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
19698100101102

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,686 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Kingmob and friends believe the stick man is a real and invisible man with no arms and legs can coexist in the same place:eek:

    You obviously believe that a building can be brought down by a controlled explosion without explosions actually being present in the building.

    Or can you tell us how they got there?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful, it's a man using a cutting torch or an angle grinder.

    Claiming otherwise is bordering on delusion.

    delusion
    /dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n/
    noun
    an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful, it's a man using a cutting torch or an angle grinder.

    Claiming otherwise is bordering on delusion.

    Two images are a reflection of the two firemen standing it a camera or video artefact.

    Molten liquid beside Steel columns just like the New York firefighters described.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    In a casing tube that red hot? What do you see when he poured it out it was silver. You can change the colour if you add another chemical.
    Lol. This is getting sad now.

    You posted a video that shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
    And all of this to accuse someone who actually knows what they are talking about of lying so you don't have to try and debate them.

    You know you can't address any of Overheal's technical points (or any points) so you are not resorting to this silly silly tactic.
    You are not making yourself look good.
    You are doing the opposite.

    Just give up and admit you're out of your depth.
    We know it. You know it. Why pretend?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,686 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Two images are a reflection of the two firemen standing it a camera or video artefact.

    Molten liquid beside Steel columns just like the New York firefighters described.

    How did the explosives get in the building?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Two images are a reflection of the two firemen standing it a camera or video artefact.

    Molten liquid beside Steel columns just like the New York firefighters described.
    No cheerful, it's not. You are just desperate.

    How come you had time to dig up that pic, but you can't address Nal's question?


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. This is getting sad now.

    You posted a video that shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
    And all of this to accuse someone who actually knows what they are talking about of lying so you don't have to try and debate them.

    You know you can't address any of Overheal's technical points (or any points) so you are not resorting to this silly silly tactic.
    You are not making yourself look good.
    You are doing the opposite.

    Just give up and admit you're out of your depth.
    We know it. You know it. Why pretend?

    Kingmob it was silver end of story. You can believe it red if you like

    Clear as day this is silver not red when poured out.

    475516.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Kingmob it was silver end of story. You can believe it red if you like

    Clear as day this is silver not red when poured out.
    And dodging again.

    :rolleyes:

    I'm done.
    Answer Nal's question please.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    No cheerful, it's not. You are just desperate.

    How come you had time to dig up that pic, but you can't address Nal's question?

    Fine believe little people exist an invisible man with no legs and arms can stand in hot yellow liquid.

    I have already in this thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,686 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Fine believe little people exist an invisible man with no legs and arms can stand in hot yellow liquid.

    I have already in this thread.

    Where?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    Where?

    195 pages of a thread it not like you the first to ask this question. It speculation how they did it. I have not got their phone number to ask them have i.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,653 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    195 pages of a thread it not like you the first to ask this question. It speculation how they did it. I have not got their phone number to ask them have i.

    So can you not make a credible speculative guess as to how it was done then?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,686 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    banie01 wrote: »
    So can you not make a credible speculative guess as to how it was done then?

    Clearly not. Nor can I.

    So Cheerful Spring is actually debunking the truth movement as opposed elevating it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,653 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The Nal wrote: »
    Clearly not. Nor can I.

    So Cheerful Spring is actually debunking the truth movement as opposed elevating it.

    Damnit Man!!!
    You stole my next line! :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,686 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    If someone cant provide any evidence for a theory - in this case a controlled demolition - then that person is debunking that theory.

    theory
    /ˈθɪəri/
    noun
    a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

    In the complete absence of plausibility, scientific acceptance or a body of principles in this case, we can now consider the controlled demolition theory thoroughly debunked.

    Thanks Cheerful Spring!


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,281 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    No plausible explanation, therefore no theory.

    We have plenty of plausible, scientifically acceptable explanations and evidence to refute that explosives and/or thermite were used whatsoever, in contrast.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,281 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Fine believe little people exist an invisible man with no legs and arms can stand in hot yellow liquid.

    This has as much credibility as anything else you've speculated about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,653 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Overheal wrote: »
    This has as much credibility as anything else you've speculated about.

