Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…3132343637…102

Comments

  • Options
    #992
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/dr-judy-wood-biography/

    Its about the content..... debunk it.


  • Options
    #993
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    This is your opinion.

    No not just my opinion. NIST has documented the fires temp all day in WTC7 and they are cheats so they went with the worst-case scenario. They were unable to find a fire that got as hot as 1000c.

    We know for a fact the steel never melted due to just fire, that's a fact, not an opinion.


  • Options
    #994
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    1. Do you support CS's theory that all three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) were demolished by controlled demolition?

    If yes, what is the supporting and credible evidence are you basing those views on?

    If no, then your view of 911 is entirely different and in contradiction to CS's view. His view to you will be as "incorrect" as the widely established version of events

    I Support the theory that some kind of controlled demolition must have been taken place yes ... so far its a theory, with some evidence to back this up


  • Options
    #995
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Nope you didn't

    Nope it hasn't
    If you say so...
    weisses wrote: »
    Yes as many more people who know more about this then you and me are also stating ?
    I don't understand this sentence or what it's refering to. Try again?
    weisses wrote: »
    I wont reject it because it hasn't been properly investigated ... and yes I find that theory more plausible then space lasers

    Maybe look up the meaning of the word hypocrite
    But again:
    You can't show any examples of thermite or stealth explosives being used before.
    You can't show that thermite or stealth explosives can produce rivers of molten steel (cause they can't)

    So why then do you not reject these theories when you reject the actual explanation for those same reasons.

    The fact you don't makes you a hypocrite.
    The fact you continue to throw around you talking points as if they were proof, but then clam up when they are applied to your prefered pet theories makes you a hypocrite.
    You are only applying your logic in one direction.
    Or alternatively, you know your logic is bull**** and just don't care.

    Likewise you reject the space laser theory (as well as ones like the hologram planes, or like cheerful previously claimed that a plane didn't hit the pentagon) out of hand with no research into the topic cause you personally find it silly.
    You would bitch and whine no end if someone were do that with your preferred theories.
    weisses wrote: »
    I did

    Uhh yes you did
    Link?
    weisses wrote: »
    Why keep asking for evidence of something the other poster never claimed existed in the first place ?
    To illustrate 1. his hypocracy when he demanded it from others.
    2. how his logic is inconsistant and flawed and that he wasn't applying it equally.
    3. how that he would dodge and weave around admitting a simple fact.


  • Options
    #996
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Its about the content..... debunk it.
    If it's about the content, what point were you trying to make by listing these people's supposed credentials?

    Do you agree with cheerful's claims that Dr Judy Wood's credentials are faked and that she's involved in the conspiracy?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #997
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    If it's about the content, what point were you trying to make by listing these people's supposed credentials?

    Their backgrounds can be verified. You find they worked at the places they claim. I searched Dr Judy and i can't find any links to previous employers of hers. I can't find any peer review journal she wrote. Her website is junk also.


  • Options
    #998
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Their backgrounds can be verified. You find they worked at the places they claim. I searched Dr Judy and i can't find any links to previous employers of hers. I can't find any peer review journal she wrote. Her website is junk also.
    Well I researched your guys and turns out they don't have any credentials either. So there:rolleyes:

    Did you find that proof that thermite can create a pool of molten metal since you had all that time to research a point not directed at you?


  • Options
    #999
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well I researched your guys and turns out they don't have any credentials either. So there:rolleyes:

    Did you find that proof that thermite can create a pool of molten metal since you had all that time to research a point not directed at you?

    You don't research anything me and you both know that :p


  • Options
    #1000
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You don't research anything me and you both know that :p
    Yup. Neither did you. That was my point.
    You cracked the mystery. Good job.

    Proof? Thermite making pools of molten metal? Any joy?


  • Options
    #1001
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    I Support the theory that some kind of controlled demolition must have been taken place yes ... so far its a theory, with some evidence to back this up

    "It was a controlled demolition", that's the entire theory?

