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

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You ignoring no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to just fire ever prior to 9/11 or after.
blah blah, badly written waffle...

No building has ever been demolished by nano thermite or any other type of thermite.
Thermite cannot produce a pool of molten metal.
Thermite cannot be used to make a building fall symmetrically and in free fall.

The thermite explanation can't be true.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But thermite can't produce this.

You ignoring no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to just fire ever prior to 9/11 or after.

Dohnjoe will come in claim one did Iran but he ignores the problems with that building and it was a composite building mostly made of concrete. He can't find even one example in Europe or America pre 9/11 or after 9/11.

When you find melted steel, the yellow flowing liquid in the rubble, nano-thermite, WTC7 came down symmetrically in freefall.The problems with the NIST study.

What likely is the cause fire or controlled demolition?

I not saying thermite creates a liquid. Scientists are claiming they found nano-thermite this only be made in an engineering lab of very high sophistication. Its not something that can be produced easily.

We know what molten Iron looks like in liquid form and resembles that liquid in the rubble.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano-thermite was found is not open for debate. 14 highly credential scientists found it. Dr Basille a chemist who was not even involved with the truth movement contacted Dr Jones and asked for a sample so he could carry out his own work. He also confirmed the nano-thermite in the dust samples.

We have direct and corroborating evidence why the steel would have got melted during a fire. And why there would be a melted flowing liquid in the rubble.

You can't provide any evidence why there would be a yellow liquid in the rubble due to fire, can you? You can not provide any evidence on how the steel got melted naturally in a fire?

Lets us not forget Sulphur attacked the ingrains of the steel at atom level. It just didn't sit on top of the steel attacked it. FEMA was unable to identify where the elemental sulphur came from and recommended further investigation. Sulphur is well known to be used in making of military grade demolitions and thermate.

Its also used in everyday objects like office furniture, carpets etc. I wonder woukd a large office block have any if those items?

Not to mention sulphure is a key element in welding, hmmmm steel structure would have lots of welds right?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can't provide any evidence why there would be a yellow liquid in the rubble due to fire, can you? You can not provide any evidence on how the steel got melted naturally in a fire?
.

But thermite can't produce this.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Proof that nanothermite can produce a river or a pool of molten metal.
I've asked you several times in very clear terms. It's no good pretending that you don't understand what I'm asking or that you've just noticed it.

I don't believe that this is possible and you've offered nothing but your own "expertise" in an unknown, secret material that's never been used before.
That's not good enough as you've shown repeatedly that your opinion is a joke.
So I want something more substantial that would show you aren't just making it up and plucking it out of your ass.

So show something that proves that nanothermite can do what you claim it can.
Otherwise we will just accept that you can't. And that nanothermite can't produce a pool of molten metal, thus the theory is debunked.

Last chance to do this or it's an admission of the above.

Edit: actually, forget it. No point pretending. You aren't going to produce it. You're going to whine and deflect and throw out more nonsense.
We both know you can't show it. The thermite theory is nonsense. You are no more worthwhile than Judy Wood and her space lasers.
I'm done feeding you with an excuse to indulge in your fantasy you're some kind of rebel investigator opening people's eyes to the truth.

Nano-thermite was found is not open for debate. 14 highly credential scientists found it. Dr Basille a chemist who was not even involved with the truth movement contacted Dr Jones and asked for a sample so he could carry out his own work. He also confirmed the nano-thermite in the dust samples.

We have direct and corroborating evidence why the steel would have got melted during a fire. And why there would be a melted flowing liquid in the rubble.

You can't provide any evidence why there would be a yellow liquid in the rubble due to fire, can you? You can not provide any evidence on how the steel got melted naturally in a fire?

Lets us not forget Sulphur attacked the ingrains of the steel at atom level. It just didn't sit on top of the steel attacked it. FEMA was unable to identify where the elemental sulphur came from and recommended further investigation. Sulphur is well known to be used in making of military grade demolitions and thermate.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I wont reject it because it hasn't been properly investigated ... and yes I find that theory more plausible then space lasers

A court or tribunal hearing on the basis another investigation would reject both space lasers and controlled demolition - because they both share the same attributes (no credible evidence, witnesses, sources), I won't even go into how implausible both are

Also look at an example of one of your sticking points, e.g.

Some individuals claimed they saw molten steel. This is explained as those individuals not having enough expertise to distinguish between heated metal, molten metal and molten steel - and making a common enough mistake

I am pretty sure (as a simple experiment) the picture of that excavator lifting up glowing metal from 911 rubble could be shown to e.g. 500 firefighters, rescue staff, emergency responders - and a number of them would say it's "molten steel"

A hallmark of faulty denial and conspiracy thinking is always to latch onto perceived discrepancies, instead of supporting evidence. To latch onto a handful of experts against a large consensus of hundreds of experts. To latch onto internet types instead of the consensus of actual investigators with evidence.

It's the way you handle that information. The fact that it's sticking point to you indicates that you aren't dealing with this subject logically or objectively

I mean even if there was molten steel, how does that indicate a controlled demolition? As far as I know there has never been a recorded incident of "molten steel" at any demolition site.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Proof of what?.

Proof that nanothermite can produce a river or a pool of molten metal.
I've asked you several times in very clear terms. It's no good pretending that you don't understand what I'm asking or that you've just noticed it.

I don't believe that this is possible and you've offered nothing but your own "expertise" in an unknown, secret material that's never been used before.
That's not good enough as you've shown repeatedly that your opinion is a joke.
So I want something more substantial that would show you aren't just making it up and plucking it out of your ass.

So show something that proves that nanothermite can do what you claim it can.
Otherwise we will just accept that you can't. And that nanothermite can't produce a pool of molten metal, thus the theory is debunked.

Last chance to do this or it's an admission of the above.

Edit: actually, forget it. No point pretending. You aren't going to produce it. You're going to whine and deflect and throw out more nonsense.
We both know you can't show it. The thermite theory is nonsense. You are no more worthwhile than Judy Wood and her space lasers.
I'm done feeding you with an excuse to indulge in your fantasy you're some kind of rebel investigator opening people's eyes to the truth.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm. I believe you.

So that proof about thermite? If you ignore this question again, you are admitting that you can't provide this proof.
Done chasing you on it.

Proof of what? That nano-thermite was used in the past? You asking dumb questions that don't need to be answered.

Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust. You deny this evidence so there no point discussing this with you.

You want to believe office fires melt steel and leaves pools of liquid in the rubble, that fine you can believe that. I don't.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have researched these guys background.

Mm hmm. I believe you.

So that proof about thermite? If you ignore this question again, you are admitting that you can't provide this proof.
Done chasing you on it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yup. Neither did you. That was my point.
You cracked the mystery. Good job.

Proof? Thermite making pools of molten metal? Any joy?

I have researched these guys background.

Tony Sambotti even debated Mike West the owner of Metabunk recently about WTC7 collapse. Good debate well worth the watch

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

I Support the theory that some kind of controlled demolition must have been taken place yes ... so far its a theory, with some evidence to back this up

"It was a controlled demolition", that's the entire theory?

Dr Judy Wood's is much more fleshed out than that

Care to elaborate on it?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't research anything me and you both know that

Yup. Neither did you. That was my point.
You cracked the mystery. Good job.

Proof? Thermite making pools of molten metal? Any joy?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Well I researched your guys and turns out they don't have any credentials either. So there:rolleyes:

Did you find that proof that thermite can create a pool of molten metal since you had all that time to research a point not directed at you?

You don't research anything me and you both know that

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Their backgrounds can be verified. You find they worked at the places they claim. I searched Dr Judy and i can't find any links to previous employers of hers. I can't find any peer review journal she wrote. Her website is junk also.

Well I researched your guys and turns out they don't have any credentials either. So there:rolleyes:

Did you find that proof that thermite can create a pool of molten metal since you had all that time to research a point not directed at you?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

If it's about the content, what point were you trying to make by listing these people's supposed credentials?

Their backgrounds can be verified. You find they worked at the places they claim. I searched Dr Judy and i can't find any links to previous employers of hers. I can't find any peer review journal she wrote. Her website is junk also.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Its about the content..... debunk it.

If it's about the content, what point were you trying to make by listing these people's supposed credentials?

Do you agree with cheerful's claims that Dr Judy Wood's credentials are faked and that she's involved in the conspiracy?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Nope you didn't

Nope it hasn't

If you say so...

weisses wrote: »

Yes as many more people who know more about this then you and me are also stating ?

I don't understand this sentence or what it's refering to. Try again?

weisses wrote: »

I wont reject it because it hasn't been properly investigated ... and yes I find that theory more plausible then space lasers

Maybe look up the meaning of the word hypocrite

But again:
You can't show any examples of thermite or stealth explosives being used before.
You can't show that thermite or stealth explosives can produce rivers of molten steel (cause they can't)

So why then do you not reject these theories when you reject the actual explanation for those same reasons.

The fact you don't makes you a hypocrite.
The fact you continue to throw around you talking points as if they were proof, but then clam up when they are applied to your prefered pet theories makes you a hypocrite.
You are only applying your logic in one direction.
Or alternatively, you know your logic is bull**** and just don't care.

Likewise you reject the space laser theory (as well as ones like the hologram planes, or like cheerful previously claimed that a plane didn't hit the pentagon) out of hand with no research into the topic cause you personally find it silly.
You would bitch and whine no end if someone were do that with your preferred theories.

weisses wrote: »

I did

Uhh yes you did

Link?

weisses wrote: »

Why keep asking for evidence of something the other poster never claimed existed in the first place ?

To illustrate 1. his hypocracy when he demanded it from others.
2. how his logic is inconsistant and flawed and that he wasn't applying it equally.
3. how that he would dodge and weave around admitting a simple fact.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

1. Do you support CS's theory that all three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) were demolished by controlled demolition?

If yes, what is the supporting and credible evidence are you basing those views on?

If no, then your view of 911 is entirely different and in contradiction to CS's view. His view to you will be as "incorrect" as the widely established version of events

I Support the theory that some kind of controlled demolition must have been taken place yes ... so far its a theory, with some evidence to back this up

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This is your opinion.

No not just my opinion. NIST has documented the fires temp all day in WTC7 and they are cheats so they went with the worst-case scenario. They were unable to find a fire that got as hot as 1000c.

We know for a fact the steel never melted due to just fire, that's a fact, not an opinion.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/dr-judy-wood-biography/

Its about the content..... debunk it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FEMA report is the gotcha moment it exposes the NIST lies that came later.

The fireS could not have caused the steel to melt in WTC7 we know that to be true in 2018 in 2002 they did know that.

This is your opinion.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I haven't lied. I have explained the real explanation several times and it has been repeated to you above.

Nope you didn't

King Mob wrote: »

But your question has been answered.

Nope it hasn't

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, cause you reject the fire explanation, but won't reject the thermite or explosive explanations when your logic is applied to them.

Yes as many more people who know more about this then you and me are also stating ?

I wont reject it because it hasn't been properly investigated ... and yes I find that theory more plausible then space lasers

Maybe look up the meaning of the word hypocrite

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, the second you show the exact post I claimed he did.

I did

King Mob wrote: »

Cause I never claimed he did either. I know he didn't as he knows there's no such example.
Yet he keeps harping on about how "there's no example of a fire taking down a building".

Uhh yes you did

Why keep asking for evidence of something the other poster never claimed existed in the first place ?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Still waiting on you producing her 60 peer-reviewed papers. The people Weiss listed have credible backgrounds you can google search them and find they worked at these educational places.

Dr Judy theory is backed only by herself. She has no credibility. I would not be surprised if she is got involved in the 9/11 conspiracy movement to debunk the real evidence. She goes out of her way to claim controlled demolition could not have happened, very strange.

Lol. Again, you show your hypocrisy. You are inventing a whole new wing of your conspiracy just to explain how your experts are flawless and couldn't possibly wrong.

But since this is apparently a viable tactic for you: All of your experts are fake with falsified credentials.:rolleyes:

How's it going finding that proof that nanothermite can produce a river of molten metal?
Still having trouble?

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

What extreme view am I representing ?

That 911 was an inside job. That's a pretty extreme view.

Most people would discard that in the same way you would discard people who believe that e.g. Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing was an inside job

Doesn't matter how much you "passionately believe" your theory - you can't support it with any credible evidence

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/dr-judy-wood-biography/

Still waiting on you producing her 60 peer-reviewed papers. The people Weiss listed have credible backgrounds you can google search them and find they worked at these educational places.

Dr Judy theory is backed only by herself. She has no credibility. I would not be surprised if she is got involved in the 9/11 conspiracy movement to debunk the real evidence. She goes out of her way to claim controlled demolition could not have happened, very strange.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Can you point out to the exact post cheerful claimed thermite was used to demolish skyscrapers prior to 9/11

1. Do you support CS's theory that all three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) were demolished by controlled demolition?

If yes, what is the supporting and credible evidence are you basing those views on?

If no, then your view of 911 is entirely different and in contradiction to CS's view. His view to you will be as "incorrect" as the widely established version of events

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Steven Jones a former full professor
of physics at Brigham Young University.

Robert Korol a professor emeritus of
civil engineering at McMaster University
in Ontario, Canada, as well as a fellow
of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering
and the Engineering Institute
of Canada.

Anthony Szamboti a mechanical design
engineer with over 25 years of structural
design experience in the aerospace and
communications industries

http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/dr-judy-wood-biography/

Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No need for the dramatics. At no point did I label you a holocaust denier (so don't twist my words thanks)

Dramatics moi ?? ... I dont feel the need to bring in other CT scenarios

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Again no need for this, thanks

It probably is because most if not all these points were presented

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Personal incredulity.

Au contraire

WTC 7 underwent free fall. When pressed about that
matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed
it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that
has no structural components below it.” But in the case
of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance
that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high
school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics
professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article),
who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge
a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet
NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall,
nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have
had “no structural components below it” for eight stories.
Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario
involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the
thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining
girder off its seat. The alleged walk-off of this girder
then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor
failures, which, combined with the failure of two other
girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left
a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to
buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated
the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the
exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns
then allegedly buckled over a two-second period
and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3].
NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting
or misrepresenting critical structural features in its
computer modelling.[4] Correcting just one of these
errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably
impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to
its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model
(see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead
showing large deformations to the exterior that are not
observed in the videos and showing no period of free
fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation,
less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse.
Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be
independently verified because NIST has refused to release
a large portion of its modelling data on the basis
that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”

Then the people below who drafted up this article suffer from that condition as well

Steven Jones a former full professor
of physics at Brigham Young University.

Robert Korol a professor emeritus of
civil engineering at McMaster University
in Ontario, Canada, as well as a fellow
of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering
and the Engineering Institute
of Canada.

Anthony Szamboti a mechanical design
engineer with over 25 years of structural
design experience in the aerospace and
communications industries

Plus a couple of thousand who did not work on this article

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which is what this thread is about. There are other threads to attack the NIST in. People are being incredible patient with posters here considering the subject matter and large amount of faulty logic, deflections, dishonesty, and general denialism

Again, you are representing an extreme view here (don't pretend otherwise) you are trying to suggest there was a controlled demolition, some people suggest there were hologram planes, some suggest energy weapons, but you refuse to support that notion with valid witnesses, suspects, motives, anything

Therefore you aren't even on the same level as people suggesting those "whacky" theories

What extreme view am I representing ?

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He quoted FEMA as some sort of gotcha moment, the FEMA report says damage was due to fire. Does he accept the FEMA report that fire caused the damage or is he going to (yet again) cherry pick certain sentences to suit his narrative?

I know which option i would lay my money on

FEMA report is the gotcha moment it exposes the NIST lies that came later.

The fireS could not have caused the steel to melt in WTC7 we know that to be true in 2018 in 2002 they did know that.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Is having solid supporting evidence necessary in the ct forum ? ...

It's necessary to be taken seriously

Unless people have extreme theories - in which case they should be presenting and prefacing them as personal opinion, instead of fact