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

Kingmob post 621 read it.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057919635&page=42

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob post 621 read it.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057919635&page=42

Why? None of that addressed my points.
It's all also speculation on your part and completely self contradictory and utter unscientific. It's a bit silly too.

But that aside, I'm still getting you to prove that thermite or nanothermite can produce a river of molten steel. We'll focus on this.

How much thermite/nanothermite produces a "river"?
How much molten metal/steel does a kilogram of thermite/nanothermite result in?
Please provide a reference for your answer as I am not going to believe your opinion on this.

King Mob wrote: »

Why? None of that addressed my points.
It's all also speculation on your part and completely self contradictory and utter unscientific. It's a bit silly too.

But that aside, I'm still getting you to prove that thermite or nanothermite can produce a river of molten steel. We'll focus on this.

How much thermite/nanothermite produces a "river"?
How much molten metal/steel does a kilogram of thermite/nanothermite result in?

You asked how molten steel would stay liquified for weeks and weeks. I explained how in that post.

It, not speculation as we have photographic evidence of yellow/red liquid in the 9/11 rubble.

We both agree thermate can melt steel, yes or no? Nano-therimate obviously will do a better job than thermate, can we agree on that?

How hot would the fires be if nano-thermite ignited?

When the steel melted the Iron liquid is going to mix with other materials and started flowing everywhere. Twin Towers had thousands and thousands of tons of steel.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

Of course there will be ripped metal....it fell from how many floors up?
Thats a lot of force.

None of which has anything to do with melting or thermite or explosions.

I can show you a car ripped apart after a crash, still no thermite.

Just in case you missed it the first couple of times I 'll repeat it here.

You say there are 2 men in that photo, the apparent third man is a reflection.
Can you tell me what material he is reflected in and how is it possible that a reflection passes through part of the building and the smoke that shrouds the 'subject'?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You asked how molten steel would stay liquified for weeks and weeks. I explained how in that post.

It, not speculation as we have photographic evidence of yellow/red liquid in the 9/11 rubble.

We both agree thermate can melt steel, yes or no? Nano-therimate obviously will do a better job than thermate, can we agree on that?

How hot would the fires be if nano-thermite ignited?

When the steel melted the Iron liquid is going to mix with other materials and started flowing everywhere. Twin Towers had thousands and thousands of tons of steel.

Thermite (/ˈθɜːrmaɪt/)[1] is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder, which serves as fuel, and metal oxide. When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic reduction-oxidation (redox) reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create brief bursts of heat and high temperature in a small area. Its form of action is similar to that of other fuel-oxidizer mixtures, such as black powder.

"brief bursts of heat and high temperatures in small area"
No mention anywhere of thermite maintaining temperatures hot enough and over a wide enough area for pools of molten steel.
So....This material that is used to melt steel (either for separation or joining use-cases) is specifically used because it of its rapid heating and subsequent cooling, yet you believe it somehow smoldered and left pools of molten steel for months afterwards.

Can you share a link of any study or experiment that shows thermite acting in this manner? It seems like it would be a pretty useless material to use for joining or separating steel if the joint stayed at 1500C for 3 months afterwards...in fact how would you ever stop such a reaction?

If I used thermite to join two railway tracks as soon as the reaction started it would, by your logic, continue to burn until all the railway was just a pool of 1500C molten steel...how is this helpful to anyone?

GreeBo wrote: »

Of course there will be ripped metal....it fell from how many floors up?
Thats a lot of force.

None of which has anything to do with melting or thermite or explosions.

I can show you a car ripped apart after a crash, still no thermite.

Just in case you missed it the first couple of times I 'll repeat it here.

You say there are 2 men in that photo, the apparent third man is a reflection.
Can you tell me what material he is reflected in and how is it possible that a reflection passes through part of the building and the smoke that shrouds the 'subject'?

My best guess its a reflection from something his holding in his hands in front of him?

I don't believe the collapse was natural. The evidence for this the giant plumes of smoke that blew out from the towers and the molten steel photographed in the rubble. There no way fires got that hot unless there was something unless involved.