    Dr Judy Wood's is much more fleshed out than that

    Care to elaborate on it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1002
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yup. Neither did you. That was my point.
    You cracked the mystery. Good job.

    Proof? Thermite making pools of molten metal? Any joy?

    I have researched these guys background.

    Tony Sambotti even debated Mike West the owner of Metabunk recently about WTC7 collapse. Good debate well worth the watch



  • Options
    #1003
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I have researched these guys background.
    Mm hmm. I believe you.

    So that proof about thermite? If you ignore this question again, you are admitting that you can't provide this proof.
    Done chasing you on it.


  • Options
    #1004
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Mm hmm. I believe you.

    So that proof about thermite? If you ignore this question again, you are admitting that you can't provide this proof.
    Done chasing you on it.

    Proof of what? That nano-thermite was used in the past? You asking dumb questions that don't need to be answered.

    Nano-thermite was found in the WTC dust. You deny this evidence so there no point discussing this with you.

    You want to believe office fires melt steel and leaves pools of liquid in the rubble, that fine you can believe that. I don't.


  • Options
    #1005
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Proof of what?.
    Proof that nanothermite can produce a river or a pool of molten metal.
    I've asked you several times in very clear terms. It's no good pretending that you don't understand what I'm asking or that you've just noticed it.

    I don't believe that this is possible and you've offered nothing but your own "expertise" in an unknown, secret material that's never been used before.
    That's not good enough as you've shown repeatedly that your opinion is a joke.
    So I want something more substantial that would show you aren't just making it up and plucking it out of your ass.

    So show something that proves that nanothermite can do what you claim it can.
    Otherwise we will just accept that you can't. And that nanothermite can't produce a pool of molten metal, thus the theory is debunked.

    Last chance to do this or it's an admission of the above.

    Edit: actually, forget it. No point pretending. You aren't going to produce it. You're going to whine and deflect and throw out more nonsense.
    We both know you can't show it. The thermite theory is nonsense. You are no more worthwhile than Judy Wood and her space lasers.
    I'm done feeding you with an excuse to indulge in your fantasy you're some kind of rebel investigator opening people's eyes to the truth.


  • Options
    #1006
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    I wont reject it because it hasn't been properly investigated ... and yes I find that theory more plausible then space lasers

    A court or tribunal hearing on the basis another investigation would reject both space lasers and controlled demolition - because they both share the same attributes (no credible evidence, witnesses, sources), I won't even go into how implausible both are

    Also look at an example of one of your sticking points, e.g.

    Some individuals claimed they saw molten steel. This is explained as those individuals not having enough expertise to distinguish between heated metal, molten metal and molten steel - and making a common enough mistake

    I am pretty sure (as a simple experiment) the picture of that excavator lifting up glowing metal from 911 rubble could be shown to e.g. 500 firefighters, rescue staff, emergency responders - and a number of them would say it's "molten steel"

    A hallmark of faulty denial and conspiracy thinking is always to latch onto perceived discrepancies, instead of supporting evidence. To latch onto a handful of experts against a large consensus of hundreds of experts. To latch onto internet types instead of the consensus of actual investigators with evidence.

    It's the way you handle that information. The fact that it's sticking point to you indicates that you aren't dealing with this subject logically or objectively

    I mean even if there was molten steel, how does that indicate a controlled demolition? As far as I know there has never been a recorded incident of "molten steel" at any demolition site.


  • Options
    #1007
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Proof that nanothermite can produce a river or a pool of molten metal.
    I've asked you several times in very clear terms. It's no good pretending that you don't understand what I'm asking or that you've just noticed it.

    I don't believe that this is possible and you've offered nothing but your own "expertise" in an unknown, secret material that's never been used before.
    That's not good enough as you've shown repeatedly that your opinion is a joke.
    So I want something more substantial that would show you aren't just making it up and plucking it out of your ass.

