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

SlowBlowin

The Nal wrote: »

Thats what he does. On the various conspiracy threads here thats happened quite literally hundreds of times.



Not a chance of that happening I'm afraid. He just quickly googles things, skim reads it and if it vaguely looks like it might support some theory it gets posted. Then when hes asked anything tricky or his point is debunked (which it always is such as the case here) he'll just bomb the thread with another indecipherable word salad.

If you look up "bog standard conspiracy theorist" in the dictionary it has a picture of Cheerful Spring beside it.

Do you think he/she (Cheerful Spring) is just having a laugh ? Surely nobody can be this stupid ?

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Listen and digest.

1. Yes I read those bits in detail, and I understood them, that's why I quoted them.

2. Whats confusing ? I said they would have found Iron sulphide, and that's what they found. They were not there when it was or was not a liquid. You got confused by stating they found a liquid, which they did not, read your posts, you are 100% wrong. If you insist you are right and that they did find liquid, whats your source ? Its not FEMA. Just admit you got it wrong.

3. Wrong, where did I say "you claim the source for sulphur has been clearly identified" ? I don't. I merely point out every urban fire is rich in sulphur from gypsum and plastic, that it. Just simple fact you can argue this, or the earth is flat, whichever you wish, but both are wrong.

Sorry, you are claiming i said something when i have not. I never, not even one time said Iron Sulphate was not found. Look at slide C4 and how they identified it as a liquid.

You made a claim there was no free sulphur available. I told you this untrue you went off on a tangent then

If you going to claim there no free sulphur in the hot liquid mixture, you then have to prove it. Explain your theory. Did sulphur separate from other elements? Clarify how?

I told you already the gypsum wallboard is a debunked theory. You did not watch the video and its issue you need to address.

Dohnjoe

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Do you think he/she (Cheerful Spring) is just having a laugh ? Surely nobody can be this stupid ?

Possibly playing a character. Someone mistook me for a conspiracy theorist earlier in this thread so I played the role took them "on a ride" for a few pages, it's remarkably easy to "act the fool" and write circular claptrap

It takes much more energy to refute bull**** than to spew it out

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Possibly playing a character. Someone mistook me for a conspiracy theorist earlier in this thread so I played the role took them "on a ride" for a few pages, it's remarkably easy to "act the fool" and write circular claptrap

It takes much more energy to refute bull**** than to spew it out

You are a conspiracy theorist. You believe this fairy tale when not supported by history and fire records.

Cheerful Spring

I show you the squibs from the controlled demolition- explosive charges going off

You can see the dust ejecting out below the collapsing floors that now coming down.

First squib


Second squib- is proof of controlled demolition. The collapsing floors have not reached these floors yet.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Sorry, you are claiming i said something when i have not. I never, not even one time said Iron Sulphate was not found. Look at slide C4 and how they identified it as a liquid.

You made a claim there was no free sulphur available. I told you this untrue you went off on a tangent then

If you going to claim there no free sulphur in the hot liquid mixture, you then have to prove it. Explain your theory. Did sulphur separate from other elements? Clarify how?

I told you already the gypsum wallboard is a debunked theory. You did not watch the video and its issue you need to address.

Earlier today you said this:

"FEMA could not identify where all the sulphur came from. What they found on the steel was a eutectic liquid made of melted sulphur and iron. Oxidation and sulfidation of the steel occurred. "

Do you now agree, having read the report, that this was not the case and in fact all they found was iron sulphide as I said ?

Can't make it much simpler/obvious.

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Earlier today you said this:

"FEMA could not identify where all the sulphur came from. What they found on the steel was a eutectic liquid made of melted sulphur and iron. Oxidation and sulfidation of the steel occurred. "

Do you now agree, having read the report, that this was not the case and in fact all they found was iron sulphide as I said ?

Can't make it much simpler/obvious.

FEMA said the liquid mixture attacked the steel and was made of sulphur (not mixed with anything) Iron and Oxygen. That what they said.

They never said Iron Sulphide solid and cooled attacked the steel + heat.

One has to find the source for the sulphur which they said they could not identify.

Calcium sulfate can't separate and make sulphur. The gypsum wallboard theory is rubbish.

banie01

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Listen and digest.

1. Yes I read those bits in detail, and I understood them, that's why I quoted them.

2. Whats confusing ? I said they would have found Iron sulphide, and that's what they found. They were not there when it was or was not a liquid. You got confused by stating they found a liquid, which they did not, read your posts, you are 100% wrong. If you insist you are right and that they did find liquid, whats your source ? Its not FEMA. Just admit you got it wrong.