GreeBo wrote: »

Thermite (/ˈθɜːrmaɪt/)[1] is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder, which serves as fuel, and metal oxide. When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic reduction-oxidation (redox) reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create brief bursts of heat and high temperature in a small area. Its form of action is similar to that of other fuel-oxidizer mixtures, such as black powder.

"brief bursts of heat and high temperatures in small area"
No mention anywhere of thermite maintaining temperatures hot enough and over a wide enough area for pools of molten steel.
So....This material that is used to melt steel (either for separation or joining use-cases) is specifically used because it of its rapid heating and subsequent cooling, yet you believe it somehow smoldered and left pools of molten steel for months afterwards.

Can you share a link of any study or experiment that shows thermite acting in this manner? It seems like it would be a pretty useless material to use for joining or separating steel if the joint stayed at 1500C for 3 months afterwards...in fact how would you ever stop such a reaction?

If I used thermite to join two railway tracks as soon as the reaction started it would, by your logic, continue to burn until all the railway was just a pool of 1500C molten steel...how is this helpful to anyone?

Nano-thermite not thermite was found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Mr. teddywinkles

Just posted this. Dunno if posted already. Probably watched to death already

https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Just post this. Dunno if posted already

https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g

I have thanks. This is proof thermate can cut steel and melt it.

Mr. teddywinkles posted this video

Mr. teddywinkles

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have thanks. This is proof thermate can cut steel and melt it.

Found the bolts part interesting. Seem to pop high grade bolts like there nothing. Which ties everything in a building like that together.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite not thermite was found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Did you even read your own link?
"What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reaction proceeds much more quickly."

When things burn much more quickly they get hotter but dont stay hotter for longer.
There is nothing there that says "what distinguishes nano-thermite from traditional thermite is that it stays at 1500C for over 3 months" which is what you need it to say.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

My best guess its a reflection from something his holding in his hands in front of him?

Wha?!

How could something in front of him appear on the other side of the photo?
Unless you think he is a holding a little portable projector or hologram machine?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't believe the collapse was natural. The evidence for this the giant plumes of smoke that blew out from the towers and the molten steel photographed in the rubble. There no way fires got that hot unless there was something unless involved.

Plumes of smoke dont mean something wasnt natural!
Tonnes of concrete and other materials where crushes to dust in the collapse.
There are no photos of molten steel, there are photos of "yellow stuff"
We have no evidence of any temperatures.

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Found the bolts part interesting. Seem to pop high grade bolts like there nothing. Which ties everything in a building like that together.

Is this what you lads do then, this is the technique?
I dont think anyone here is saying that thermite CANT be used to melt/cut/whatever steel, since thats one of the specified uses for it.

What we are saying is that there is no evidence for it.

Men with plasma cutters can cut steel, but I dont see you saying this is what happened, why not?

Oh and one quick flaw from your video....how come the guy is pulling the materials apart with his bare hands right after the explosions, or did this video take 5 years to produce, what with all the time spent waiting for 100 days for each explosion to cool down?

GreeBo wrote: »

Did you even read your own link?
"What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reaction proceeds much more quickly."

When things burn much more quickly they get hotter but dont stay hotter for longer.
There is nothing there that says "what distinguishes nano-thermite from traditional thermite is that it stays at 1500C for over 3 months" which is what you need it to say.

Wha?!

How could something in front of him appear on the other side of the photo?
Unless you think he is a holding a little portable projector or hologram machine?

Plumes of smoke dont mean something wasnt natural!
Tonnes of concrete and other materials where crushes to dust in the collapse.
There are no photos of molten steel, there are photos of "yellow stuff"
We have no evidence of any temperatures.

I never said the heat was 1500c after 3 months.

I posted a video on it a foreman for a recovery company who claimed six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, they found underneath the rubble pockets of red-hot material and was hot as 1500c.

Read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_image

What crushed the concrete in the air?
The liquid is the exact same colour as molten steel.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never said the heat was 1500c after 3 months.

I posted a video on it a foreman for a recovery company who claimed six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, they found underneath the rubble pockets of red-hot material and was hot as 1500c.

So why are you posting material to support your claim when you dont agree with the content of the material?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_image

Thanks, I know how mirrors work.
One weird fact about reflections in a mirror...they require a mirror.
I'll ask you again to give me any clue as to what the mirror surface is in your picture. Unless its a hologram a reflective surface is required, please explain what perfectly reflective surface would exist in the rubble to give a perfectly focussed, mirror image.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What crushed the concrete in the air?

Ehh, the building collapsing?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The liquid is the exact same colour as molten steel.

What liquid? There is zero evidence of liquid on in the wreckage.

GreeBo wrote: »

So why are you posting material to support your claim when you dont agree with the content of the material?

Thanks, I know how mirrors work.
One weird fact about reflections in a mirror...they require a mirror.
I'll ask you again to give me any clue as to what the mirror surface is in your picture. Unless its a hologram a reflective surface is required, please explain what perfectly reflective surface would exist in the rubble to give a perfectly focussed, mirror image.

Ehh, the building collapsing?

What liquid? There is zero evidence of liquid on in the wreckage.

I don't understand what your asking saying in the first question.

Those small image details you can not see you need a higher resolution photograph. It clearly a reflection do you think the man between the steel columns is a leprechaun and the other man is the invisible man with no hands and legs?

Concrete falls away vertically it doesn't blow out like that. That looks like a volcano. Never forget how gravity works.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't understand what your asking saying in the first question.

Im saying that if you dont believe what the people in *your* videos are saying, then dont post them to backup your opinions.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Those small image details you can not see you need a higher resolution photograph. It clearly a reflection do you think the man between the steel columns is a leprechaun and the other man is the invisible man with no hands and legs?

What small image details?
You are saying the third man is a reflection.
A reflection requires a mirror.
Where is the mirror?

Its not a small mirror, its a mirror large enough to show a full sized image of a man, so where is it?
the way a mirror works is you see the image on the surface of the mirror, so why is there an, at least, man-sized mirror in the middle of your wreckage?
how did it get there an why is it so spotless as to be able to perfectly reflect an image of a man though a smokey wasteland?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Concrete falls away vertically it doesn't blow out like that. That looks like a volcano. Never forget how gravity works.

You dont think any of the concrete from upper floors crashed into concrete from the lower floors during the collapse?

I still have no clue what you on about. I never said I don't believe them?

GreeBo the finer details in the background have blurred the resolution of the photograph not high enough to make out. Research it, ask someone about it on photography forum they explain it to you better then I can.

I think there were explosions inside the building that blew the concrete away and out.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I still have no clue what you on about. I never said I don't believe them?

"I never said the heat was 1500c after 3 months."
"I posted a video on it a foreman for a recovery company who claimed six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, they found underneath the rubble pockets of red-hot material and was hot as 1500c."

So which is it?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

GreeBo the finer details in the background have blurred the resolution of the photograph not high enough to make out. Research it, ask someone about it on photography forum they explain it to you better then I can.

What finer details are you talking about?
A lifesize image of a man is not a finer details any more than the two actual men in the bottom left of the photo are "finer details".

For your reflection idea to be true we need a man sized mirror to be on the surface where we see the third man.
please give any type of explanation of how there can be an untouched, perfectly focused, life sized image of a man amongst rubble (that according to you has been at temperatures of over 1500C degrees and is still hot enough to have molten steel)

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I think there were explosions inside the building that blew the concrete away and out.

Indeed you do.
I believe the moon is made of cheese and it looks yellow at night and cheese is yellow. Rocks arent yellow so the moon cannot be made of rocks.

What do we have in common?
A complete lack of evidence for both of our claims.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You asked how molten steel would stay liquified for weeks and weeks. I explained how in that post.

It, not speculation as we have photographic evidence of yellow/red liquid in the 9/11 rubble.

