEMA reported in 2002 they found a WTC7 steel flange sample and they were shocked. The Steel had holes in it. They expected to find steel twisted and bend but not steel with holes.

Professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute released a report said the steel was heated by least 1000c heat and sulphur. They recommended in 2002 further investigation to the true causes of the melted steel.

NIST then took over from them a couple of years later. NIST claims they could not find any WTC7 sample? They made up a bull**** excuse the WTC7 steel was not identifiable or something along those lines. They ignored FEMA recommendation for further study.

I don't confess to know where they placed the nano-thermite.

WTC7 was not brought down by fire though.

[Deleted User]

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Who pressed the button to blow the building up?

Well if we're to believe that Larry Silverstien was spilling the beans, it was a chief in the FDNY. According to the conspiracy explanation, that's who made the decision in the end and Larry was just suggesting they blow up his building...

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

One of the World top demolition experts said it was a controlled demolition.

Literally a top materials scientists claimed it was energy beams dustifying the buildings

Evidence found in the WTC dust - nano thermite.

Nah, not really

Steel melted by extreme temperatures in WTC7.

Extreme heat from the types of fires that burnt in WTC 7 (and WTC 1 and 2) weakened steel to the point of failure

Yellow liquid found in the rubble by firefighters and work clean up crews.

Semantics mainly. Place a poker in a fire, it will glow red hot. To some people that is "molten steel". Burning papers/materials were also confused for "molten steel"

[quote
Loud audible noise heard on video a second before the Penthouse collapsed.[/quote]

No explosive charges were heard or recorded

NIST study was unable to match the actual collapse on 9/11.

It was a computer model designed to demonstrate the internal forces - not a CGI mirror image of the building falling

NIST lied about the connection on the girder that fell at column 79.
NIST collapse calculations are wrong.

The NIST findings have been widely accepted, results have been further peer-reviewed and no significant challenge has been presented

The evidence is very strong controlled demolition took down WTC7

You haven't provided a single shred of evidence for it

Who pressed the button to blow the building up?
What was their motive?
Witnesses?
Suspects?

Nothing so far

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You know steel doesn't melt till it reaches 1500 Celsius right?

King Mob wrote: »

Wait... you're now back to saying the thermite was used on the steel and not the concrete?

Which was it? Both?
You really need to get your story straight and lay out how you think they actually did it.

You're looking very foolish right now...

KingMob beat me to it.
There is no consistency at all to the demented ramblings.
I am starting to think that rebuttal only heightens C.S's belief that he is the harbinger of truth

C.S, for the good of the thread present actual evidence?Q
Not minority report refutations of the agreed consensus that have been torn apart on each review.
I'm all for following a lead, but your total and utter devotion to truther B.S is blinding you to reason...
Its becoming akin to poking fun at a creationist, you keep saying it happened your way....
You present no actual evidence, the muck you do try to pass off as evidence is debunked and already refuted.

You are a messiah in search of a cause, please.....
Never
Ever
Go to Israel!

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FEMA found a eutectic liquid on the WTC7 steel sample they had. It contained melted Sulphar and Iron. When steel melts it turns to Iron.

FEMA was puzzled by the Sulphur they could figure out where it came from?

Sulphar is known to be used in thermate because it helps steel and iron melt faster and more quickly.

Well first, bull****. Proof please.

Second, you said that they found pools of Yellowish liquid. Not liquid on some sample.

Third, thermite does not result in any such liquid being produced. And again, it does not result in pools of molten liquid.

Fourth, why would FEMA announce such a thing if it's evidence for the conspiracy?

And now you're arging it was Thermate, not thermite? Again, your story has changed....

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

These are all self contradicting.

Thermite doesn't result in pools of molten steel.
Controlled demolition of buildings doesn't use thermite and doesn't result in melted steel.
Neither thermite nor controlled demolition results in "Yellow Liquid".
Thermite does not produce explosions.

So your own evidence excludes the possibility that it was thermite.

FEMA found a eutectic liquid on the WTC7 steel sample they had. It contained melted Sulphar and Iron. When steel melts it turns to Iron.

FEMA was puzzled by the Sulphur they could figure out where it came from?

Sulphar is known to be used in thermate because it helps steel and iron melt faster and more quickly.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You know steel doesn't melt till it reaches 1500 Celsius right?

Wait... you're now back to saying the thermite was used on the steel and not the concrete?

Which was it? Both?
You really need to get your story straight and lay out how you think they actually did it.

You're looking very foolish right now...

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The core columns are strategically placed in the middle of the building they extend from bottom to the top. There also perimeter columns.

You can't see them through the windows.

But again, you argue that we should have seen the fires.
We can see into the building. So by your argument, we should see the flares of intense light.

We should have also gotten reports of it from people close to the buildings. Do you have such reports.

Also, if this is the case, and the thermite was burning to produce flares of light, it's not exploding.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You have yet to present any evidence at all???

You know steel doesn't melt till it reaches 1500 Celsius right?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Evidence found in the WTC dust - nano thermite.
Steel melted by extreme temperatures in WTC7.
Yellow liquid found in the rubble by firefighters and work clean up crews.
Loud audible noise heard on video a second before the Penthouse collapsed.

These are all self contradicting.

Thermite doesn't result in pools of molten steel.
Controlled demolition of buildings doesn't use thermite and doesn't result in melted steel.
Neither thermite nor controlled demolition results in "Yellow Liquid".
Thermite does not produce explosions.

So your own evidence excludes the possibility that it was thermite.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So they could see inside the building. So then they could see the very very bright light caused by burning thermite.

Your two comments contradict each other.

Do you have any pictures of the thermite burning or of the charges before hand?
If not, then by your argument earlier, you must conclude that there was no thermite.

The core columns are strategically placed in the middle of the building they extend from bottom to the top. There also perimeter columns.

You can't see them through the windows.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The evidence is very strong controlled demolition took down WTC7

Yet you can't actually produce any of this evidence...
And everything you do produce either doesn't make sense in a conspiracy, or doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny...

And you continually have to resort to lies, hypocrisy and dishonest tactics you know are dishonest.

That's not strong at all.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

One of the World top demolition experts said it was a controlled demolition.
Evidence found in the WTC dust - nano thermite.
Steel melted by extreme temperatures in WTC7.
Yellow liquid found in the rubble by firefighters and work clean up crews.
Loud audible noise heard on video a second before the Penthouse collapsed.
NIST study was unable to match the actual collapse on 9/11.
NIST lied about the connection on the girder that fell at column 79.
NIST collapse calculations are wrong.

The evidence is very strong controlled demolition took down WTC7

You have yet to present any evidence at all???