    So show something that proves that nanothermite can do what you claim it can.
    Otherwise we will just accept that you can't. And that nanothermite can't produce a pool of molten metal, thus the theory is debunked.

    Last chance to do this or it's an admission of the above.

    Edit: actually, forget it. No point pretending. You aren't going to produce it. You're going to whine and deflect and throw out more nonsense.
    We both know you can't show it. The thermite theory is nonsense. You are no more worthwhile than Judy Wood and her space lasers.
    I'm done feeding you with an excuse to indulge in your fantasy you're some kind of rebel investigator opening people's eyes to the truth.

    Nano-thermite was found is not open for debate. 14 highly credential scientists found it. Dr Basille a chemist who was not even involved with the truth movement contacted Dr Jones and asked for a sample so he could carry out his own work. He also confirmed the nano-thermite in the dust samples.

    We have direct and corroborating evidence why the steel would have got melted during a fire. And why there would be a melted flowing liquid in the rubble.

    You can't provide any evidence why there would be a yellow liquid in the rubble due to fire, can you? You can not provide any evidence on how the steel got melted naturally in a fire?

    Lets us not forget Sulphur attacked the ingrains of the steel at atom level. It just didn't sit on top of the steel attacked it. FEMA was unable to identify where the elemental sulphur came from and recommended further investigation. Sulphur is well known to be used in making of military grade demolitions and thermate.


  • Options
    #1008
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You can't provide any evidence why there would be a yellow liquid in the rubble due to fire, can you? You can not provide any evidence on how the steel got melted naturally in a fire?
    .
    But thermite can't produce this.


  • Options
    #1009
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Nano-thermite was found is not open for debate. 14 highly credential scientists found it. Dr Basille a chemist who was not even involved with the truth movement contacted Dr Jones and asked for a sample so he could carry out his own work. He also confirmed the nano-thermite in the dust samples.

    We have direct and corroborating evidence why the steel would have got melted during a fire. And why there would be a melted flowing liquid in the rubble.

    You can't provide any evidence why there would be a yellow liquid in the rubble due to fire, can you? You can not provide any evidence on how the steel got melted naturally in a fire?

    Lets us not forget Sulphur attacked the ingrains of the steel at atom level. It just didn't sit on top of the steel attacked it. FEMA was unable to identify where the elemental sulphur came from and recommended further investigation. Sulphur is well known to be used in making of military grade demolitions and thermate.

    Its also used in everyday objects like office furniture, carpets etc. I wonder woukd a large office block have any if those items?

    Not to mention sulphure is a key element in welding, hmmmm steel structure would have lots of welds right?


  • Options
    #1010
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But thermite can't produce this.

    You ignoring no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to just fire ever prior to 9/11 or after.

    Dohnjoe will come in claim one did Iran but he ignores the problems with that building and it was a composite building mostly made of concrete. He can't find even one example in Europe or America pre 9/11 or after 9/11.

    When you find melted steel, the yellow flowing liquid in the rubble, nano-thermite, WTC7 came down symmetrically in freefall.The problems with the NIST study.

    What likely is the cause fire or controlled demolition?

    I not saying thermite creates a liquid. Scientists are claiming they found nano-thermite this only be made in an engineering lab of very high sophistication. Its not something that can be produced easily.

    We know what molten Iron looks like in liquid form and resembles that liquid in the rubble.


  • Options
    #1011
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You ignoring no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to just fire ever prior to 9/11 or after.
    blah blah, badly written waffle...
    No building has ever been demolished by nano thermite or any other type of thermite.
    Thermite cannot produce a pool of molten metal.
    Thermite cannot be used to make a building fall symmetrically and in free fall.

    The thermite explanation can't be true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1012
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Its also used in everyday objects like office furniture, carpets etc. I wonder woukd a large office block have any if those items?

    Not to mention sulphure is a key element in welding, hmmmm steel structure would have lots of welds right?

