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]

Wait...
They found molten metal at a normal building fire?
How is that possible?
You've been arguing up and down that it was impossible.
Now you proudly state that there was molten metal at a normal building fire as if it helps your silly theory?
Ummm...?
Anyone else a bit confused?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Gas and propane going off would result in extreme temps well above the melting point of steel

Okay, and credible source for this

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Wait...
They found molten metal at a normal building fire?
How is that possible?
You've been arguing up and down that it was impossible.
Now you proudly state that there was molten metal at a normal building fire as if it helps your silly theory?
Ummm...?
Anyone else a bit confused?

It was not a normal building fire. Gas and propane canisters were stored in the building.

They likely exploded and the building lost stability and broke apart.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They likely exploded and the building lost stability and broke apart.

Source for this

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, and credible source for this

I found it on Metabunk Mike West posted it. The content is from an external source that doesn't have a link. I don't think they link to sites?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I found it on Metabunk Mike West posted it. The content is from an external source that doesn't have a link. I don't think they link to sites?

Post the link here thanks

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Post the link here thanks

https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truth-forced-to-claim-plasco-collapse-is-an-inside-job.t8339/page-2

[Deleted User]

But how could there be molten metal without thermite?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But how could there be molten metal without thermite?

Temperature obviously. All thermite does is increase the fire temp to cut steel.

[Deleted User]

But it was a normal fire, which you claim can't produce molten metal...
You claimed that it could only be the result of a controlled demolition using thermite.
You are debunking your own theory again.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

But how could there be molten metal without thermite?

Have just read CS's link, the metal isn't liquid

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But it was a normal fire, which you claim can't produce molten metal...
You claimed that it could only be the result of a controlled demolition using thermite.
You are debunking your own theory again.

It was not a normal fire. The building had gas canisters and propane tanks. That literally an explosive if they go off in a fire.

Have you seen what damage a gas explosion can do a house?

It doesn't debunk my theory actually it confirms it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Temperature obviously. All thermite does is increase the fire temp to cut steel.

Related to WTC 7 - You're giving confusing and contradictory signals here, Plasco fell because

1. It was an inside job involving thermite (AE911's view)

2. The building "blew apart"

3. The steel "melted" and the building fell

If not, then please explain.

And the other questions on WTC 7, according to you

Did Silverstein have anything to do with the fall of WTC 7?

Did the Saudis have anything to do with the fall of WTC 7?

Just WTC 7

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It doesn't debunk my theory actually it confirms it.

Something you've made up confirms a theory you've made up

[Deleted User]

Ok cheerful, post a source that says that this metal was melted by the gas fires

Then also post something that states for a fact there were no sources of gas in the WTC.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Related to WTC 7 - You're giving confusing and contradictory signals here, Plasco fell because

1. It was an inside job involving thermite (AE911's view)

2. The building "blew apart"

3. The steel "melted" and the building fell

If not, then please explain.

And the other questions on WTC 7, according to you

Did Silverstein have anything to do with the fall of WTC 7?

Did the Saudis have anything to do with the fall of WTC 7?

Just WTC 7

Unfortunately, AE911 should not have taken that approach they made themselves look silly.

The building contained gas canisters and propane tanks that can easily bring down a steel framed building if they go off. Plus they should have noticed Plasco broke apart it did come down symmetrically like WTC7.

There was no need to claim it was controlled demolition.

The evidence is overwhelming WTC7 collapsed due to controlled demolition just stick with that.

Finding Molten Steel in the rubble at Plasco can be explained by high temp gas explosions. The temp will reach the melting point of steel.

There nothing stored in WTC7 that helps the steel melt. Theories like diesel fuel were debunked years ago

[Deleted User]

So just to sum up.
Either it's an example of molten metal in a fire without thermite or explosives.
Or it's an example of Cheerful not knowing what molten metal looks like and misidentifing it.
Or its that there was thermite in this building.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So just to sum up.
Either it's an example of molten metal in a fire without thermite or explosives.
Or it's an example of Cheerful not knowing what molten metal looks like and misidentifing it.
Or its that there was thermite in this building.

Finding molten steel is evidence of extreme temps. An ordinary office can't reach the temp required it can be ruled out.

If gas and propane canisters went off in building 7 well then that's a different story, isn't it?

[Deleted User]

But your entire conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that only thermite or explosives could produce molten metal.
This turns out to be a lie.

Gas can do it too.
So there you go. Gas caused the molten metal at the WTC.
You debunked your own theory again.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok cheerful, post a source that says that this metal was melted by the gas fires

Then also post something that states for a fact there were no sources of gas in the WTC.

It would be reported if that was the case obviously duh.

So basically the only example of a steel framed collapsing was not due to just fire at all. There were gas and propane explosions.

No steel framed buildings have ever collapsed prior to 9/11 or after 9/11 due to just fire.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But your entire conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that only thermite or explosives could produce molten metal.
This turns out to be a lie.

Gas can do it too.
So there you go. Gas caused the molten metal at the WTC.
You debunked your own theory again.

For building 7 and WTC towers sure.

Claiming gas was the cause of building 7 falling is ridiculous even for you.

[Deleted User]

Again, no building has been demolished by thermite.

The molten metal at WTC has other explanations.
It must have other explanations as you've admitted that thermite cannot produce the pools of molten metal you claim were there.
It can't be explosives either.

So that just leaves either it was gas or perhaps that you've been inaccurately reporting stuff.

Any progress on getting a photographer on signing off on your idiotic giant mirror theory?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, no building has been demolished by thermite.

The molten metal at WTC has other explanations.
It must have other explanations as you've admitted that thermite cannot produce the pools of molten metal you claim were there.
It can't be explosives either.

So that just leaves either it was gas or perhaps that you've been inaccurately reporting stuff.

Any progress on getting a photographer on signing off on your idiotic giant mirror theory?

When? I never claimed thermite produces pools of molten steel, in the first place. Can't wait for that imaginary quote where i even went about that in this thread.

What other explanations list them?

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

For building 7 and WTC towers sure.

Claiming gas was the cause of building 7 falling is ridiculous even for you.

Ok...
So gas could have caused the molten metal at the WTC site.

I never claimed that gas caused the collapse.

[Deleted User]

Lol.
You never said that thermite can make pools of thermite?
Are you serious?

I'm done with you.
You are either a troll or mentally ill.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
You never said that thermite can make pools of thermite?
Are you serious?

I'm done with you.
You are either a troll or mentally ill.

Yes, I never said anything like that are you serious? I never not even one-time claimed standard thermite melts steel and leaves a pool of molten Iron. You said that not me.

I said thermate has been shown to melt steel in experiments and runoff is Molten Iron Slag.

I said that Iron slag runoff could have mixed with other materials in a natural fire and left a pool of molten iron,. I said there hundreds of thousands of tons of steel were used in the construction of towers there lot of steel that can be melted by nano-thermite.#

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok...
So gas could have caused the molten metal at the WTC site.

I never claimed that gas caused the collapse.

No gas was involved what are you talking about? You just can not claim a new theory and provide no evidence for it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Unfortunately, AE911 should not have taken that approach they made themselves look silly.

Why unfortunately, you clearly rely on them as a source of information and "expertise", are they wrong?

You didn't answer any of my questions so I'll ask again

According to you how did Plasco fall

1. Inside job involving thermite

2. It "blew" apart

3. The steel "melted" due to the explosions creating temperatures that could melt steel

4. Other (please specify)

Once you choose one, then back it up with credible evidence and non-conspiracy sources. Making something up to back up something you've made up is not credible evidence

And the other questions on WTC 7, according to you

Did Silverstein have anything to do with the fall of WTC 7? if yes, what

Did the Saudis have anything to do with the fall of WTC 7? if yes, what

Dohnjoe

lol

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It was not a normal fire. The building had gas canisters and propane tanks. That literally an explosive if they go off in a fire.

Have you seen what damage a gas explosion can do a house?

It doesn't debunk my theory actually it confirms it.

The problem with this is they very rarely ever explode due to having pressure valves fitted.

https://www.elgas.com.au/blog/365-busting-media-mythology-lpg-gas-bottles

Even under very extreme conditions, gas bottles perform well.

A few years ago, a truck fire caused a major fire at a BBQ gas bottle filling plant.

A storage area with thousands of gas bottles was involved in the fire, in what can be described as nothing short of a major inferno.

Even with this extreme heat and rapid temperature build up, only a handful out of the thousands of bottles actually exploded.

The Pressure Relief Valves did their job.