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

weisses · 29-10-2018 03:45PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Many firefighters are on record stating that the building was about to collapse due to the fire - you ignore all of this because it doesn't fit your view

Some people including a firefighter mistake molten metal for "molten steel" (an easy enough mistake to make) yet you convert that into irrefutable testimony and "proof" of the presence molten steel

Likewise you demonstrate you will discard the consensus of hundreds of experts if they don't support your view, yet will embrace an individual expert if they do

The widely established version of events hasn't changed in 17 years, yours seems to morph and change in 17 days.. or hours

so all firefighters are mistaken when they describe molten metal flowing ... But somehow can predict when a building is gonna fall due to a few office fires ..something that never happened ever before ... And you have the neck to talk to another poster about creative writing

FEMA did research into it but NIST decided to ignore it ... didn't fit their hypothesis

And please stop the selective quoting ... If you cannot do it properly then don't do it at all

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 03:47PM

King Mob wrote: »

But rubble doesn't reflect things cheerful...

There could something laying in the rubble that reflects light, glass or some surface that is reflective who knows. Rubble just doesn't contain concrete and steel.

The fireman standing exactly like the reflection between the columns. There no debate here it nonsense to believe a man with no hands and legs is standing in a yellow liquid. Do you believe in the invisible man now?

GreeBo · 29-10-2018 03:49PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can't see but it obvious to me this a mirror reflection.

Clearly it just a reflection of the fireman.

Watch the position of his hands and body.

From the back.

The mirror reflection of the same fireman.

Thats not the guy we are asking you about, and you know it as there is no burning yellow liquid in either of those pictures.

So, again, why is there a man standing in the top right of the photo, shouldnt he be a bit melted if thats a pool of molten steel?

GreeBo · 29-10-2018 03:51PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There could something laying in the rubble that reflects light, glass or some surface that is reflective who knows. Rubble just doesn't contain concrete and steel.

The fireman standing exactly like the reflection between the columns. There no debate here it nonsense to believe a man with no hands and legs is standing in a yellow liquid. Do you believe in the invisible man now?

What size is this "piece of something"?
based on the reflection is a man sized "piece of something"...so thats convenient isnt it?

In any case, see my above post...what about the guy on the top right?
Is he yet another reflection?

This photo has more mirrors than a Bruce Lee film.

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 03:54PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats not the guy we are asking you about, and you know it as there is no burning yellow liquid in either of those pictures.

So, again, why is there a man standing in the top right of the photo, shouldnt he be a bit melted if thats a pool of molten steel?

It the same fireman.

That you actually think this another person I don't what to say:rolleyes:

Another person ya right.

Melted guy lol

GreeBo · 29-10-2018 03:57PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It the same fireman.

That you actually think this another person I don't what to say:rolleyes:

Another person ya right.

Melted guy lol

So you are actually telling us that one man is reflected TWICE in the same photo?

How does he manage to get reflected around the large piece of debris thats between the actual guy on the left and your "reflection-man" on the top right?

Are there a couple of handle lens in the rubble also?

29-10-2018 03:57PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There could something laying in the rubble that reflects light, glass or some surface that is reflective who knows. Rubble just doesn't contain concrete and steel.

So it's a big piece of glass that randomly survived intact enough to be able to reflect a full sized image of a guy?
And it's still perfectly shiny and reflective?
And it's not melting despite being right inside molten steel?

Oooookay....

Dohnjoe · 29-10-2018 03:59PM

weisses wrote: »

so all firefighters are mistaken when they describe molten metal flowing

Nope, some individual firefighters recall seeing molten metal. We all saw molten metal (e.g. pouring out of WTC 2) It's easy enough to conclude that they were mistaken and called it "molten steel"

... But somehow can predict when a building is gonna fall due to a few office fires

Yes. That was the consensus among firefighters at the time

fall due to a few office fires

Fires on multiple stories burning out of control for hours.

something that never happened ever before

Something like 911 has never happened before. Several steel framed buildings have partially collapsed due to fire. At least two (WTC 7 and Plasco) have collapsed entirely due to office fires

And you have the neck to talk to another poster about creative writing

Care to show me what part of the above is creative?

The above is plain information backed by established facts, evidence, expert consensus, recorded testimony and/or reasonable explanation

Care to add anything related to the subject of this thread?

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 04:06PM

King Mob wrote: »

So it's a big piece of glass that randomly survived intact enough to be able to reflect a full sized image of a guy?
And it's still perfectly shiny and reflective?
And it's not melting despite being right inside molten steel?

Oooookay....

There two firemen in the picture it makes more sense it just a reflection of them. Instead of believing a dwarf is standing between columns and man with no legs and hands is standing in a yellow burning liquid:D

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 04:13PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yes

The steel got melted. Then I find it hard to believe WTC7 came down naturally.

The fires were not hot enough to melt steel and turn into molten Iron. You can't explain that away easily. Do you not have to show what exactly in the WTC7 rubble caused this to happen?

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 04:20PM

Dohnjoe exactly never happened before 9/11. Even though it well-known dozens and dozens of steel framed buildings have been on fire prior to 9/11 and they never collapsed. Some of these buildings were engulfed with fire but the buildings still stood.

That three steel framed buildings collapsed during a terrorist attack is highly suspicious. WTC7 is the smoking gun.

29-10-2018 04:26PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There two firemen in the picture it makes more sense it just a reflection of them. Instead of believing a dwarf is standing between columns and man with no legs and hands is standing in a yellow burning liquid:D

But what is it being reflected by?

Do you have any pictures of this magic piece of glass?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe exactly never happened before 9/11. Even though it well-known dozens and dozens of steel framed buildings have been on fire prior to 9/11 and they never collapsed. Some of these buildings were engulfed with fire but the buildings still stood.

That three steel framed buildings collapsed during a terrorist attack is highly suspicious. WTC7 is the smoking gun.

And how many steel framed buildings were taken down by nanothermite?

Also, please provide something to show that nanothermite can produce rivers of molten steel.
If you can't show this, say "I cannot show this."

weisses · 29-10-2018 04:27PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, some individual firefighters recall seeing molten metal. We all saw molten metal (e.g. pouring out of WTC 2) It's easy enough to conclude that they were mistaken and called it "molten steel"

It was molten

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes. That was the consensus among firefighters at the time

firefighters also stating

We were there, I don't know, maybe 10, 15
minutes and then I just remember there was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television when they blow
up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the
way around like a belt, all these explosions.

The door closed, they went up, and it just

seemed a couple seconds and all of a sudden you just

heard like it almost actually that day sounded like

bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or

eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my

officer just actually took all of us and just threw us

down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of

us, laid on top of us.

http://911proof.com/11.html

All testimonies by firefighters .. so there is a consensus there as well

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Fires on multiple stories burning out of control for hours.

You forgot to mention many of those fires where extinguished due to lack of combustibles ..as is evident in video taken that day

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Something like 911 has never happened before. Several steel framed buildings have partially collapsed due to fire. At least two (WTC 7 and Plasco) have collapsed entirely due to office fires

two completely different buildings with different collapse sequences ... collapses dont even look the same

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Care to show me what part of the above is creative?

I say all of it

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The above is plain information backed by established facts, evidence, expert consensus, recorded testimony and/or reasonable explanation

Care to add anything related to the subject of this thread?

Its based on a hypothesis ... nothing more ... I provided recorded testimony ... what did NIST do with that ?

Dohnjoe · 29-10-2018 04:27PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That three steel framed buildings collapsed during a terrorist attack is highly suspicious

So WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions now?

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 04:31PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions now?

Highly likely if WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

That yellow liquid was pictured at ground zero.

Dohnjoe · 29-10-2018 04:39PM

weisses wrote: »

firefighters also stating

Yup, there were explosions and loud sounds on the day. Immense buildings were on fire.

Are you trying to claim these were explosive charges going off?

two completely different buildings with different collapse sequences ... collapses dont even look the same

Two different buildings, are collapses by fire supposed to look the same?

Its based on a hypothesis ... nothing more ... I provided recorded testimony ... what did NIST do with that ?

You have provided some selective testimony and your personal interpretation of it. Also your own incredulous view of how buildings fall and your personal distaste of the NIST

This thread is about alternative theories and supporting evidence for those

Do you think the building was blown up by a controlled demolition? If so present the theory and evidence

Dohnjoe · 29-10-2018 04:41PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Highly likely if WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Just to be clear, you believe WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were all brought down by controlled explosions?

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 04:42PM

King Mob wrote: »

But what is it being reflected by?

Do you have any pictures of this magic piece of glass?

And how many steel framed buildings were taken down by nanothermite?

Also, please provide something to show that nanothermite can produce rivers of molten steel.
If you can't show this, say "I cannot show this."

Finding broken glass in the rubble is more believable than the invisible man and tiny people yes.

I have already addressed these questions in other posts.

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 04:46PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just to be clear, you believe WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were all brought down by controlled explosions?

If WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition yes. If wasn't its unlikely that's the case.

There no suspects as to who brought WTC7 down, but the evidence clearly shows it was done.

There no possible way fire brought down WTC7. NIST lying pretty much confirms this.

29-10-2018 04:46PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Finding broken glass in the rubble is more believable than the invisible man and tiny people yes.

Cool. Photos of it please.
Also an explanation of how this glass was not melted by the molten steel.
Thanks.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have already addressed these questions in other posts.

Nope, not a single one.

You have not shown that any kind of thermite can produce anything close to a river of molten metal.
What you did show shows that it does not produce anything of the sort.

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 04:49PM

King Mob wrote: »

Cool. Photos of it please.
Also an explanation of how this glass was not melted by the molten steel.
Thanks.

Nope, not a single one.

You have not shown that any kind of thermite can produce anything close to a river of molten metal.
What you did show shows that it does not produce anything of the sort.

The tiny man is in between two steel columns near the rubble. Molten steel is further to the right of this image.

29-10-2018 04:56PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The tiny man is in between two steel columns near the rubble. Molten steel is further to the right of this image.

No, sorry the mirror is near molten steel.
The image you claim is a reflection is right next to what you think is molten metal.
It would melt.

You are now claiming bizarre nonsense.

Also again, show that nanothermite can produce a river of molten metal.
Show that any kind of thermite can do this.

The examples you have shown so far show that thermite does not produce much molten metal at all.

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 05:02PM

King Mob wrote: »

No, sorry the mirror is near molten steel.
The image you claim is a reflection is right next to what you think is molten metal.
It would melt.

You are now claiming bizarre nonsense.

Also again, show that nanothermite can produce a river of molten metal.
Show that any kind of thermite can do this.

The examples you have shown so far show that thermite does not produce much molten metal at all.

There two reflections in the photograph.

Exactly that why you talking nonsense. Why would a person be standing in a yellow burning liquid working? What happened to his right hand? What does it look a reflection from a light source? It looks like there are spotlights around the site you can see shadows on the columns. The lighting is artificial not daylight.

weisses · 29-10-2018 05:02PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, there were explosions and loud sounds on the day. Immense buildings were on fire.

Are you trying to claim these were explosive charges going off?

Explosions where heard far away from any impact zone ... described by firefighters

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Two different buildings, are collapses by fire supposed to look the same?

You compared wtc7 with plasco .... which is something you cannot do .... unless you want to be disingenuous

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You have provided some selective testimony and your personal interpretation of it. Also your own incredulous view of how buildings fall and your personal distaste of the NIST

Uhh I posted directly from their testimony ... and there are many more ... so it has nothing to do with my interpretation of it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGr4D1-zDI

Now tell me this looks like the wtc7 collapse and why my views are incredulous.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This thread is about alternative theories and supporting evidence for those

Do you think the building was blown up by a controlled demolition? If so present the theory and evidence

Even the official story lacks evidence

people below agree with this

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

There is so much wrong with the official version ...NIST spend 20 million dollars and only came up with a hypothesis ... Many things were not investigated (explosives etc) why would you look for that with a terror attack

So there are alternatives, but with time working against you and the huge costs involved these alternatives are lacking the evidence ... But that is something you knew before starting this thread

29-10-2018 05:07PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There two reflections in the photograph.

Exactly that why you talking nonsense. Why would a person be standing in a yellow burning liquid working? What happened to his right hand? What does it look a reflection from a light source? It looks like there are spotlights around the site you can see shadows on the columns. The lighting is artificial not daylight.

Where do you think this magical mirror is?
Do you have pictures of this mirror?

Why is it not melting?

Also again you seem to have missed the question.
But it's best to just accept you can't answer it and you are not honest enough to admit that.

Nanothermite cannot produce rivers of molten anything.

So if it can't be nanothermite, what melted the steel?

29-10-2018 05:10PM

weisses wrote: »

Explosions where heard far away from any impact zone ... described by firefighters

But it can't be explosives, as thermite doesn't explode.

It also can't be a controlled demolition as no controlled demolition has single random explosions go off minutes and hours between them in random locations.

Timberrrrrrrr · 29-10-2018 05:17PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The steel got melted. Then I find it hard to believe WTC7 came down naturally.

The fires were not hot enough to melt steel and turn into molten Iron. You can't explain that away easily. Do you not have to show what exactly in the WTC7 rubble caused this to happen?

Thats not what i asked

What is the significance of those 2 elements seeing as you often quote yhat they were found?

Dohnjoe · 29-10-2018 05:19PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition yes. If wasn't its unlikely that's the case.

Well you've stated many times that you firmly believe WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demo

So now you believe that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were brought down by controlled demo?

Cheerful Spring · 29-10-2018 05:21PM

King Mob wrote: »

But it can't be explosives, as thermite doesn't explode.

It also can't be a controlled demolition as no controlled demolition has single random explosions go off minutes and hours between them in random locations.

False again. Actually, listen to someone who did this type of work. Explosions don't have to go off at the same time.

weisses · 29-10-2018 05:23PM

King Mob wrote: »

But it can't be explosives, as thermite doesn't explode.

It also can't be a controlled demolition as no controlled demolition has single random explosions go off minutes and hours between them in random locations.

I dont recall firefighters talking about thermite and or controlled demolition, other then the way it came down.... Many heard explosions which weren't investigated

The fact you have firefighters and other first responders hearing explosions in random locations should raise an eyebrow .... or two

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

Comments