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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

"You get down below and you'd see molten steel—molten steel running down the channel rail, like you're in a foundry, like lava."

And now take a look at the picture I provided that exactly what they saw!

But the picture you stole, even if it showed molten metal, does not show that.
It doesn't show anything flowing like lava.

Also, your picture comes MONTHS later. Steel cannot stay molten for months without something to keep it molten.
Thermite/nanothermite/thermate cannot do this as it burns up quickly.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If an office fire lead to this it was a miracle.

Stop posting new points when you're just going to ignore every question and point made to you.
Stop posting unsourced, unlinked pictures and tables you've stolen.
Provide the link where you got it from.

King Mob wrote: »

But the picture you stole, even if it showed molten metal, does not show that.
It doesn't show anything flowing like lava.

Also, your picture comes MONTHS later. Steel cannot stay molten for months without something to keep it molten.
Thermite/nanothermite/thermate cannot do this as it burns up quickly.

Picture I stole.:D I not claiming to own that photograph, so how am I stealing it?

Google Lava has the same colour red/yellow and it flows like a liquid.

Yes it can it buried under the debris. You do realise one twin tower was over 100 floors high?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Picture I stole.:D I not claiming to own that photograph, so how am I stealing it?

Google Lava has the same colour red/yellow and it flows like a liquid.

Yes it can it buried under the debris. You do realise one twin tower was over 100 floors high?

You are not providing attribution. That's pretty much stealing.

The rest of your post is odd and disjointed.
Why would I google lava?
What was buried under debris and what relevance does it have to anything I said?

Also, your picture comes MONTHS later. Steel cannot stay molten for months without something to keep it molten.
Thermite/nanothermite/thermate cannot do this as it burns up quickly.
Thermite/nanothermite/thermate cannot produce rivers of flowing anything.

Go back and address my other points please.

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know that the metal comes from the supporting beams?
There's other metals in the buildings.
We haven't established how much was molten and flowing

Yeah right, could have been the paper clips !

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Yeah right, could have been the paper clips !

Or, I dunno, something big and aluminum that had recently crashed in the area? Or the literal tons of other things inside skyscrapers that are made out of metals other than steel.

But again, we don't know where this molten metal supposedly was. Or when. Or how much.

Oh and you seemed to have missed my point again:
Controlled demolition does not produce molten anything!

Could you at least just explain why you are ignoring this point?

King Mob wrote: »

You are not providing attribution. That's pretty much stealing.

The rest of your post is odd and disjointed.
Why would I google lava?
What was buried under debris and what relevance does it have to anything I said?

Also, your picture comes MONTHS later. Steel cannot stay molten for months without something to keep it molten.
Thermite/nanothermite/thermate cannot do this as it burns up quickly.
Thermite/nanothermite/thermate cannot produce rivers of flowing anything.

Go back and address my other points please.

This is an online forum is not an academic website. You asked for a source I provided it for you.

It's a "still photograph" You clearly see the yellow liquid is spread out and flowing.

Molten means liquified it does not mean a hard rock. If 110 floors came down the melted steel is going to be underneath the rubble. They found the yellow liquid running down the channel lanes of the steel. It was melting.

Controlled demolition does not produce molten anything!

Wrong I told you already nanothermite is an incendiary its chemistry. If steel is melting then the slag runoff is Iron.

Iron and Steel both melt at 1500c. None of the fires in any of the buildings got that hot.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is an online forum is not an academic website. You asked for a source I provided it for you.

None of your links worked.
Just because it's not an academic website doesn't mean you can just steal pictures and make **** up.
You are welcome to do so, but people will point out you are dishonest.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's a "still photograph" You clearly see the yellow liquid is spread out and flowing.

How can you see something flowing if it's a still?
How can you tell it's a liquid?
How do you explain the problems pointed out if it were molten steel like with the people hanging out near it apparently non-plussed about all the molten steel flying around.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Molten means liquified it does mean a hard rock. If 110 floors came down the melted steel is going to be underneath the rubble. When remove they found the yellow liquid running down the channel lanes of the steel. It was melting.

And again, this was months later. If there was molten steel and it fell under the debris, it wouldn't stay molten. It would cool down and harden again.

Oh, and again Thermite/nanothermite/thermate cannot produce rivers of molten anything.
Stop ignoring that point.

Go back and address my other points.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Controlled demolition does not produce molten anything!

Wrong I told you already nanothermite is an incendiary its chemistry. If steel is melting then the slag runoff is Iron.
.

Yes, you claimed that. But you are a liar and you have demostrated that you don't understand physics or engineering.
I don't believe you when you claim that it is possible. No one with a lick of sense is going to take your word for it.

You have to provide a link to something that shows that this is possible.
A peer review paper on the matter would be great.

Also, now you are saying that it's molten IRON?
The testimony you have been whining about does not say iron at all. You tried to claim that they all claimed molten STEEL
And you now claiming that they are all liars?
Are they not able to tell the difference between steel and iron by sight?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is an online forum is not an academic website. You asked for a source I provided it for you.

It's a "still photograph" You clearly see the yellow liquid is spread out and flowing.

Molten means liquified it does not mean a hard rock. If 110 floors came down the melted steel is going to be underneath the rubble. They found the yellow liquid running down the channel lanes of the steel. It was melting.

That's a blatant lie!

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That's a blatant lie!

King Mob wrote: »

Also, now you are saying that it's molten IRON?

You kidding right please tell me you are?

Posting the same grainy picture without an increase of detail or resolution does not help your case or make the dozens of points you are failing to address vanish.
It just makes it look like you're grasping and straws and you're not able to continue supporting your claims.
It looks really embarrassing on your part.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You guys are claiming everyone who was involved in the rescue effort is wrong. They clearly state they saw molten steel

Some people describe hot metal as "molten steel". It's a common enough mistake to make

You then ignore NIST claims there not one eyewitness who saw it huh There no photograph evidence for it huh

Correct. Not one eye-witness actually saw "molten steel".

There is no photographic evidence for it. You (like the rescue workers) are misinterpreting. Easy enough mistake to make

This is what firefighters and his colleagues described on this video.

"You get down below and you'd see molten steel—molten steel running down the channel rail, like you're in a foundry, like lava."

Yup, could have been molten metal. Like aluminium with impurities.

I could show many people photos of hot metal, melted aluminium and burning paper from photos on 911 and many would describe them as "molten steel"

The investigators didn't find any evidence of "molten steel"

You are simply going over photos, making mistakes and seizing on other people who've made mistakes

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You kidding right please tell me you are?

I'm not kidding. Stop deflecting and dodging and answer my points.
Quote my posts in full and address each point, thanks.

King Mob wrote: »

Or, I dunno, something big and aluminum that had recently crashed in the area?

No plane crashed into WTC7

Unlike all of ye, I couldn't care less whether there was molten metal or not

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the presence of molten metal has been used to support both arguments
(yes, I said "both arguments", not bothered which two you might think I'm referring to)

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Looks like someone using a cutting tool on steel girders. Please explain how the steel stayed molten days/weeks/months after the event.

bessboroughboy wrote: »

No plane crashed into WTC7

Unlike all of ye, I couldn't care less whether there was molten metal or not

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the presence of molten metal has been used to support both arguments
(yes, I said "both arguments", not bothered which two you might think I'm referring to)

Who has claimed this?

King Mob wrote: »

Also, now you are saying that it's molten IRON?

You are completely clueless !

I informed readers that steel is basically Iron with carbon added
and now Cheerful has elaborated further by explaining that the iron from the steel melts and flows

What do you want? little carbon people canoing along on top of the molten iron?

bessboroughboy wrote: »

No plane crashed into WTC7

And?
Do you have something to show that the reports of molten metal come only from WTC7? Or came from there at all?
Do you think that WTC7 had no other metals?

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the presence of molten metal has been used to support both arguments
(yes, I said "both arguments", not bothered which two you might think I'm referring to)

No, the presence of molten metal cannot be used to support the conspiracy theory.
Because again:
Controlled demolition does not produce rivers of molten metal.
Thermite does not produce rivers of molten metal.

Why do you guys keep ignoring this?
Seriously, please explain it to me. You don't have to address the point, just detail why you are avoiding it.
I mean you don't even quote it. It's like you're trying to pretend it doesn't exist...

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Who has claimed this?

I'm referring specifically to building seven, it wasn't hit by a plane

bessboroughboy wrote: »

You are completely clueless !

I informed readers that steel is basically Iron with carbon added
and now Cheerful has elaborated further by explaining that the iron from the steel melts and flows

What do you want? little carbon people canoing along on top of the molten iron?

Molten steel is different from molten iron. Melting steel does not make it molten iron, it makes it molten steel.

If he is now saying that it was molten iron, then all of the witnesses he was whinging about who said specifically "steel" are wrong.

Unless it's possible that witnesses with no training in metallurgy can't accurately identify molten metals with impurities by sight in a stress situation...
But we all know that's impossible...:rolleyes:

bessboroughboy wrote: »

I'm referring specifically to building seven, it wasn't hit by a plane

And no one said it was, it was damaged by the towers collapsing and hitting it.

King Mob wrote: »

Molten steel is different from molten iron. Melting steel does not make it molten iron, it makes it molten steel.

If he is now saying that it was molten iron, then all of the witnesses he was whinging about who said specifically "steel" are wrong.

Unless it's possible that witnesses with no training in metallurgy can't accurately identify molten metals with impurities by sight in a stress situation...
But we all know that's impossible...:rolleyes:

Now you're saying that the carbon in the steel melts?

bessboroughboy wrote: »

Now you're saying that the carbon in the steel melts?

Nope. Never said that. Doesn't really address my points. Try again.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as molten steel?

Cause if so, this thread has reach peak ****ing stupid...

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. Never said that. Doesn't really address my points. Try again.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as molten steel?

Molten steel is 95 per cent Iron

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Molten steel is 95 per cent Iron

Yes. And it's not iron because it's steel.
Go back and address my points please.

Also, bull****. The Carbon content of steel is between 0.002% and 2.14%.
FFS.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. And it's not iron because it's steel.
Go back and address my points please.

Steel is an Iron based alloy.