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

weisses

re the molten steel

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

Are these people reliable witnesses ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

re the molten steel

But what caused this molten steel?
It can't be explosives...
It can't be thermite...

Do you believe it was a space laser?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No, just often times your posts become unreadable, like the above statement: "seek refuse"?

ohh dear I got a letter wrong ...... we can ad pedantic and obtuse to the list

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But what caused this molten steel?
It can't be explosives...
It can't be thermite...

Do you believe it was a space laser?

Are they reliable witnesses ?

1 simple question I asked :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
Come on cheerful. You're embarrassing yourself...

You are embarrassing yourself by being fooled by reflections of the two fireman or workers, the truth.

You have shown in this thread you don't know what steel is made of and you don't understand what freefall is.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Are they reliable witnesses ?

1 simple question I asked :rolleyes:

Sure. They are reliable.

So what explains the molten steel?
It can't be explosives.
It can't be thermite.

What was it?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You are embarrassing yourself by being fooled by reflections of the two fireman or workers, the truth.

You have shown in this thread you don't know what steel is made of and you don't understand what freefall is.

Nope, again lies you have failed to back up.

But never mind that. I believe you that it's a reflection....

We can get back on track.

Please post the examples of skyscrapers being demolished with thermite, then show that they had pools or rivers of molten metal that stayed molten for months.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Sure. They are reliable.

So what explains the molten steel?
It can't be explosives.
It can't be thermite.

What was it?

Why not ? You cannot rule it out

Unless you have an official investigation explore and discard that option after proper investigation .....ohh wait

Can office fires cause steel to melt ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Why not ? You cannot rule it out

But yes, I can.
Molten metal is not present at any controlled demolitions. It's not how it works.
If you have an example of molten metal being present at a controlled demolition post it.
But we both know there isn't one. If there was, you guys would be all over it and copy pasting it ad nauseam.

It can't be thermite, as thermite does not produce large amounts of molten steel.
If it can, please provide an example of it doing this.
Further, please provide an example of thermite being used to demolish a skyscraper.

You rule out the notions of space lasers and mininukes. Why?

weisses wrote: »

Can office fires cause steel to melt ?

Let's say no.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, again lies you have failed to back up.

But never mind that. I believe you that it's a reflection....

We can get back on track.

Please post the examples of skyscrapers being demolished with thermite, then show that they had pools or rivers of molten metal that stayed molten for months.

What reaction/cause can be responsible for the molten steel witnessed for a good while after 9/11 ... What is a plausible explanation that clarifies this for you ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

What reaction/cause can be responsible for the molten steel witnessed for a good while after 9/11 ... What is a plausible explanation that clarifies this for you ?

No idea.
You tell me.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

You rule out the notions of space lasers and mininukes. Why?

For the same reasons I dont believe Martians are responsible for it ..

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No idea.
You tell me.

I asked you?

Don't you know ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

For the same reasons I dont believe Martians are responsible for it ..

Which are...?

And why then do you not rule out explosives and thermite which are equally flawed and silly?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I asked you?

Don't you know ?

I answered: Nope.

What do you think caused it?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Well if NIST knowingly left out important stuff that needed to be investigated ... if they refuse to share their data that supports their hypothesis with the excuse it jeopardizes national safety (despite no new building regulations where implemented after office fires brought down a skyscraper apparently ) that discussion belongs here

Those are your personal subjective opinions on the NIST. They aren't "facts".

This thread is about alternative theories. It's common for conspiracy theorists to attack/discredit details rather that support the theories themselves with substantiated evidence

This is consistent with events like 911, 7/7, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, etc

There are plenty of alternative theories

What are they?

GreeBo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It clearly to us it's reflection.

Dohnjoe and others believe this is a person standing in the yellow liquid with no hands or legs:D

Reflected in what?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Which are...?

And why then do you not rule out explosives and thermite which are equally flawed and silly?

You find an official investigation not investigating the use of explosives after a terrorist attack equally flawed and silly as them not looking into the martian attack option ..... you are gas, I'm actually laughing ... thanks

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, again lies you have failed to back up.

But never mind that. I believe you that it's a reflection....

We can get back on track.

Please post the examples of skyscrapers being demolished with thermite, then show that they had pools or rivers of molten metal that stayed molten for months.

So we have now debunked this nonsense maybe others now will accept it too was just a camera reflection of the two firemen?

I can't because no modern steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to 2001. I told you that in this thread. There is no historical precedent for it

We have to find a building that collapsed be similar to twin towers and used the same A36 steel after 2001. And has not happened.

What you said doesn't prove a negative as 9/11 was a one-time event in history.

The problem is NIST claims no eyewitnesses saw molten steel they know of nobody who stated this anywhere, and there no photograph or video of anyone seeing molten steel

You even know that's not true, because i posted multiple videos of eyewitnesses accounts of them stating the saw molten steel!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

GreeBo Do you not see this is steel? Steel at the twin towers was painted with red primer paint.

You can even see the see the steel was ripped to shreds and folded back.

It's burning paper. The original photo was modified by truthers

https://www.metabunk.org/a-molten-metal-9-11-photo-is-just-burning-paper.t9982/

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I answered: Nope.

What do you think caused it?

well according to the NIST lead engineer there was no molten steel ... so we have to assume there wasn't any.

Jokes aside .... difference between some of us is that the molten steel makes me curious, because the severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting that occured is intriguing ... even more so because NIST couldnt be arsed to investigate this ...

And people still wander why there are conspiracy theories

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can't because no modern steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to 2001. I told you that in this thread. There is no historical precedent for it

I'm sorry I don't understand your point here.
Can you point to an example of a skyscraper being demolished using thermite or not...
I wasn't talking about fire at all.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's burning paper. The original photo was modified by truthers

https://www.metabunk.org/a-molten-metal-9-11-photo-is-just-burning-paper.t9982/

It looks like a domino's pizza box alright

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

You find an official investigation not investigating the use of explosives after a terrorist attack equally flawed and silly as them not looking into the martian attack option ..... you are gas, I'm actually laughing ... thanks

Again I suggest you use the other thread for your personal attacks on the NIST. This is a thread for alternative theories and their supporting evidence

If you are putting forward an explosives theory, then support it

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

You find an official investigation not investigating the use of explosives after a terrorist attack equally flawed and silly as them not looking into the martian attack option ..... you are gas, I'm actually laughing ... thanks

weisses wrote: »

well according to the NIST lead engineer there was no molten steel ... so we have to assume there wasn't any.

Jokes aside .... difference between some of us is that the molten steel makes me curious, because the severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting that occured is intriguing ... even more so because NIST couldnt be arsed to investigate this ...

And people still wander why there are conspiracy theories

But none of these things are answers to my questions.

What caused the molten steel?
Why dismiss space lasers but not thermite or demolitions?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

It looks like a domino's pizza box alright

Personal incredulity

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's burning paper. The original photo was modified by truthers

https://www.metabunk.org/a-molten-metal-9-11-photo-is-just-burning-paper.t9982/

Yes paper is burning. But that red primer steel ripped apart.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

And people still wander why there are conspiracy theories

Care to present any?

An "alternative"/conspiracy theorist who actually stands by a theory and tries to support it (no matter how ridiculous) is preferable than one who joins a thread and "sits on the fence" acting snide and incredulous

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes paper is burning. But that red primer steel ripped apart.

I don't get your point here?

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

well according to the NIST lead engineer there was no molten steel ... so we have to assume there wasn't any.

Jokes aside .... difference between some of us is that the molten steel makes me curious, because the severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting that occured is intriguing ... even more so because NIST couldnt be arsed to investigate this ...

And people still wander why there are conspiracy theories

Exactly. NIST actually claimed in their WTC7 study they could identify any WTC7 steel member. So they don't know how hot the WTC7 steel got to allow it to expand.

There was no forensic work done on WTC7 steel by NIST

For me it just not believe they could find any WTC7 steel piece? Did someone just ship the WTC7 steel to China right away?