    If I remember correctly at one point CS claimed it was clearly a reflection of one of the guys in the lower left of the frame...
    A reflection on a sheet of glass that seems to have survived the collapse intact!
    The outright dishonesty in many of the posts is actually appalling at times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,862 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    T
    The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)

    The CTBUH believe the buildings were secretly blown up?

    Or they potentially disagreed with some of the 30-odd building safety recommendations by the NIST?

    Can you share a (non-conspiracy) link to this


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,862 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Where has it been explained ?

    Sources are in the article ...FEMA etc

    You pasted a bunch of text, where is that text from, source?

    (I am suspecting a 10 year old blog from a conspiracy site)


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,862 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    T

    Does failure to answer that from my desktop automatically means it must have been office fires ?


    1. Do you believe that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were secretly blown up or just WTC 7?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,862 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The CIA had the names of the terrorists in July 2001 and did not tell anyone, you don't find this suspicious I betting? 3,000 people died and the CIA has not said why this happened? There should be a new investigation about this.

    I always said the hijackers were funded by Saudi officials and Pakistan ISI and CIA was involved or at very least allowed this attack to happen. The terrorists did not knock down the buildings if they did then this is being covered up. I doubt it was them.

    Al Qeada was used you think they had the funding and logistics to pull this off. This was a state-sponsored false flag attack. The hijackers are mostly patsies some of them may have been unaware of the bigger plot.

    CS, I'm trying to follow the theory you are posting in this thread. Now you claim in the above post that the hijackers were funded by Saudis, Pakistani intelligence services and the CIA, but that those hijackers were not involved in the attack, correct?

    This begs the below questions

    1. Who were the real hijackers?

    2. What were their names and what were their motives?

    3. Did they fly planes into WTC 1, WTC 2, the Pentagon and crash in PA or is that not true? if so, which parts are not true and what happened to the hijackers?


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,281 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    2w2a0w.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,281 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    This image. Yes, I can do it for you. The stick man and the invisible man with no legs and arms in the yellow liquid.
    #
    Kingmob and friends believe the stick man is a real and invisible man with no arms and legs can coexist in the same place:eek:

    475514.png



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,281 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Oh look here's molten copper in someone's backyard. It would be awfully convenient for there to be literally metric tons of copper wire in the WTC

    Copper melts at 1,984°F / 1,085°C



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,862 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




  • Registered Users Posts: 82,281 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    @2:00 HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THAT RIVER OF MAGMA oh wait


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,281 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    **** me there's a river of magma again at 29:0oh wait

    bamboozled again


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »

    Moderator can't distinguish one image showing a pool of red/yellow liquid and the other is sparks from cutting and the sparks disappear :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    CS, I'm trying to follow the theory you are posting in this thread. Now you claim in the above post that the hijackers were funded by Saudis, Pakistani intelligence services and the CIA, but that those hijackers were not involved in the attack, correct?

    This begs the below questions

    1. Who were the real hijackers?

    2. What were their names and what were their motives?

    3. Did they fly planes into WTC 1, WTC 2, the Pentagon and crash in PA or is that not true? if so, which parts are not true and what happened to the hijackers?

    Richard Clarke was a senior high-level politician. He said the CIA had the info these guys were in the country to carry out attacks and the CIA did nothing to stop them and did not inform the FBI.

    No conspiracy really? How the hell did these guys board the planes on 9/11 when the CIA had their real names and can easily have tracked them down in 24 hours. It not like they were not using their real names. They were using credit cards and staying at hotels and their real names were provided. You can claim there was no conspiracy or cover up i don't believe it.


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


    The Nal wrote: »
    Clearly not. Nor can I.

    So Cheerful Spring is actually debunking the truth movement as opposed elevating it.

    Truth movement does have to know the names of the people who did. They can tell from the just looking at the buildings and how they fell down it was not fire that brought them down.

    NIST even declared freefall out of bounds in Aug 2008. Freefall could not occur if the building collapsed naturally. There was a progression of failures that needed to happen first and they were not instantaneous ( NIST language not mine)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement