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

Cheerful Spring · 22-02-2019 11:40pm

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Only interested in the chemistry, not bothered about anything else.

The building came down like a controlled demolition. NIST is claiming the collapse resembled the images I posted. Do you not find it strange they are distorting the reality of what took place on 9/11

Cheerful Spring · 23-02-2019 12:04am

SlowBlowin if you only interested in chemistry? Then watch this video, he talks about the elemental sulphur.

Jeff Farrer is the Director of the BYU Electron Microscopy Facility. At BYU since Oct 2003. Formerly with TexSEM Laboratories Inc. (TSL/EDAX) as Senior Applications Scientist.

He discusses the chemistry evidence scientifically.

King Mob · 23-02-2019 2:10am

Lol its funny to watch you freak out and cry for attention when people are done engaging with your bull****.

That's pretty much the driving force behind conspiracy theory belief. Attention seeking and the thrill of pretending to be smart, informed and possessed of secret information.

Dohnjoe · 23-02-2019 2:15am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Proven where show documentation on it.

Uh everywhere. 911 findings are written into building codes, taught in universities, in print in history books, accepted by the consensus of recognised experts

You can't seem or don't want to grasp 90% of it, you struggle (possibly deliberately) with basic concepts, you use every denialist technique there is, you lie pathologically. As mentioned it comes across like it's some religious belief that you feel you need to defend with every bit of nonsense and deflection you can muster. It's a ****show.

There is a core of fringe types who believe the world is flat, no amount of information or "proof" will convince them otherwise. Just because these individuals insist of flogging a dead horse to breath life into their bonkers theories doesn't mean they have any valid argument - or that any reasonable debate exists, precisely the same goes for you

jeremyj1968 · 23-02-2019 10:33pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

For something that's similar, in 2017 a steel-framed 17 story building collapsed in Tehran due to fire

The one in Tehran looks like it was taken down with explosives. White smoke at the bottom where there was no damage at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY

Have you got anything a bit more conclusive? Surely if it is now accepted that fire can take down steel buildings there must be a more concrete (:pac:) examples? Any building in the western world, say, of similar height, and made of steel. I mean it can't surely be the first time something like this has happened.

I could never understand how there was not a huge investigation into this though. We are saying now that steel buildings can collapse because of fire - surely this should be treated with the same curiosity in the architectural world as the disappearance of MH370 was treat with in the aviation world?

Cheerful Spring · 23-02-2019 11:10pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

The one in Tehran looks like it was taken down with explosives. White smoke at the bottom where there was no damage at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgJTa7SDaY

Have you got anything a bit more conclusive? Surely if it is now accepted that fire can take down steel buildings there must be a more concrete (:pac:) examples? Any building in the western world, say, of similar height, and made of steel. I mean it can't surely be the first time something like this has happened.

I could never understand how there was not a huge investigation into this though. We are saying now that steel buildings can collapse because of fire - surely this should be treated with the same curiosity in the architectural world as the disappearance of MH370 was treat with in the aviation world?

I'm of the opinion this was a natural collapse, not a controlled demolition. You can see clearly on this video the building walls fold inwards. The floors were collapsing and then the corner walls on all sides gave way.

It now established the building fell when the gas exploded, went off, oil leaked increasing the heat. The steel had no fireproofing at all, it was completely unprotected. The building was structurally unsafe and Iranian authorties warned the owner about it pre-collapse.

Yep, 9/11 is the only time a steel beamed high rise building collapsed due to fire. Why do you think Dohnjoe keeps posting this video and only mentioning this building in Iran.

Dohnjoe · 23-02-2019 11:15pm

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

The one in Tehran looks like it was taken down with explosives. White smoke at the bottom where there was no damage at all.

The Plasco building in Tehran fell due to fire

Have you got anything a bit more conclusive? Surely if it is now accepted that fire can take down steel buildings there must be a more concrete () examples?

Fire can significantly weaken steel (e.g. up to 90%) which is why protective foam is applied. The instances of a full scale collapse are rare (around a half a dozen buildings I believe including WTC buildings), for partial collapses; Windsor building Madrid, Alexis Nihon Plaza, Delft University building, First Interstate Bank building

A steel-framed overpass built to withstand traffic collapsed in 20 mins exposure to fire
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tanker-fire-destroys-part-of-MacArthur-Maze-2-2575285.php

In-depth overview if you are interested
https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:sz324fv2419/TR163_Takagi_0.pdf

Dohnjoe · 23-02-2019 11:23pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It now established the building fell when the gas exploded, went off, oil leaked increasing the heat.

It fell due to fire.

"Fire, sole cause of Plasco collapse"
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/124604/Fire-sole-cause-of-Plasco-collapse

Cheerful Spring · 23-02-2019 11:26pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Uh everywhere. 911 findings are written into building codes, taught in universities, in print in history books, accepted by the consensus of recognised experts

You can't seem or don't want to grasp 90% of it, you struggle (possibly deliberately) with basic concepts, you use every denialist technique there is, you lie pathologically. As mentioned it comes across like it's some religious belief that you feel you need to defend with every bit of nonsense and deflection you can muster. It's a ****show.

There is a core of fringe types who believe the world is flat, no amount of information or "proof" will convince them otherwise. Just because these individuals insist of flogging a dead horse to breath life into their bonkers theories doesn't mean they have any valid argument - or that any reasonable debate exists, precisely the same goes for you

WTC7 collapse is thought to students in Universities? Any evidence for this comment?

WTC7 collapse is discussed in history books? Like where name a book?

I asked you for proof 1000 degree heat + sulphur can melt steel, got instead was silence and effort to deflect.

FEMA alleges this how it happened. Provide any video even a paper of experiments done. You believe 9/11 debunkers and mainstream architects and engineers have proven this scientifically then the evidence should be easy for you to find online?

Cheerful Spring · 23-02-2019 11:31pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It fell due to fire.

"Fire, sole cause of Plasco collapse"
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/124604/Fire-sole-cause-of-Plasco-collapse

I already posted evidence of architects and engineers from the middle east doing an independent study.

I also posted a link to the Atlantic Council. They are linked with intelligence agencies in the UK and US and to Western politicians. Facebook is working with them to censor stuff on their network. They claim gas and oil explosions took place inside the building. Even Iranian firefighters said this happened.

Dohnjoe · 23-02-2019 11:36pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

WTC7 collapse is thought to students in Universities? Any evidence for this comment?

Read what I wrote and try again

WTC7 collapse is discussed in history books? Like where name a book?

Again, read what I wrote and try again (you repeatedly demonstrate that you have serious difficulties understanding basic sentences)

If you need clarification I'll provide it. I've explained simple concepts to you before and you've either a) not understood or b) ignored it

I asked you for proof 1000 degree heat + sulphur can melt steel, got instead was silence and effort to deflect.

I'm not interested in your bizarre ramblings about "molten steel" and having the NIST "proven to you". As a reminder, here is the first post in the thread

"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"

Dohnjoe · 23-02-2019 11:41pm

As another reminder, here's the third post in this thread, related to the claim that it was a "controlled demolition"

Let's start off with this one..

1. Who set the explosives, Navy Seals? demolition experts? which branch did they come from?

2. How many were there? what were their names?

3. Exactly when did they set the explosives? how long did it take?

4. Who gave them the order to set the explosives?

No guesses or "I think", backed up with witnesses, evidence and so on

None of these questions have been answered

Cheerful Spring · 23-02-2019 11:44pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Read what I wrote and try again

Again, read what I wrote and try again (you repeatedly demonstrate that you have serious difficulties understanding basic sentences)

If you need clarification I'll provide it. I've explained simple concepts to you before and you've either a) not understood or b) ignored it

I'm not interested in your bizarre ramblings about "molten steel" and having the NIST "proven to you". As a reminder, here is the first post in the thread

"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"

For the last week, all we talked about is how the buildings fell on 9/11.

It obvious what you meant by 9/11 findings, stop trying to deflect. You were addressing a specific quote in your answer.

Of course, you not interested. Still, i have to push you to answer when steel melts what happens next?

Cheerful Spring · 23-02-2019 11:56pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The Plasco building in Tehran fell due to fire

Fire can significantly weaken steel (e.g. up to 90%) which is why protective foam is applied. The instances of a full scale collapse are rare (around a half a dozen buildings I believe including WTC buildings), for partial collapses; Windsor building Madrid, Alexis Nihon Plaza, Delft University building, First Interstate Bank building

A steel-framed overpass built to withstand traffic collapsed in 20 mins exposure to fire
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tanker-fire-destroys-part-of-MacArthur-Maze-2-2575285.php

In-depth overview if you are interested
https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:sz324fv2419/TR163_Takagi_0.pdf

Notice how Dohnjoe deflects again. Can't provide proof.

Partial collapse? Few floors collapsing in a building?

He criticizes the truther movement for doubting the official story. Yet history and fire records don't support the official story.

Yes, I agree with you steel can weaken and buckle when it heated to high enough temp. The problem is there no evidence one failure will cause a ripple effect across multiple floors untouched by fire.

SlowBlowin · 24-02-2019 12:01am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUl295oyeIc

Dohnjoe · 24-02-2019 12:02am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

For the last week, all we talked about is how the buildings fell on 9/11.

Your theory on 911..

It was an inside job specifically by: CIA Muhajadeen (not Al Qaeda), Rumsfeld, unspecified generals, unspecified businessmen, unspecified members of NORAD, unspecified NIST investigators, Larry Silverstein, his insurers, possibly Bush, possibly Cheney

That is your stated theory on it

Show us where this is in print? which credible scientific/history sites, which encyclopedias?

Let's try Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/event/September-11-attacks
Encyclopedia.com
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/911-attack

I can't find it. Any credible site I access refers to the "official" story

Dohnjoe · 24-02-2019 12:06am

Cheerful Spring · 24-02-2019 12:08am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your theory on 911..

It was an inside job specifically by: CIA Muhajadeen (not Al Qaeda), Rumsfeld, unspecified generals, unspecified businessmen, unspecified members of NORAD, unspecified NIST investigators, Larry Silverstein, his insurers, possibly Bush, possibly Cheney

That is your stated theory on it

Show us where this is in print? which credible scientific/history sites, which encyclopedias?

Let's try Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/event/September-11-attacks
Encyclopedia.com
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/911-attack

I can't find it. Any credible site I access refers to the "official" story

Again deflecting. NIST is claiming WTC7 only experienced office fire like temps in their own study.

How does steel melt in low temps, I don't get it do you?

To melt steel you need at least 1500c temp. FEMA claiming it only took 1000c+ sulphur to begin the process.

How come nobody has taken the time to check if this correct scientifically. Truther experiments are not accepted, you keep telling me this.

Cheerful Spring · 24-02-2019 12:19am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why does NIST not have a debate about their findings? Their credible people who can debate them. Alex Jones is not one of them.

Jeff Farrer is a credible person. He has a scientific background. You guys will not watch those videos though I post.

Dohnjoe · 24-02-2019 12:19am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

To melt steel you need at least 1500c temp. FEMA claiming it only took 1000c+ sulphur to begin the process.

This thread is about alternative theories for 911 and credible evidence for them

Anything else is a distraction from that

If you believe WTC 7 was e.g. blown up, you have to explain how it was done, support that with proper supporting evidence

You claim it was the CIA, Larry Silverstein, etc - yet when asked basic questions about this you avoid them or divert

I strongly suggest you start your own "molten steel" and "prove the NIST" threads (there are many here).. this one is specifically for the proper support of alternative theories

Spamming it to death with nonsense isn't going to make it go away

Cheerful Spring · 24-02-2019 12:33am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This thread is about alternative theories for 911 and credible evidence for them

Anything else is a distraction from that

If you believe WTC 7 was e.g. blown up, you have to explain how it was done, support that with proper supporting evidence

You claim it was the CIA, Larry Silverstein, etc - yet when asked basic questions about this you avoid them or divert

I strongly suggest you start your own "molten steel" and "prove the NIST" threads (there are many here).. this one is specifically for the proper support of alternative theories

Spamming it to death with nonsense isn't going to make it go away

You can't ignore the engineering debate. You only want to discuss stuff that you know can't be answered. This is a deflection tactic.

We can see how the building fell on 9/11. Controlled Demolition. If truly had been the fire that did it NIST would have not lied and misled and distorted the truth in their study of the collapse.

NIST claimed there was no molten steel at all found. Curious statement when FEMA did find steel pieces that had undergone a melting process. Why the lies if there nothing to hide?

Cheerful Spring · 24-02-2019 12:50am

Truthers should not have to tell NIST after six years of paid research the building came down at freefall speeds. You don't find it curious they just changed their own work after the truthers told them?

It all on video NIST denying freefall in their final draft report in 2008. They started this study in 2002.

David Chandler question was read out in this technical conference and they claimed freefall was an impossibility.

Dohnjoe · 24-02-2019 12:55am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You only want to discuss stuff that you know can't be answered.

If I decide the world is flat, I can ask you to explain it to me, but I can then reject your explanations, and claim that it isn't proven to me, therefore it's not true, therefore "the world is flat"

Most conspiracy arguments, whether it's the moon landings or Sandy Hook or whatever revolve around this problem. Circular reasoning. The "prove it to me, I don't accept the explanation, therefore it's not true, therefore the whole thing is a conspiracy or not true"

It's popular with deniers, Alex Jones types, conspiracy theorists

Unfortunately on this forum there are no arbiters to throw out unreasonable arguments and faulty logic like the above, so it's a major problem

One way around it is not to try to "prove" anything to these types of people, but instead ask what their theories are and what direct evidence supports their theories. Proper sources and evidence. A level playing field

If their theory is weak and unsupported and the main theory is widely accepted, supported by official investigations, consensus of experts, etc - then it's quite obvious

That's what this thread is. It's clearly outlined. But you keep trying to turn it into a "prove it to me" dumpster fire, because you know you can't support your invented theories. The best escape route is to claim "it can't be known because it's covered up" and continue to bait people into proving stuff to you that you will never accept. It's literally in the first post of this thread. What am I supposed to do? get a mod to enforce a basic reasonable request or just let you demonstrate that you have no theory

Cheerful Spring · 24-02-2019 1:11am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If I decide the world is flat, I can ask you to explain it to me, but I can then reject your explanations, and claim that it isn't proven to me, therefore it's not true, therefore "the world is flat"

Most conspiracy arguments, whether it's the moon landings or Sandy Hook or whatever revolve around this problem. Circular reasoning. The "prove it to me, I don't accept the explanation, therefore it's not true, therefore the whole thing is a conspiracy or not true"

It's popular with deniers, Alex Jones types, conspiracy theorists

Unfortunately on this forum there are no arbiters to throw out unreasonable arguments and faulty logic like the above, so it's a major problem

One way around it is not to try to "prove" anything to these types of people, but instead ask what their theories are and what direct evidence supports their theories. Proper sources and evidence. A level playing field

If their theory is weak and unsupported and the main theory is widely accepted, supported by official investigations, consensus of experts, etc - then it's quite obvious

That's what this thread is. It's clearly outlined. But you keep trying to turn it into a "prove it to me" dumpster fire, because you know you can't support your invented theories. The best escape route is to claim "it can't be known because it's covered up" and continue to bait people into proving stuff to you that you will never accept. It's literally in the first post of this thread. What am I supposed to do? get a mod to enforce a basic reasonable request or just let you demonstrate that you have no theory

Truthers expose NIST misinformation. A video I posted just now is proving it. You will not watch videos exposing NIST?

Name one credible scientist who supports the flat earth theory?

Is Alex Jones credible? Alex Jones believes reptilians rule the world. You really reaching using his name to debunk 9/11 conspiracies.

The difference. The AE9/11 movement is mostly made up of architects engineers and scientists. Some even won Nobel prizes. You dismiss them because they are not working for the US government doing contract work. Truthers are outlining never in history has a steel beam high rising building fallen down at freefall speeds due to fire. That just a fact. When NIST then distorts the events and how the building fell down they have every right to challenge their claims.

mikekerry · 24-02-2019 1:20am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If I decide the world is flat, I can ask you to explain it to me, but I can then reject your explanations, and claim that it isn't proven to me, therefore it's not true, therefore "the world is flat"

Most conspiracy arguments, whether it's the moon landings or Sandy Hook or whatever revolve around this problem. Circular reasoning. The "prove it to me, I don't accept the explanation, therefore it's not true, therefore the whole thing is a conspiracy or not true"

It's popular with deniers, Alex Jones types, conspiracy theorists

Unfortunately on this forum there are no arbiters to throw out unreasonable arguments and faulty logic like the above, so it's a major problem

One way around it is not to try to "prove" anything to these types of people, but instead ask what their theories are and what direct evidence supports their theories. Proper sources and evidence. A level playing field

If their theory is weak and unsupported and the main theory is widely accepted, supported by official investigations, consensus of experts, etc - then it's quite obvious

That's what this thread is. It's clearly outlined. But you keep trying to turn it into a "prove it to me" dumpster fire, because you know you can't support your invented theories. The best escape route is to claim "it can't be known because it's covered up" and continue to bait people into proving stuff to you that you will never accept. It's literally in the first post of this thread. What am I supposed to do? get a mod to enforce a basic reasonable request or just let you demonstrate that you have no theory

Even just looking at the building falling it looks exactly like a controlled demolition . Even if people don't believe it was a demoltion which is fair enough we all have an opinion on it are people not a bit suspicious that there is even a possibility it could be a controlled demolition before dismissing it out of hand? It just seems like on this forum its not about discussing the topic it's just about shooting posters down i.e. Cheerful . No matter what they say.
There are so many things that just that don't add up e.g. War games, Silversteins family none of them turned up on 9 11 is it really that absurd that a government of proven
liars spouting on about weapons of mass destruction that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is it really that absurd that another 3k people dying would be a problem for them? I am no expert on controlled demolitions but looking at wt7 is looks exactly like one. There is a video of rumsfield saying he never heard of the building. Either he is incredibly stupid or he knows exactly what went on

Cheerful Spring · 24-02-2019 1:29am

Dr Hulsey is a professor at Fairbank University in Alaska. He has just completed a three-year study that cost the truthers 300,000 dollars. He going to be realising his scientific data for any mainstream engineer and architect to peer review. They're going to be full transparency about this. If he's wrong then we find out about it. He will have a scientific computer simulation of how the building fell.

I heard his model looks actually like the real collapse on 9/11. If true we going to see what the connections failures were exactly inside the building.

Cheerful Spring · 24-02-2019 1:37am

mikekerry wrote: »

Even just looking at the building falling it looks exactly like a controlled demolition . Even if people don't believe it was a demoltion which is fair enough we all have an opinion on it are people not a bit suspicious that there is even a possibility it could be a controlled demolition before dismissing it out of hand? It just seems like on this forum its not about discussing the topic it's just about shooting posters down i.e. Cheerful . No matter what they say.
There are so many things that just that don't add up e.g. War games, Silversteins family none of them turned up on 9 11 is it really that absurd that a government of proven
liars spouting on about weapons of mass destruction that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is it really that absurd that another 3k people dying would be a problem for them? I am no expert on controlled demolitions but looking at wt7 is looks exactly like one. There is a video of rumsfield saying he never heard of the building. Either he is incredibly stupid or he knows exactly what went on

Rumsfield sat on a board for Solomon Smith Barney. It was his last job before getting the Defence secretary job at the White House.

List of Tenants mostly Solomon Smith Barney offices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_7_World_Trade_Center

How would he not know of building 7?

Dohnjoe · 24-02-2019 1:44am

mikekerry wrote: »

Even just looking at the building falling it looks exactly like a controlled demolition . Even if people don't believe it was a demoltion which is fair enough we all have an opinion on it are people not a bit suspicious that there is even a possibility it could be a controlled demolition before dismissing it out of hand?

It's not being dismissed, this is a thread asking for credible evidence of these theories

For the controlled demolition: here are the first basic questions

1. Who set the explosives, Navy Seals? demolition experts? which branch did they come from?

2. How many were there? what were their names?

3. Exactly when did they set the explosives? how long did it take?

4. Who gave them the order to set the explosives?

It's one of the most significant (and scrutinised) events of the 21st century, it happened 17 and a half years ago

So if you firmly believe something else happened, you are basing that on strong evidence. What is the evidence?

If it's based on "gut instinct" and "it doesn't look right" and "that's fishy", that that's the same stuff that every conspiracy from the moon landing hoax to Boston marathon bombing is based on. It's not supporting evidence, and it's weak subjective stuff

mikekerry · 24-02-2019 1:44am

https://youtu.be/xKbSMD0ZGY4

Cheerful Spring · 24-02-2019 1:48am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not being dismissed, this is a thread asking for credible evidence of these theories

For the controlled demolition: here are the first basic questions

It's one of the most significant (and scrutinised) events of the 21st century, it happened 17 and a half years ago

So if you firmly believe something else happened, you are basing that on strong evidence. What is the evidence?

If it's based on "gut instinct" and "it doesn't look right" and "that's fishy", that that's the same stuff that every conspiracy from the moon landing hoax to Boston marathon bombing is based on. It's not supporting evidence, and it's weak subjective stuff

Dr Hulsey study is going to prove NIST wrong or it won't. Why I like about this study is can be reviewed scientifically by mainstream bodies that you support. NIST refused to release their data for open peer review.

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

Comments