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

weisses wrote: »

Can carbon based fires cause molten steel/pools of molten steel ... ?

Nope.

But that's not really here nor there.
Your experts claim these pools exist.
Controlled demolitions do not result in molten metal of any kind never mind large pools.

So how do you resolve this issue with your theory?

King Mob wrote: »

Nope.

One step at the time

How do you explain these being present in the rubble of the towers, what could have caused this ?

these are not "my" experts

They are reliable eye witnesses

weisses wrote: »

One step at the time

How do you explain these being present in the rubble of the towers, what could have caused this ?

these are not "my" experts

They are reliable eye witnesses

No weisses, this thread is about alternative theories. I'm done allowing you to deflect.

Let's just accept for the sake of argument that there was molten steel there and there's no official explanation for it and move on.

Controlled demolitions do not result in molten metal.
So where does it come from?

King Mob wrote: »

Controlled demolitions do not result in molten metal.
Where does it come from?

So when I ask you I'm deflecting

But its alright when you ask me ?

What could have caused the molten pools of metal underneath all 3 wtc buildings after they collapsed ?

These molten pools could have been part of an alternative theory

Unless you have a valid scientific explanation for their presence ?

weisses wrote: »

What could have caused the molten pools of metal underneath all 3 wtc buildings after they collapsed ?

These molten pools could have been part of an alternative theory

Unless you have a valid scientific explanation for their presence ?

Been over that many many many times. You don't listen. I'm not going to convince you of it. I give up on that.
So again, let's accept for the sake of argument that there was molten steel there and there's no official explanation for it and move on.
(Before you try to misrepresent me: I don't now accept the conspiracy version of event or doubt the real explanation of events. I just accept that I cannot provide anything that would convince you.)

How is it explained in your version of events?
Where do you think they come from?
Where do your experts, who are so versed in demolitions etc say it comes from?
What's your valid scientific explanation for the presence of molten pools of metal?

King Mob wrote: »

Been over that many many many times. You don't listen. I'm not going to convince you of it. I give up on that.
So again, let's accept for the sake of argument that there was molten steel there and there's no official explanation for it and move on.
(Before you try to misrepresent me: I don't now accept the conspiracy version of event or doubt the real explanation of events. I just accept that I cannot provide anything that would convince you.)

How is it explained in your version of events?
Where do you think they come from?
Where do your experts, who are so versed in demolitions etc say it comes from?
What's your valid scientific explanation for the presence of molten pools of metal?

Extreme heat caused the Molten steel/iron. Why annoys 9/11 researchers is NIST denied that anyone saw it. We know that a lie as there video evidence of eyewitnesses saying they saw it. It irrelevant if turned out to be not molten steel and iron, it's NIST denial that people question and wonder why they are not truthful about it?

FEMA in 2002 confirmed they found a liquid slag made of primarily Iron and Sulphur. The iron had melted so it obvious the 9/11 truthers are correct and eyewitnesses are correct there was molten steel in the rubble.

King Mob wrote: »

Been over that many many many times. You don't listen. I'm not going to convince you of it. I give up on that.
So again, let's accept for the sake of argument that there was molten steel there and there's no official explanation for it and move on.
(Before you try to misrepresent me: I don't now accept the conspiracy version of event or doubt the real explanation of events. I just accept that I cannot provide anything that would convince you.)

Why move on ?

You cannot provide anything that explains it ... Leave me out of it.

You haven't explained it ..you cannot explain it ..you would have rubbed it all over this forum if you could explain it

King Mob wrote: »

How is it explained in your version of events?
Where do you think they come from?
Where do your experts, who are so versed in demolitions etc say it comes from?
What's your valid scientific explanation for the presence of molten pools of metal?

That is all in the explosive demolition hypothesis I posted ? didn't you look at it

weisses wrote: »

Why move on ?

You cannot provide anything that explains it ... Leave me out of it.

You haven't explained it ..you cannot explain it ..you would have rubbed it all over this forum if you could explain it

That is all in the explosive demolition hypothesis I posted ? didn't you look at it

Yup, I can't explain it to you.

So let's talk about your theory.

Demolitions don't result in molten metal.
So why do you think there was molten metal at the site?
The posters and other things you have posted do not explain this.

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, I can't explain it to you.

To me ? Or dont you have a clou either ?

King Mob wrote: »

Demolitions don't result in molten metal.
So why do you think there was molten metal at the site?
The posters and other things you have posted do not explain this.

I posted the relevant info in regards to this

If you need to be spoon fed ..find someone else

Best thing for you would be to explain the molten metal in all three collapse sites... Your theory of carbon fueled fires don't result in molten pools of metal.. fact

And why do you agree with a group that don't believe NIST's single column failure ? .....

weisses wrote: »

To me ? Or dont you have a clou either ?

To you.

weisses wrote: »

I posted the relevant info in regards to this
..

No you have not.
Not once.
Not ever.

Molten metal is not a feature of controlled demolition. That is a fact.
So how does your theory explain it?

Even if the real explanation can't account for it, that doesn't matter much for your explanation. Your explanation must account for it. But it doesn't.

Yet you still accept the theory.

King Mob wrote: »

To you.

No you have not.
Not once.
Not ever.

Just checked .. and yes ... they include the reason of possible molten metal in their theory

King Mob wrote: »

Molten metal is not a feature of controlled demolition. That is a fact.
So how does your theory explain it?

Molten metal is not a feature of carbon fires ... how does the official narrative explain it ?

King Mob wrote: »

Even if the real explanation can't account for it, that doesn't matter much for your explanation. Your explanation must account for it. But it doesn't.

Yet you still accept the theory.

Of course the official report must account for it ... molten metal was there (for weeks) ... it shouldn't be there ... according to the official narrative it couldn't be there

And yet you still accept the theory

You are very gullible Mob ...(as long as it suits whatever ludicrous theory you support )

weisses wrote: »

Just checked .. and yes ... they include the reason of possible molten metal in their theory

No it doesn't. This is an outright lie.

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't. This is an outright lie.

Checked again .... Yup its there

And you are familiar with the Ae911 stance ..so don't be so obtuse

I really like to know what was written in the official report about these molten pools of metal who were observed for weeks.

weisses wrote: »

Checked again .... Yup its there
.

Mm hmm. Still a lie.
You can't explain it.

Enjoy discussing it with Cheerful.
You do wonders for the credibility of conspiracy theorists.

Peatys

The twin towers were brought down just so they could bring down building 7? What the fúck was in there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV9AR2UuBgc

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm. Still a lie.
You can't explain it.

Enjoy discussing it with Cheerful.
You do wonders for the credibility of conspiracy theorists.

Ahh running away when your asked to explain your point of view

You sound like that NIST lead engineer ....

Some first class investigating

Peatys wrote: »

The twin towers were brought down just so they could bring down building 7? What the fúck was in there?

According to our resident conspiracy theorists:
Papers they wanted to destroy.

So I came up with a viable collapse theory ...and all of a sudden all the skeptics stop posting when challenged

Terrific

King Mob wrote: »

According to our resident conspiracy theorists:
Papers they wanted to destroy.

those burning papers brought down wtc7 ...........apparently

The Nal

weisses wrote: »

So I came up with a viable collapse theory ...and all of a sudden all the skeptics stop posting when challenged

Terrific

What is it with people on here? People who think 9/11 was an inside job etc are the skeptics. Not the other way around.

Peatys

King Mob wrote: »

According to our resident conspiracy theorists:
Papers they wanted to destroy.

Removal truck lot less hassle in the long run

The Nal

Peatys wrote: »

Removal truck lot less hassle in the long run

They brought the entire building down to destroy some papers that weren't even guaranteed to be destroyed.

The Nal wrote: »

What is it with people on here? People who think 9/11 was an inside job etc are the skeptics. Not the other way around.

Its confusing ...skeptics... truthers...debunkers.....

The Nal wrote: »

What is it with people on here? People who think 9/11 was an inside job etc are the skeptics. Not the other way around.

He means skeptics as in people who are skeptical of things like 9/11 conspiracy thoeries, paranormal events and bigfoot.

Folks like him and Cheerful are best described as deniers.

Peatys wrote: »

Removal truck lot less hassle in the long run

Nope. According to conspiracy theorists, it's far easier to rig a whole building with experimental explosives in secret as well as 2 other buildings. Then also fake some hijackings and also involve every other agency...

They couldn't just take the papers for... Reasons...

King Mob wrote: »

They couldn't just take the papers for... Reasons...

of course they couldn't take the papers ... according to the official story the building wouldn't have collapsed then

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. According to conspiracy theorists, it's far easier to rig a whole building with experimental explosives in secret as well as 2 other buildings. Then also fake some hijackings and also involve every other agency...

They couldn't just take the papers for... Reasons...

Why is that so hard when 9/11 had not happened. We know repair work was ongoing for years at the Twin Towers. All you need is time and access and they had that in spades.

It very suspicious when Donald Rumsfield claims to not know WTC7 collapsed on 9/11. We have videotape of this. He was on the board for Solomon brothers before he got appointed as defence secretary. This financial firm occupied most of the floor space in this building. It well known he avoided his duty on 9/11 and disappeared for 40 minutes after the second plane hit.

It obvious if you research it the White House broke the law and went to great lengths to stop the investigation that would link the 9/11 hijackers to the Saudi government. You only do this if you trying to stop the truth from coming out. That why there so many holes in the official story. We have not got full picture who backed them and were the pilots of the planes really bad pilots as reported by the mainstream press?

King Mob wrote: »

He means skeptics as in people who are skeptical of things like 9/11 conspiracy thoeries, paranormal events and bigfoot.

Folks like him and Cheerful are best described as deniers.

We are skeptics of the official story provided by the US government. Deniers is a strong word. Obviously, everything that happened on 9/11 is not fake.

The Nal wrote: »

They brought the entire building down to destroy some papers that weren't even guaranteed to be destroyed.

Yep SEC had a business office in WTC7. They investigate corruption and financial crimes. Would they risk destroying documents and getting caught? You entering business offices then and destroying papers stored in lockers and on computers! 9/11 just made it easier to destroy the damaging evidence, just bring the entire building down the job done.

They would not have controlled demolition even they knew the information would survive somewhere else. Would anyone investigate this crime after 9/11? The official line is the building collapsed due to fire on some floors, after nobody was going to look into this and investigate.

NIST WTC7 investigation is problematic. Dohnjoe can claim their theory is supported by other bodies, who cares. They are supporting this fraud too.

The truther movement has the Frankel construction drawings that show what elements were on the girder at column 79 (WTC7) NIST claimed the girder at column 79 had no shear studs or web plate or fasteners. These connections were not even modelled by NIST. So we know this omission changes everything. NIST is involved in a deception. If this building did not collapse on 9/11 the NIST study would be laughed at and thrown out.