Cheerful Spring wrote: » False again. Actually, listen to someone who did this type of work. Explosions don't have to go off at the same time.
weisses wrote: » Explosions where heard far away from any impact zone ... described by firefighters
You compared wtc7 with plasco .... which is something you cannot do .... unless you want to be disingenuous
Uhh I posted directly from their testimony ... and there are many more ... so it has nothing to do with my interpretation of it
Now tell me this looks like the wtc7 collapse and why my views are incredulous.
Even the official story lacks evidence
people below agree with thishttp://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
weisses wrote: » 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
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Thats not what i asked What is the significance of those 2 elements seeing as you often quote yhat they were found?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The steel should be sagging and bending. Finding holes in steel can only be caused by explosives or nano-thermite.
King Mob wrote: » Nope. Not going to let you deflect. It can't be thermite as thermite does not produce rivers of molten metal.
King Mob wrote: » What's this based on? Do you have an example of this? Please post it... Not sure why you are having trouble doing so...
Cheerful Spring wrote: » How do you know nano-thermite does not melt steel and produce rivers of molten Iron?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Carrington Fire tests. Steel beams were heated to various temps from low temp to very high above 1000c. The steel beams only sagged and slightly bent. None of the steel beams melted. If steel beams were melting during building office fires this phenomenon would be reported and peer reviewed.
King Mob wrote: » Because so far, the only two examples you can point to show that thermite stuff does not produce any large amount of molten metal that stays molten for more than a few seconds. And most importantly, you can't provide any source that shows that nanothermite can do so. No one here believes a word you claim. You have proven yourself to be dishonest and incompetent, so your word that nanothermite can just do that is not worth anything. So you need to prove it can. And until you do, then we can conclude it can't. If you are unhappy with this, then feel free to prove a space laser can't melt steel.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Why
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Why would molten Iron and steel ( a liquid) just disappear after a few seconds when it enclosed beneath the rubble? Do you understand the molten steel and iron was protected from the cold and air and rain?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I have shown you thermate melts steel and slags that runs off is molten Iron. You did not watch the video so you continue to just post random false assertions.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Do you not realise there literally many hundred thousands of tons of steel used to construct the twin towers, even if only 5 per cent of this steel got melted this could easily produce a river of molten Iron.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Just in case you missed my earlier question You state you believe WTC 7 fell due to controlled demolition Do you believe that controlled demolitions brought down WTC 1 and WTC 2?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Yes, I do. Aeroplanes are made of aluminium not a change in hell that brought down the buildings. Nobody even stating that was the cause it blamed on fires.
King Mob wrote: » Deflection. I'm asking you to show that nanothermite can do this. Put up or shut up. Yes, a very small amount of steel compared to a very large amount of thermate. And that steel cooled quickly and could not be described as a river. Barely can be described as a drop. But why are you bringing up thermate? Nanothermite is not Thermate... Cool. So 5 percent of the steel in the towers was made molten. How much thermite did this take? Cause if we go by your video it would take 100s of times more thermite to do so. So that's 500 percent the weight of the towers in thermite... And this is not counting the thermite that didn't go off and the stuff that went off over months to keep the steel molten... But you say that they only needed 8 guys to plant this?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Nano thermite particles were found in WTC dust confirmed independently by different scientists. Those particles should not be there if the building fell due to office fires.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Why would not bring up thermate when there is evidence it can melt steel. Thermate is part of thermite family. Why would nano-thermite be excluded from melting steel in the towers?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Wrong he barely used any thermate to break the connections and melt the steel.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Wrong molten steel and iron can't cool in a heated debris pile.
Do you have a belief office fires caused steel to melt?
Why would not bring up thermate when there is evidence it can melt steel. Thermate is part of thermite family. Why would nano-thermite be excluded from melting steel in the towers?
Wrong molten steel and iron can't cool in a heated debris pile. The liquid was buried underneath the rubble for weeks.
Dohnjoe wrote: » So you believe it was a controlled demolition yes?
Dohnjoe wrote: » Nah, common components were found Fire can cause steel to weaken (to the point of failure) Thermite is part of the conspiracy theory family - to date no one has provided any credible evidence for it's use in any of the buildings This is a circular sideshow. I knew this would happen (because it's a 911 thread) so I deliberately asked for proper alternative theories with substantiated evidence In 60 odd pages no one has provided such theories with such evidence, not even close. So the usual "convince me! explain this!" sideshow of incredulity and pseudo-science continues - that in itself is pretty telling 17 years after the fact
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Yes..
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Steel is not unsupported it held together by elements that stop it from failing.
That's why no steel framed building collapse due to fire.
If fires lead to steel failing it would not be used.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Why would molten Iron and steel ( a liquid) just disappear after a few seconds when it enclosed beneath the rubble? Do you understand the molten steel and iron was protected from the cold and air and rain? I have shown you thermate melts steel and slags that runs off is molten Iron. You did not watch the video so you continue to just post random false assertions. Do you not realise there literally many hundred thousands of tons of steel used to construct the twin towers, even if only 5 per cent of this steel got melted this could easily produce a river of molten Iron.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Steel absolutely can weaken to the point of failure due to fire. Can't fact-check now but the last info I read was that fires of 1600c can weaken steel by 90% (will check that later) Plasco fell. Several have partially collapsed due to fire. This is bad even for you. Steel is a great building material. It doesn't mean it can magically survive everything including aircraft strikes and unchecked fires
Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7. Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. [16]The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” [18] But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered. [19]
weisses wrote: » If you really are interested have a read through this
weisses wrote: » If you really are interested have a read through this Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7. Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. [16] The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” [18] But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered. [19] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201
Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. [16] The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” [18] But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered. [19]
King Mob wrote: » But how do explosives explain this phenomenon? Explosives cannot melt steel nor do they produce a "Swiss cheese" effect. And neither of these things are an effect seen in controlled demolitions. Does this mean that it wasn't explosives? It can't be explosives if you apply your logic fairly. It can't be thermite either for the same reasons... So why does your expert claim then it was explosives when the evidence he points to shows it can't be explosives? Also why do you point out that some people are professors? Dr Judy Wood is a professor also...
GreeBo wrote: » Its melts, rolls off and pretty rapidly cools back to regular old metal. It doenst magically stay at 1600C+, even with the nano-fairiesthermite
Dohnjoe wrote: » Okay, same again for WTC 1 and WTC 2 1. Who planted the explosives and when? 2. Who gave the order to do this? 3. Which floor(s) were the explosives planted on on WTC 1 and 2? 4. What type of explosives were used? 5. What was the motive? Again, try not to make up or imagine all the answers, just credible evidence only I suspect you've just arbitrarily adopted this conspiracy in the last few hours because of the flow of this thread. Then again that would be par for the course in here.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