3. Wrong, where did I say "you claim the source for sulphur has been clearly identified" ? I don't. I merely point out every urban fire is rich in sulphur from gypsum and plastic, that it. Just simple fact you can argue this, or the earth is flat, whichever you wish, but both are wrong.

We've been through this dance with C.S whilst debunking Thermate and the other elements that were all part of the conspiracy

CS is clearly a non native English speaker and apart from being apt to ignore counterpoints, make ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims regarding theories and even using his own "evidence" to contradict himself...
The language barrier causes him serious and profound comprehension issues.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

We've been through this dance with C.S whilst debunking Thermate and the other elements that were all part of the conspiracy

CS is clearly a non native English speaker and apart from being apt to ignore counterpoints, make ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims regarding theories and even using his own "evidence" to contradict himself...
The language barrier causes him serious and profound comprehension issues.

You debunked nothing stop fooling yourself.

You can even see the explosive squibs in the pictures I just posted. You don't understand the evidence and never will, unfortunately.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FEMA said the liquid mixture attacked the steel and was made of sulphur (not mixed with anything) Iron and Oxygen. That what they said.

They never said Iron Sulphide solid and cooled attacked the steel + heat.

One has to find the source for the sulphur which they said they could not identify.

Calcium sulfate can't separate and make sulphur. The gypsum wallboard theory is rubbish.

Even simpler:

You said "What they found on the steel was a eutectic liquid made of melted sulphur and iron."

Do you agree they never found any liquid, they only found Iron sulphide ?

Because thats what FEMA say in their report. They say they found Iron sulphide (that what slide C4 is, thats not a liquid freeze framed in a photo, thats a solid). It flowed at some point in a melted state in the air (oxygen, iron and sulphur).

Please come on, you said they found liquid, and they did not.

FEMA say they found Iron Sulphide, which is a solid, but had been molten.

SlowBlowin

Hey CS, do you know if FEMA still have this liquid sample ?

Do they keep it in a bottle ?

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Even simpler:

You said "What they found on the steel was a eutectic liquid made of melted sulphur and iron."

Do you agree they never found any liquid, they only found Iron sulphide ?

Because thats what FEMA say in their report. They say they found Iron sulphide (that what slide C4 is, thats not a liquid freeze framed in a photo, thats a solid). It flowed at some point in a melted state in the air (oxygen, iron and sulphur).

Please come on, you said they found liquid, and they did not.

FEMA say they found Iron Sulphide, which is a solid, but had been molten.

Yep true and how does this change anything I said? A badly worded sentence in a post awhile ago I do agree. I clarified for you since my position.

I told you to look at the slide. Obviously, I can see it a solid.
Look at slide C4 and how they identified it as a liquid.

Still unsure what you complaining about? You claimed there was no free sulphar is this not your complaint or is something else?

SlowBlowin

Hey CS

At the start of this thread you insisted it was elemental sulphur

You know the document you keep referencing, https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

If you bring it up and press control F to search, then type elemental how many matched do you get ?

Can you let me know the document that mentions this elemental sulphur you insist was present.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I told you to look at the slide. Obviously, I can see it a solid.
Look at slide C4 and how they identified it as a liquid.

But you just said it was a solid, its one or the other, which is it ?

Admit it, they found solid Iron Sulphide, and evidence that at some time it might have been molten.

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Hey CS

At the start of this thread you insisted it was elemental sulphur

You know the document you keep referencing, https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

If you bring it up and press control F to search, then type elemental how many matched do you get ?

Can you let me know the document that mentions this elemental sulphur you insist was present.

FEMA said it was just Iron and Sulphur. How do you explain the lack of other elements in the mixture?

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yep true and how does this change anything I said? A badly worded sentence in a post awhile ago I do agree.

Thank you, great, you have admitted you were incorrect.

This is indeed progress.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FEMA said it was just Iron and Sulphur. How do you explain the lack of other elements in the mixture?

Because Iron Sulphide is just Iron and Sulphur.

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

But you just said it was a solid, its one or the other, which is it ?

Admit it, they found solid Iron Sulphide, and evidence that at some time it might have been molten.

FEMA is claiming not me this liquid mixture formed in hot environment 1000c and was made of Sulphur and Iron.

The chemical analysis they did showed this they provided slides to show it.

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Because Iron Sulphide is just Iron and Sulphur.

Iron Sulphide is not a material of steel. Sulphur had to have come from somewhere else, its a nonmetal.

Cheerful Spring

What I am trying to say is Slowblowin.

Take plastics for example. How will the sulphur separate on its own from the carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, chlorine, when its all mixed together? Why do they not find traces of these elements in the chemical analysis?

The reason I am saying it elemental sulphur, there no evidence of other elements in the mixture? FEMA did not list them only the Iron and Sulphur. Maybe there another paper on this online I don't know.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FEMA is claiming not me this liquid mixture formed in hot environment 1000c and was made of Sulphur and Iron.

The chemical analysis they did showed this they provided slides to show it.

Exactly right, so they didn't find any liquids.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What I am trying to say is Slowblowin.

Take plastics for example. How will the sulphur separate on its own from the carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, chlorine, when its all mixed together? Why do they not find traces of these elements in the chemical analysis?

The reason I am saying it elemental sulphur, there no evidence of other elements in the mixture? FEMA did not list them only the Iron and Sulphur. Maybe there another paper on this online I don't know.

Because not every element will react, only the ones attracted to each other. This is how chemistry works.

They said a mixture of sulphur and oxygen and iron, so that could be sulphur dioxide (sulphur and oxygen) and the iron (steel). The gas would react with the hot steel making a molten mixture of iron sulphide.

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Because not every element will react, only the ones attracted to each other. This is how chemistry works.

They said a mixture of sulphur and oxygen and iron, so that could be sulphur dioxide (sulphur and oxygen) and the iron (steel). The gas would react with the hot steel making a molten mixture of iron sulphide.

True all elements don't attract, still, FEMA never claimed the sulphur in the liquid mixture was not elemental. I can't find any definitive statement about this.

They're not doing the tests to find out either. This probably one of the easiest experiments you can do.

If the sulfur truly attacked the structure of the steel and melted it. Then why have they not carried out tests? Maybe they know already it bull****?

You can heat a steel member to 1000c with gypsum( sulphur) Nothing happens then the steel was not melted by sulphur and heat.

Cheerful Spring

It very weird the debunkers don't do experiments to find out. You finding melted steel in the rubble, that just a fact FEMA confirms it in their report.

If gypsum wallboard is melting steel in a fire that a fire hazard and a safety concern. These theories can be proved by science. Maybe the debunkers are afraid their analysis will be shown to be not correct.

Cheerful Spring

Slowblowin do you think this NIST image resembles the actual collapse of WTC7?



This is video footage of wtc7 collapse viewed from the north and west.

SlowBlowin

Hey CS

You have started talking about the source of the sulphur now. There were load of potential sources of sulphur, they just dont know which one it was.

I just wanted you to realize that you were wrong about the chemistry, and the FEMA report.

I think you can see this now.

No elemental sulphur (was not mentioned at all in the report, you added it)
No magic liquid (report confirms no liquid found, just solid sulphide that was once molten)

I dont give a feck about 911 conspiracy theorys, I just cant stand bad science.

You are certainly persistent, and stand up for what you believe, very admirable qualities. If you had the science right you would be unstoppable.

I am off now.

SlowBlowin

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Slowblowin do you think this NIST image resembles the actual collapse of WTC7?



This is video footage of wtc7 collapse viewed from the north and west?

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

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It very weird the debunkers don't do experiments to find out.

It's been proven, done, there's no big mystery. In print and historical (and scientific) fact

There are a bunch of loons and quacks who can't accept the world is flat, it doesn't mean that we have to start conducting experiments to appease their nonsense and pseudo-science. Just because they reject basic science doesn't mean people have to "prove" it or anything to them

Cheerful Spring

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Hey CS

You have started talking about the source of the sulphur now. There were load of potential sources of sulphur, they just dont know which one it was.

I just wanted you to realize that you were wrong about the chemistry, and the FEMA report.

I think you can see this now.

No elemental sulphur (was not mentioned at all in the report, you added it)
No magic liquid (report confirms no liquid found, just solid sulphide that was once molten)

I dont give a feck about 911 conspiracy theorys, I just cant stand bad science.

You are certainly persistent, and stand up for what you believe, very admirable qualities. If you had the science right you would be unstoppable.

I am off now.

You not answering my questions you avoiding them.

FEMA only said sulphur in their report. They do not say it was sulphur dioxide (you said this) or was some sulphur got from another source talked about later in 2007.

They do talk about a liquid that attacked the steel. Why do you ignore this when they clearly outline this liquid is what corroded and melted the steel.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's been proven, done, there's no big mystery. In print and historical (and scientific) fact

There are a bunch of loons and quacks who can't accept the world is flat, it doesn't mean that we have to start conducting experiments to appease their nonsense and pseudo-science. Just because they reject basic science doesn't mean people have to "prove" it or anything to them

Proven where show documentation on it. Show me any video of debunkers proving FEMA theory?

Truthers have done the experiment and guess what temp+ sulphur does not melt steel. The sulphar+1000c heat is a red herring.

..