• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why did WTC 7 Collapse from fire but not Grenfell Tower?

Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
There is a video in the "I can't stand 9/11 debunkers" thread that shows steel becomes malleable and weak long before it melts, to point the guy bent the heated steel using his pinky.
Click to expand...
I'll just repeat: when you find a video that accounts for why any steel-frame highrise crushed itself from the top down, be sure and provide a link.

And if you ever come across any scientific evidence showing that such things happen, be sure to link to that.

And again, why couldn't NIST account for this self-crushing behavior?

Welding leaves it behind, as does heating metals.
Click to expand...
False. Welding such as used in the construction of buildings such as the WTC does not leave particles of active nanothermitic material in buildings.
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
exchemist said:
Readers, the link is to a journal of no repute called the Open Chemical Physics Journal, based in Sharjah, UAE. It was listed on Beall's List of probable predatory journals.

Bentham Science Publishers - Wikipedia

Anything published there has no credibility, obviously. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


And I probably do not have to point out to a chemist that a beam painted with "nano-thermite" would have "nano-results":D

(nano of course being the prefix meaning "billionth" for those that did not know).
 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
That does not look like a very reliable source.
Click to expand...
The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that has never been "busted" for anything? Neither have any of the authors of the paper been "busted" for anything.

Let's assume arguendo that findings of the study are accurate, that the authors did not fabricate this study out of whole cloth (since there is no rational reason to believe that they did). How do you account for the findings, then?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
And I probably do not have to point out to a chemist that a beam painted with "nano-thermite" would have "nano-results":D

(nano of course being the prefix meaning "billionth" for those that did not know).
Click to expand...
I've made that point before.
It's never garnered a response.

It takes a certain amount of energy to melt a given volume of steel.
Paint wouldn't have the energy density to melt structural steel.

And back to the old (but never answered) question....
How were these buildings prepped for demolition without the tenants,
maintenance staff, visitors, building managers, & property owners noticing?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nous said:
The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that has never been "busted" for anything? Neither have any of the authors of the paper been "busted" for anything.

Let's assume arguendo that findings of the study are accurate, that the authors did not fabricate this study out of whole cloth (since there is no rational reason to believe that they did). How do you account for the findings, then?
Click to expand...


The publishing house has been busted. That journal is part of the publishing house. And the impact factor shows how it is not seen to be reliable in the industry.

If you can't find a reliable source then you should not complain when people do not take your posts seriously.

And besides the paper that the NIST published on Building Seven here is a short video that summarizes it:

 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Revoltingest said:
I've made that point before.
It's never garnered a response.

It takes a certain amount of energy to melt a given volume of steel.
Paint wouldn't have the energy density to melt structural steel.

And back to the old (but never answered) question....
How were these buildings prepped for demolition without the tenants,
maintenance staff, visitors, building managers, & property owners noticing?
Click to expand...

They did it sort of like this:

 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
They did:

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
Click to expand...
My requests and questions were about the alleged self-crushing behavior of the Twin Towers, which NIST did not attempt to explain.

You linked the the WTC 7 report, where NIST acknowledged but does not explain the free-fall rate of the building dropping How do you explain do you explain the fact that the top portion of the building dropped without resistance from below for more than 2 seconds?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nous said:
My requests and questions were about the alleged self-crushing behavior of the Twin Towers, which NIST did not attempt to explain.

You linked the the WTC 7 report, where NIST acknowledged but does not explain the free-fall rate of the building dropping How do you explain do you explain the fact that the top portion of the building dropped without resistance from below for more than 2 seconds?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The report I linked explained it. The video gives a quick synopsis of why it failed. They know it was not an explosion since that would have made a noise and the last I checked "hushaboom' was limited to the world of Rocky and Bullwinkle.
 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
In the context of 9/11, the term "conspiracy" typically applies to blaming the
government, the Jews, the landlord, etc for controlled demolition of the building.
The terrorists certainly conspired to do what they did, but this just isn't what we
debunkers are including when criticizing "conspiracy theories".
Click to expand...
the definition of conspiracy

State your definition of "conspiracy" "in the context of 9/11".
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nous said:
The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that has never been "busted" for anything. Neither have any of the authors of the paper been "busted" for anything.
Click to expand...
If you don't listen to others no one will listen to you.

It is not a well respected peer reviewed journal. The "peer review" is even under a cloud of suspicion because of how their publishing house was busted. The journal is part of a larger body of journals. It appears to be an example of glamour press.

Peer review is repeatable. You need to ask yourself why no one repeated this supposedly ground breaking work.
 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
If you don't listen to others no one will listen to you.

It is not a well respected peer reviewed journal. The "peer review" is even under a cloud of suspicion because of how their publishing house was busted. The journal is part of a larger body of journals. It appears to be an example of glamour press.
Click to expand...
The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that has never been "busted" for anything. Neither have any of the authors of the paper been "busted" for anything.

Peer review is repeatable.
Click to expand...
You haven't linked to any peer-reviewed article that accounts for the alleged self-crushing behavior of the Towers or the gravitation collapse rate of WTC 7's drop. You haven't cited any repeatable experiment that accounts for such behavior.
 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
I thought I did, ie, claiming controlled demolition by government, Jews, or other nefarious perp.
Click to expand...
Obviously I haven't said anything about "controlled demolition by government, Jews or other [????] nefarious perp."
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nous said:
The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that has never been "busted" for anything. Neither have any of the authors of the paper been "busted" for anything.

You haven't linked to any peer-reviewed article that accounts for the alleged self-crushing behavior of the Towers or the gravitation collapse rate of WTC 7's drop. You haven't cited any repeatable experiment that accounts for such behavior.
Click to expand...

I found a source far more reliable than yours. They tested that the only way it is possible to test it. Testing of that sort can only be done with computer models since people are rather loathe to have their building tampered with. When all you can find is one "peer reviewed" article from a predatory source you will not convince any rational person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top