It is speculation because you can't actually show that this can happen.
Post an example of it happening before.
Post something from an actual engineer that describes this happening in a nonconspiracy context.
If you can't it's just your ignorant, uninformed, uneducated speculation.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We both agree thermate can melt steel, yes or no? Nano-therimate obviously will do a better job than thermate, can we agree on that?

Sure, it can melt through steel. But you have not shown that it can produce a river of steel.
I asked you to detail how much molten steel it can produce.

How much molten steel can be produced by 1kg of thermite.
Please provide an exact number and then provide a good source for that.

Cause so far, the only examples you provided (the thermite demolitions of not skyscrapers and your video) show that thermite does not produce much molten steel at all.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How hot would the fires be if nano-thermite ignited?

You tell me. The provide a source for your claim because I don't believe any of your claims.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When the steel melted the Iron liquid is going to mix with other materials and started flowing everywhere. Twin Towers had thousands and thousands of tons of steel.

What other materials did it mix with? How does this result in more molten steel?
Why do you say "iron liquid"?
Do you still not believe that molten steel exists?

The witnesses you point to all said melted steel, not iron. Why would they lie about this?
And weird that you are now calling them liars after all your whining about us apparently doing that...

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Just posted this. Dunno if posted already. Probably watched to death already

https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g

It has been. It doesn't really address any of the problems with the conspiracy idea.
Further, it's odd that you're posting this and that cheerful spring is supporting it.
The video is using thermate, not nanothermite and cheerful is being rather insistant that it wasn't thermate or thermite.

So therefore the video can't be showing what happened in the towers.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I still have no clue what you on about. I never said I don't believe them?

GreeBo the finer details in the background have blurred the resolution of the photograph not high enough to make out. Research it, ask someone about it on photography forum they explain it to you better then I can.

I think there were explosions inside the building that blew the concrete away and out.

How many were there?

Any video evidence for them?

Also can you clarify what was used to bring building(s) down? Was it Thermite? Thermate? Nanothermite? Or all three?

King Mob wrote: »

But none of these things are answers to my questions.

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

I asked you what caused it .. you didn't know, I don't know ... maybe we can do an elimination game ?

And ditch the space laser crap ... its silly

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

I gave examples of what I thought were good studies/ investigations outside the original hypothesis ?

weisses wrote: »

I asked you what caused it .. you didn't know, I don't know ... maybe we can do an elimination game ?

And ditch the space laser crap ... its silly

But why is the space laser idea silly?

Thermite and controlled demolitions are equally as silly.
What is the difference to you?

What do you think of the claims being made by Cheerful spring? He claims it is magic nanothermite.
Why is he wrong?

King Mob wrote: »

But why is the space laser idea silly?

Thermite and controlled demolitions are equally as silly.
What is the difference to you?

Did the collapse of wtc 7 looked like controlled demolition yes or no ?

Do you want to make a list here of materials and or processes that can cause steel to be in a melted state for weeks ?

weisses wrote: »

Did the collapse of wtc 7 looked like controlled demolition yes or no ?

Sure, lets say for argument that it did.
You have missed my questions.

Why is the space laser idea silly?
What do you think of the claims being made by Cheerful spring? He claims it is magic nanothermite.
Why is he wrong?

weisses wrote: »

Do you want to make a list here of materials and or processes that can cause steel to be in a melted state for weeks ?

Sure. Go for it.
However controlled demolition is not on that list as those do not produce rivers of molten metal that last for months. Can you provide any examples of this ever happening outside 9/11?
Thermite of any variety isn't on that list either, unless again you can show it can do that.

Space lasers however might be able to do it...

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, lets say for argument that it did.

So then the controlled demolition theory is not as silly as the space lasers, claiming they are is .....silly

He can answer/debate for himself in regards to nanothermite ... I think its difficult to control, but I would have liked the official investigation had looked into these scenarios

King Mob wrote: »

Sure. Go for it

So we can rule out jet fuel, and office fires in regards to creating molten steel

anything else ?