    The Skeptics excuse is it s from Gypsum Wallboard. They forget the wallboard is mostly calcium and would leave traces on the steel.


    The sulphur that attacked the steel was elemental sulphur. Sulphar is used in other products but mixed with other materials.

    FEMA could not identify the source for elemental sulphur. They recommended a further investigation. NIST ignored, of course, ignored, the recommendation for further study. Sulphur attacked the ingrains of the steel is a sure sign fire did not melt the steel.


  • Options
    #1013
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The Skeptics excuse is it s from Gypsum Wallboard. They forget the wallboard is mostly calcium and would leave traces on the steel.


    The sulphur that attacked the steel was elemental sulphur. Sulphar is used in other products but mixed with other materials.

    FEMA could not identify the source for elemental sulphur. They recommended a further investigation. NIST ignored, of course, ignored, the recommendation for further study. Sulphur attacked the ingrains of the steel is a sure sign fire did not melt the steel.
    This is not an effect of thermite or nanothermite.
    Therefore the thermite explanation is false.


  • Options
    #1014
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    No building has ever been demolished by nano thermite or any other type of thermite.
    Thermite cannot produce a pool of molten metal.
    Thermite cannot be used to make a building fall symmetrically and in free fall.

    The thermite explanation can't be true.

    Even though this was patented after 9/11 there does exist now in the mainstream thermite cutting charges that cut through concrete and steel.

    https://techportal.eere.energy.gov/technology.do/techID=764

    False thermite has been used to demolish buildings in the past. I provided you with two examples in this thread.

    What do you think the yellow liquid is since you don't believe it contains any trace of molten Iron?


  • Options
    #1015
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Even though this was patented after 9/11 there does exist now in the mainstream thermite cutting charges that cut through concrete and steel.

    https://techportal.eere.energy.gov/technology.do/techID=764

    False thermite has been used to demolish buildings in the past. I provided you with two examples in this thread.

    What do you think the yellow liquid is since you don't believe it contains any trace of molten Iron?

    Copper? Which there would an abundance of in an office block.


  • Options
    #1016
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    False thermite has been used to demolish buildings in the past. I provided you with two examples in this thread.
    Mm hmm.
    Hypocrite.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Dohnjoe will come in claim one did Iran but he ignores the problems with that building and it was a composite building mostly made of concrete. He can't find even one example in Europe or America pre 9/11 or after 9/11.

    Thermite has never been used to demolish a building.
    Thermite cannot be used to demolish a building in the way you think happened.
    Thermite cannot produce pools of molten anything.
    Thermite does not result in sulphur mixing with steel.


  • Options
    #1017
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,557 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Check out Kurt Sonnenfeld's video showing what looks like a Thermite charge coming late to the party:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYj6PAJRZEg

    Full version here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KGaOj6S69E

    Sonnenfeld was FEMAs official videographer that day. Check out his later story.


  • Options
    #1018
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Copper? Which there would an abundance of in an office block.
    The Yellow liquid he is refering to is the picture of the man using the angle grinder.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108391334&postcount=640

    There's no need to explain it.


  • Options
    #1019
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    This is not an effect of thermite or nanothermite.
    Therefore the thermite explanation is false.

    Wrong thermate contains all the ingredients of thermite. Thermate is different from thermite as it contains sulphur and barium nirate. The sulphar in the thermate attacks the steel and that why thermate melts the steel at low temperatures.

    You have no clue what nano-thermite effect is.


  • Options
    #1020
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,557 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Copper? Which there would an abundance of in an office block.
    Melting point of copper is 1,085 °C.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1021
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    The Yellow liquid he is refering to is the picture of the man using the angle grinder.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108391334&postcount=640

    There's no need to explain it.

    A couple of us can see it just a reflection of the two firemen in the picture. You seeing a man with no hands and legs standing in a burning hot red/yellow liquid:eek:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement