Dohnjoe wrote: » So if WTC 7 had Gerber Girders then it could have collapsed due to fire? correct?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I did 10 minutes of research and found out quickly why this localised part of the building collapsed. Maybe you should have done the same?
Dohnjoe wrote: » Yup. According to you, is it possible that fire can partially collapse a steel-framed structure If so, how? Explain the processes involved And to repeat my question that you keep avoiding how did WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall? were they blown up by Larry S also?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » This reporthttps://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf
Dohnjoe wrote: » Nope, I read the FEMA report, which stated that further collapse was caused by fire "Ensuing fires that burned unchecked in the building caused a localized collapse from the 9th floor to the 4th floor" Unsurprising. There are many examples of partial collapse of steel structures due to fire. It happened according to everyone but you and a bunch of conspiracy theorists /isolated "experts" who can't alternatively explain how it fell Losing count here, how did WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall? were they blown up by Larry S also?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » 95 per cent of the damage was done when the towers collapsed against the building. There was a localised collapse at the right west corner due to fire and debris damage. Again you did look not this up and just assumed fire by itself collapsed floors.
Yes there no evidence a localised fire can bring down 47 floors and collapse the building.
Dohnjoe wrote: » https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center I'll ask again a steel-framed structure can only partially collapse due to fire but not fully collapse? If yes, explain Also still waiting for answers to basic questions You maintain the Larry S (along with a very long list of "accomplices") carried out 911 So did he blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2 as well as WTC 7? I can keep doing this all day
Cheerful Spring wrote: » You had 15 alleged hijackers....
Cheerful Spring wrote: » You have to show me what floors collapsed. Least provide evidence of your claim a picture.
Dohnjoe wrote: » So according to you, a steel-framed structure can only partially collapse due to fire but not fully collapse? If yes, explain Waiting for basic answers on your theory You maintain the Larry S (along with a very long list of "accomplices") carried out 911 So did he blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2 as well as WTC 7?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Partial collapse can happen I already stated that's possible.
Dohnjoe wrote: » WTC 5 partially collapsed. From the 9th floor to the 4th floor.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » WTC5 did not collapse, full stop
Dohnjoe wrote: » Cool, "melted steel" has nothing to do with the cause of the collapse What caused it to partially collapse? bombs? gas explosions? mini-nuke? silent explosives? or fire?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » You had 15 alleged hijackers getting Visas through the CIA station in Jeddah Saudi Arabia. They did not just sneak in they went through the proper channels. Are you saying not even one of them was suspected as a terrorist, bull****? We know for a fact US intelligence was tracked these guys through the Able Danger program, including Mohammed Atta. The Pentagon later denies this program was watching two of the three 9/11 cells. The men involved in this program have gone on record screaming cover-up. We know for a fact CIA kept intelligence from the FBI for reasons still unclear today. FBI agents are still sour by this today. Why was the CIA protecting 9/11 terrorists? This question is still unanswered 17 years later. We know for a fact when the 9/11 hijackers arrived in the United States, they met with Saudi government officials. We know from records Prince Bandar was in contact with the alleged ringleader and planner of 9/11 Abu Zubaydah, one week before 9/11 and we reconnected with him a week later. What did these men discuss?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Melted steel was found in the WTC7 wreckage point number 1 cannot be disputed
WTC5 did not collapse.
King Mob wrote: » Lol So exactly the same as you and your theory.
Dohnjoe wrote: » The building didn't fall due to "melted steel" You've repeatedly demonstrated that you believe in "wild" unique theories unsupported by evidence that you literally make up in your head as a thread progresses Example, so far your personal theory involves Larry S, Saudi royals, Saudi officials, CIA Muhajadeen (not Al Qaeda), Rumsfeld, unspecified generals, unspecified businessmen, unspecified members of NORAD, unspecified NIST investigators, possibly Bush, possibly Cheney "So far" WTC 5, what caused it to collapse? Did Larry Silverstein have it blown up? Did Larry S blow up WTC 1 and WTC 2?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » What caused the steel to melt then?
They believe in wild theories that not supported by evidence. If Nukes went off, why was there no nuclear fallout? The Energy weapons was used is stupid because how do you cover up something like this happening on live TV? And Dr Judy theory does not make lot of sense.
What building you referring to?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » They believe in wild theories that not supported by evidence. If Nukes went off, why was there no nuclear fallout? The Energy weapons was used is stupid because how do you cover up something like this happening on live TV? And Dr Judy theory does not make lot of sense. The interview she had done about her theory was enlighting. She could not address basic questions about her theory.
Dohnjoe wrote: » "Melting steel" was not the reason that WTC 7 fell. That might be your interpretation but it's not the findings Which is precisely the same fallacy that individuals use to justify their theories of energy weapons and "mini-nukes" And what caused the partial collapse of the building? Think before you write
Cheerful Spring wrote: » It was was documented by FEMA in 2002
Why not a plot occurred on 9/11 and men boarded planes and attacked buildings. Would you have envisioned a crazy scenario like this pre 9/11 would you have thought it was possible. This was the stuff of hollywood pre 9/11. What do you really know about hijackers, like the history of how the ended up in America is not well documented. Who recruited them, what were they doing pre 2000. You have taken it for granted you have been told everything.
Partial collapse it just an area of the building losing structural stability.
Dohnjoe wrote: » "Melting" steel is not what caused the building to fall. Many steel framed structures are recorded as collapsing or partially collapsing due to fire. WTC 5, a steel framed building, partially collapsed Sorry you were busy explaining how WTC 7 being "blown up" was part of a giant secret plot that only you know about, you were giving details, go on.. I have many questions about this
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The fire explantation, not a good explanation for why the Steel melted. If normal office fires can do this why do we not see evidence elsewhere of this occurring? Find evidence of this online. Steel Buildings catch fire all the time and I never saw steel melt at a low temp? Fires are known to burn things inside buildings, not collapse buildings. We be in serious trouble if fires were able to topple buildings to dust.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Translation "I can't believe the building fell due to fire so it didn't" Cool, but it means nothing. Feel free to present your unique version
Cheerful Spring wrote: » It is implausible as NIST claims the collapse started on floor 12-13, column 79 and this caused a chain reaction of collapsing floors inside the building. Groups not with the conspiracy movement have debunked this explanation. I provided you prove of that. Where we at then? Again the other groups explantation is just as stupid, because how do floors just fall down from fires that are protected by shear studs and fasteners and web plates. Fires were collapsing steel high rise buildings there be no issue, but the skeptics claim its possible because a building made of some steel collapsed in Iran. Even though we know the building in Iran was suspect and was in bad nick an if gas explosions went off, would be an issue. The fact the found steel melted in WTC7 wreckage is why i maintain fires did not bring down that building. Its scientifically impossible for a low temp fire to melt steel through, can't happen. If fires were at 1200c in WTC7 yes it possible, but we know fires were only 400c in the afternoon
Dohnjoe wrote: » It goes without saying, personal beliefs have zero bearing on an event. The fact that someone is incredulous about something also doesn't mean anything. "I can't believe that men landed on the moon, with that 60's technology, no way!".. means absolutely nothing. Even more bizarre is maintaining a view that a building collapsing due to fire is completely implausible, while at the same time maintaining a view that a secret plot to silently blow it up is entirely plausible Event happens. "No amount of evidence or consensus for theory X will ever convince me it happened" "I accept theory Y with little or no evidence" Words cannot describe how utterly ridiculous that is. Also it's not like it's some unobtainable truth or mystery, you could literally go to the engineering department of any university, go to any (recognised) organisation of engineers or architects, write to any recognised publication and they'll literally give you the answer. There is no logic or critical thinking to these types of views, it's a dogmatic blindspot. Or worse; faulty thinking.
weisses wrote: » The only question you should ask yourself is ..could office fires bring down a building in symmetrical free fall .... And the answer is NO
Dohnjoe wrote: » Which begs the elementary questions 1. Who ordered that WTC 7 be blown up? what was the chain of command? 2. Who carried out the preparation of the building for demolition? names, details, etc 3. Why did they blow up WTC 7? motive? 4. If an answer is given for 3. why didn't they carry that out when they were preparing the entire building for demolition? alternatively why didn't they let fire do the job? 5. What was the added value of taking a risk to "blow up" a 47 story building in the middle of NY under the gaze of the world's media, governments, foreign intelligence agencies during the most significant event of the 21st century/ 6. How was it coordinated with the rest of the attacks that day? what if the planes missed the towers, how would they explain this building in NY entirely rigged to explode? 7. There are constantly leaks from the White House, CIA, FBI, the NSA, why are there no leaks about this after 17 years? 8. Why are there no witnesses, no whistle-blowers, no deathbed confessions? This is basic stuff. Motives, suspects, witnesses, credible evidence. Evidence has to corroborate other evidence. Any tribunal for reinvestigation would need this. Here are some things that don't wash. Making personal claims like "it looks like a demolition to me so it has to be" isn't evidence. Personal acts of incredulity: "I can't believe a building fell down due to fire, that's impossible, therefore it must have been secretly blown up with silent explosives". Appeal to experts or authority is pointless if they only represent a highly isolated view. Likewise declaring that an inside job exists because "no one can prove the official story to me personally" - that's literally how flat-earthers validate their theory. And last but not least, calling people idiots for not accepting a very obviously far-fetched theory - unsurprisingly 911 is banned or harshly moderated on many engineering forums due to that kind of thinking
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
