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

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Which you claim is steel but could easily be other metals

No they didn't!

Or more than likely you and your ilk NEED an outlandish explaination and have run with this one to suit your agenda.

We never know as NIST denied anyone saw molten steel in the rubble.

NIST John Gross claimed this quote
“Let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody – no eyewitnesses said so, nobody’s produced it

That statement is false and a lie. Various People at the 9/11 collapse site claimed they saw molten steel. NIST claiming nobody said so it a lie.

[Deleted User]

But you guys keep forgetting: thermite and/or explosives cannot produce rivers of molten anything.
Those eye witnesses would therefore disprove your preferred theories.

If you think that explosives or thermite can produce this, show it.

Otherwise your theories are as dumb as space lasers. You haven't explained the difference.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But you guys keep forgetting: thermite and/or explosives cannot produce rivers of molten anything.
Those eye witnesses would therefore disprove your preferred theories.

If you think that explosives or thermite can produce this, show it.

Otherwise your theories are as dumb as space lasers. You haven't explained the difference.

This is false because thermate has already been shown to melt steel. Where do you think the Molten Iron (liquid) ends up? Do you think just evaporates into nothingness? That molten Iron will mix with other materials in a fire and leave a pool of this stuff.

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

So what did firefighters see that looked like stuff you would find in a foundry ?

FEMA, unfortunately, did not show in their report the eutectic liquid they found made of Iron and sulphur. They only stated it was found. We can't compare what the firefighters saw and this!

FEMA recommended this. They had trouble grasping what caused it and were open it was done pre-collapse. What the did not think about at the time no fires ever reached 1000c in building 7. The hottest the girder got at any time according to NIST was 500c, and that only lastest for 15 minutes.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is false because thermate has already been shown to melt steel.

But thermate is not thermite. And it is not nanothermite.
It also prooduced a tiny amount of molten metal that cooled and hardened quickly.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Where do you think the Molten Iron (liquid) ends up? Do you think just evaporates into nothingness? That molten Iron will mix with other materials in a fire and leave a pool of this stuff.

What other materials?
Can you point to any source that describes thermite of any kind doing this?

Please answer these questions or man up and say that you cannot.
How much molten metal does 1 kg of nanothermite produce?
How much molten metal was observed at the WTC?
How much nanothermite was used and where was it placed?

Also, weiss does not accept your theory, he claims that it was explosives, not thermite. Explosives do not melt anything at all and certainly cannot produce rivers of molten anything.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But thermate is not thermite. And it is not nanothermite.
It also prooduced a tiny amount of molten metal that cooled and hardened quickly.

What other materials?
Can you point to any source that describes thermite of any kind doing this?

Please answer these questions or man up and say that you cannot.
How much molten metal does 1 kg of nanothermite produce?
How much molten metal was observed at the WTC?
How much nanothermite was used and where was it placed?

Also, weiss does not accept your theory, he claims that it was explosives, not thermite. Explosives do not melt anything at all and certainly cannot produce rivers of molten anything.

The experiment was done on just one tiny piece of a steel beam. Do you expect to see pools of molten Iron on the ground from this? Twin towers was constructed with hundreds of thousands of tons of A36 steel. There plenty of steel in the twin towers that can be melted and left a pool of molten steel.

Molten steel can not cool down when buried under rubble for days and weeks. That you think it can just another sign you not informed.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The experiment was done on just one tiny piece of a steel beam. Do you expect to see pools of molten Iron on the ground from this? Twin towers was constructed with hundreds of thousands of tons of A36 steel. There plenty of steel in the twin towers that can be melted and left a pool of molten steel.

Molten steel can not cool down when buried under rubble for days and weeks. That you think it can just another sign you not informed.

You have dodged everyone one of my questions. You are a dishonest coward.

Ok, so the test you posted is unable to show what you claim it does.

Post something else then.
For example show us an example of the rivers of molten steel under a building that was demolished by thermite.

I will also take your ignoring of the point as agreement you reject weisses theory that explosives can produce molten metal.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You have dodged everyone one of my questions. You are a dishonest coward.

Ok, so the test you posted is unable to show what you claim it does.

Post something else then.
For example show us an example of the rivers of molten steel under a building that was demolished by thermite.

I will also take your ignoring of the point as agreement you reject weisses theory that explosives can produce molten metal.

You can not produce any evidence building fires leave behind a pool of yellow liquid? Yet we know it happened.

You disagree nano-thermite could have resulted in this but then don't show examples of it happening anytime in the past. Don't you find it strange building fires are blamed but there no examples of it prior to 2001 or after 2001.

I don't reject the explosives theory. I open that explosives were used in combination with nano-thermite. We have evidence of nano-thermite particles in the WTC dust.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can not produce any evidence building fires leave behind a pool of yellow liquid? Yet we know it happened.

You disagree nano-thermite could have resulted in this but then don't show examples of it happening anytime in the past. Don't you find it strange building fires are blamed but there no examples of it prior to 2001 or after 2001.
.

Again, you've dodged the question.
You are a hypocrite as well.

Can you produce any evidence that thermite of any kind can produce a river of molten anything?
Can you provide any example of a building demolished by nanothermite?

No, you can't.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you've dodged the question.
You are a hypocrite as well.

Can you produce any evidence that thermite of any kind can produce a river of molten anything?
Can you provide any example of a building demolished by nanothermite?

No, you can't.

I not dodging the question. I never claimed Nanothermite was used to demolish buildings before 9/11.

We are in disagreement what melted the steel that is verifiable information. We also in disagreement about what the liquid in the rubble is.

You claim it normal to find this in building fires, yes or no?

Go ahead then produce verifiable evidence of least one building fire and recovery workers reported finding red/yellow liquid in the rubble after a collapse?

If you can't, then why you ruling out a new revolutionary explosive was used on 9/11 to bring the buildings down?

I don't expect the perpetrators to be clueless I expect them to use the latest advances in explosive tech to bring these buildings down.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not dodging the question. I never claimed Nanothermite was used to demolish buildings before 9/11.

You've dodged pretty much every question put to you because you aren't able to understand them.

For example, I asked you to provide an example of a building demolished by nanothermite, which you are now finally admitting that you cannot do.

And I asked you to provide proof that nanothermite can produce a pool of molten liquid.
Provide this or admit you cannot.
I don't care about any other points and I will not respond to any other points other than this one question. You are too easily distracted and you've been dodging this particular point for a lot of pages now.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Can you produce any evidence that thermite of any kind can produce a river of molten anything?

Can you provide a theory or source why these molten rivers of metal witnessed by firefighters could exist in the first place ?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You've dodged pretty much every question put to you because you aren't able to understand them.

For example, I asked you to provide an example of a building demolished by nanothermite, which you are now finally admitting that you cannot do.

And I asked you to provide proof that nanothermite can produce a pool of molten liquid.
Provide this or admit you cannot.

Your unable to understand the evidence.

You think office fires can melt steel, causes freefall in buildings, leaves pools of red/yellow liquid in the rubble.

When asked for evidence office fires can do this you produce nothing zilch.

Nanothermite was found in WTC dust samples by 14 different scientists. We can identify the reason why the steel melted and the reason why there was molten iron in the rubble. We can not explain melted steel and finding a liquid in the rubble was caused by a fire.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

For example, I asked you to provide an example of a building demolished by nanothermite, which you are now finally admitting that you cannot do.

He did that a good while back to be fair ... you obviously missed it because you keep banging on about it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You've dodged pretty much every question put to you because you aren't able to understand them.

For example, I asked you to provide an example of a building demolished by nanothermite, which you are now finally admitting that you cannot do.

And I asked you to provide proof that nanothermite can produce a pool of molten liquid.
Provide this or admit you cannot.

Nanothermite was found in WTC dust samples by 14 different scientists. We can identify the reason why the steel melted and the reason why there would be molten iron in the rubble. We can not explain melted steel and finding a liquid in the rubble was caused by a fire. If you disagree let's hear your alternative otherwise you don't have a strong position on this you just disagreeing with facts.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Can you provide a theory or source why these molten rivers of metal witnessed by firefighters could exist in the first place ?

That's not an answer to my point.

There are explanations for them, but this thread is not about that. It's about the conspiracy explanation.

Thermite cannot produce rivers of molten steel.
Explosives cannot produce rivers of molten steel.
The witnesses therefore disprove your prefered explanations.

Can you show that Thermite can produce rivers of molten metal?
Can you show that explosives can do this?

If not, you have to reject those explanations.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your unable to understand the evidence.

Question dodged.

Try again:
Provide proof that nanothermite can produce a pool of molten liquid.
Provide this or admit you cannot.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Question dodged.

Try again:
Provide proof that nanothermite can produce a pool of molten liquid.
Provide this or admit you cannot.

Let's do this another way.

Do you disagree with thermate melts steel?
Do you disagree with a slag of Iron poured down the side of the steel?
Do you not believe nano-thermite can do the same thing to the steel as thermate? If you believe not state your reasons why
Do you think the slag of Iron cannot mix with other materials in a fire?

So let's see your evidence office fires can melt steel or other metals? There should be plenty of examples of a yellow/red liquid found in the rubble after a building collapsed due to fire? We wait and see if you produce video and photo evidence of this phenomenon for us.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

That's not an answer to my point.

I dont care about the points you have raised with cheerfull

I asked you a simple question as the possible origin of the molten rivers of metal ... What could have caused this ? ...

I see that you want to steer away from it but you can give an explanation

Its a bit rich almost harassing another poster for the past 3 weeks to prove it was done by nano thermite but when asked what the source could be it all of a sudden belongs in a different thread .... now stop dodging

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Maybe you should look at content rather then names ...maybe it will change your opinion on NIST

Wow, just wow.

Maybe you should look at facts and science, instead of pseudo-science and an ever-morphing denialism

Perhaps go to an engineering or architectural forum instead of a conspiracy theory forum

Perhaps check with skeptics, you know, people who regularly debunk spurious theories like Holocaust denial, flat earth, climate change denial, Sandy Hook theories, anti-vaxxers, etc.

There is no alternative theory backed by solid evidence

A kind reminder you're in the same category as energy weapons, Alex Jones, holograms, etc here. After 17 years you have no witnesses, no insiders, no suspects, no motive, no credible evidence, nothing.

A high-rise building being demolished in a secret controlled demolition in a massive giant secret coverup, in the middle of New York, under the scrutiny of the world's media, foreign intelligence agencies, the works.. yeah

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Let's do this another way.

Do you disagree with thermate melts steel?
Do you disagree with a slag of Iron poured down the side of the steel?
Do you not believe nano-thermite can do the same thing to the steel as thermate? If you believe state your reasons why
Do you think the slag of Iron cannot mix with other materials in a fire?

Yes. But irrelevant.
There's no such expression as "Slag of iron" So I can't say yes or no to this point.
No I don't believe nano thermite is the same as thermate, as you have claimed it has different properties when it suits you. I also am not convinced that nano-thermite exists in the form you describe it. Not can I make any definitive statements about it as apparently it's never been used before.
Again, no such term as "slag of Iron" and I do not know what materials to which you refer or what relevance "in a fire" has. I cannot say yes or no to this point as it's poorly written and kinda nonsensical. Also, irrelevant.

Now let's try again:
Provide proof that nanothermite can produce a pool of molten liquid.
Provide this or admit you cannot.

I will not respond to any more of your questions until you address this point.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I asked you a simple question as the possible origin of the molten rivers of metal ... What could have caused this ? ...

I've explained this to you in other threads many times.

This thread is not about the official explanation.

However, my point is that you guys are massive hypocrites.
Explosives don't produce molten metal, so that explanation is impossible.
Thermite doesn't produce pools of molten metal, so that explanation is impossible.

Also "Harassment." :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow, just wow.

Maybe you should look at facts and science, instead of pseudo-science and an ever-morphing denialism

Perhaps go to an engineering or architectural forum instead of a conspiracy theory forum

Perhaps check with skeptics, you know, people who regularly debunk spurious theories like Holocaust denial, flat earth, climate change denial, Sandy Hook theories, anti-vaxxers, etc.

A kind reminder you're in the same category as energy weapons, Alex Jones, holograms, etc here. After 17 years you have no witnesses, no insiders, no suspects, no motive, no credible evidence, nothing.

A high-rise building being demolished in a secret controlled demolition in a massive giant secret coverup, in the middle of New York, under the scrutiny of the world's media, foreign intelligence agencies, the works.. yeah

Facts like people involved in the cleanup said they saw 'molten steel' and NIST denied anybody said they saw it. What world do you live in Dohnjoe. Are you calling the 9/11 firefighters who tried to save peoples lives on 9/11 are liars? Maybe you should send the firefighter video to NIST and ask them is are these people, nobodies?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

So what did firefighters see that looked like stuff you would find in a foundry ?

It's been explained several times in this thread

People mistook molten metal for molten steel. Likewise they mistook glowing red metal for "molten steel". They mistook burning paper for "molten steel".

The vast majority of comments made by rescue workers, city officials or various
others not involved in the actual demolition process at Ground Zero regarding the heat of
underground fires or “molten anything” (steel, aluminum, tin, composites, etc.) are
conjecture and have no practical value in determining what types of materials were
actually burning and at what temperature. Most were simply never in a position to know,
and those that were have acknowledged that they don’t know for sure.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

As predicted individuals are in this thread demanding "explain this, explain that". Individuals who repeatedly demonstrate they never accept those explanations regardless. Or constantly use mental gymnastics or incredulity to continue to deny the explanations.

That's why this thread is created for them to provide their own backed theories, their own evidence - to see how well it stands up to scrutiny. So far, that isn't happening

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Are you calling the 9/11 firefighters who tried to save peoples lives on 9/11 are liars?

You dismiss all firefighters who claimed that WTC 7 was about to collapse. They actually withdrew from the building and adjacent area because they widely believed it was about to collapse

You constantly engage in this fallacy of ignoring large amounts or consensus of experts, firefighters, witnesses, investigators, etc in favor of a very select few. It's a hallmark trait of denialism.

[Deleted User]

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You dismiss all firefighters who claimed that WTC 7 was about to collapse. They actually withdrew from the building and adjacent area because they widely believed it was about to collapse

You constantly engage in this fallacy of ignoring large amounts or consensus of experts, firefighters, witnesses, investigators, etc in favor of a very select few. It's a hallmark trait of denialism.

Don't forget the witnesses who say that it was "molten steel" which according to cheerful is not a real substance.
I guess those guys are only half lying?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's been explained several times in this thread

People mistook molten metal for molten steel. Likewise they mistook glowing red metal for "molten steel". They mistook burning paper for "molten steel".

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

As predicted individuals are in this thread demanding "explain this, explain that". Individuals who repeatedly demonstrate they never accept those explanations regardless. Or constantly use mental gymnastics or incredulity to continue to deny the explanations.

That's why this thread is created for them to provide their own backed theories, their own evidence - to see how well it stands up to scrutiny. So far, that isn't happening

According to who Skeptics on forums? NIST denies anyone even said the words molten steel! They are refuting the firefighter'account. This is disingenuous

Why is this difficult for you to understand.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We never know as NIST denied anyone saw molten steel in the rubble.

Maybe it wasnt steel so.

NIST John Gross claimed this quote
“Let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody – no eyewitnesses said so, nobody’s produced it

That statement is false and a lie. Various People at the 9/11 collapse site claimed they saw molten steel. NIST claiming nobody said so it a lie.

They "claimed" to have seen molten steel, unless they are experts on molten metals then their claim is baseless.

Have you ever seen a really bad accident? Or been involved in an armed robbery situation? I have and let me tell you, minutes after both events people were all giving statments as to what happened, very few of those statements matched up simply because if the trauma involved for them.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You dismiss all firefighters who claimed that WTC 7 was about to collapse. They actually withdrew from the building and adjacent area because they widely believed it was about to collapse

You constantly engage in this fallacy of ignoring large amounts or consensus of experts, firefighters, witnesses, investigators, etc in favor of a very select few. It's a hallmark trait of denialism.

It collapsed according to NIST from one girder coming off its seat at column 79. This event could not have got predicted 5 hours before the collapse. Do you think firefighters can see the future? The concern was based off the twin towers have collapsed two hours before and they believed have occurred due to fire at this time. I bet if you asked firefighters today they may not agree with the official story. 180 firefighters gave testimony of hearing explosions after the attacks.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It collapsed according to NIST from one girder coming off its seat at column 79. This event could not have got predicted 5 hours before the collapse. Do you think firefighters can see the future?

So those firefighters are liars?
Or are they in on it?
Or...?