Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

2456733

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Ah here we go again, every fùcking thread he starts posting the same shìte about NIST, you should be banned from creating new threads and only allowed post in one 9-11 thread to keep the verbal Diarrhea confined.

    NIST is the official body hired to investigate the collapse of the buildings on 9/11. We have their theories and we have truther theory and both conflict with each other.
    Bring up NIST is not that unusual since they are pushing the fire collapse only theory and ignoring other explanations that exist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    We have their theories and we have truther theory and both conflict with each other.

    Another convenient little lie

    There is one theory supported by the FEMA investigation, the NIST investigation, insurance investigations, and experts consensus - the buildings fell due to fire

    There is no other theory based on credible evidence.

    There are other theories, mini-nukes, remote controlled aircraft, projections, energy weapons, controlled demolitions. They have no credible evidence. And those theories change from person to person, i.e. they are made up in people's heads.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No you're perpetually suspicious of "the powers that be" and have the same tendency towards many idiotic conspiracy theories and beliefs. It's nothing to do with the facts, it's to do with paranoid people with low critical thinking

    Find me one steel framed high rise in Europe and US and Asia has collapsed due to fire in 50 years?

    9/11 does not count.

    Find me one example that proves fire can progressively collape a building of this make.

    Stop waffling and provide examples.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Find me one steel framed high rise in Europe and US and Asia has collapsed due to fire in 50 years?

    Find us one skyscraper that has been secretly blown up by controlled demolition..

    Oh you can't, then by your logic it couldn't have happened. Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot like this?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Find us one skyscraper that has been secretly blown up by controlled demolition..

    Oh you can't, then by your logic it couldn't have happened. Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot like this?

    See what i mean you there are no examples and yet you find the controlled demolition theory insane? You don't wonder why some people find NIST explantation to be nonsensical?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Why does every single thread CS starts, contributes to or looks at...

    Descend into a shítshow of repetitive nonsense.
    How many more rage quits can we have?

    I thought Hulseys disaster would be the end of it.
    But now, CS now uses Boards to launch a fairly direct personal attack on someone who so far as I know isn't even a member here?

    Surely, CS needs to address their issues with Mr West, directly to Mr West?
    Rather than spouting more parrot talk gleaned from AE911 to a forum that has consistently and repeatedly been debunked at every turn on here?

    Why does CS post here bítching about Metabunk?
    Rather than post publically over there, and deal with the crux of his venom?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    banie01 wrote: »
    Why does every single thread CS starts, contributes to or looks at...

    Descend into a shítshow of repetitive nonsense.
    How many more rage quits can we have?

    I thought Hulseys disaster would be the end of it.
    But now, CS now uses Boards to launch a fairly direct personal attack on someone who so far as I know isn't even a member here?

    Surely, CS needs to address their issues with Mr West, directly to Mr West?
    Rather than spouting more parrot talk gleaned from AE911 to a forum that has consistently and repeatedly been debunked at every turn on here?

    Why does CS post here bítching about Metabunk?
    Rather than post publically over there, and deal with the crux of his venom?

    Banie back backing up his friends, in another debate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    See what i mean

    No.

    Here is your logic; if something didn't happen in the past it can't happen in the future

    Therefore skyscrapers haven't been secretly blown up in the past, so it didn't happen in 2001.

    That's your logic. Are you contradicting that? making a special exception? :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Banie back backing up his friends, in another debate.

    It's correct. You recycle the same broken truther points over and over

    You can keep writing the same nonsense over and over because there are no rules against it here. It's a safe space for that. On proper forums there are rules against that type of behavior - which is why you're here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Banie back backing up his friends, in another debate.

    No CS.
    I actually don't have friends on boards.
    The people who post here are just 1s and 0s, my only interest in all this is the actual weight of evidence or the lack of same.

    You are a proven liar, over multiple of these "debates"
    You misrepresent, lie, change position and opinion when called out.

    But anyway, the regulars in this corner of Boards know that all too well.

    So, why are you rambling on here with personal attacks on Mick West?
    Rather than over on his own site?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No.

    Here is your logic; if something didn't happen in the past it can't happen in the future

    Therefore skyscrapers haven't been secretly blown up in the past, so it didn't happen in 2001.

    That's your logic. Are you contradicting that? making a special exception? :)

    When fire never dropped a steel framed-column building in the past or since 9/11 there must be a reason for that?
    The NIST explanation is faulty as I have pointed out here for years.

    Controlled demolition is a recognized method to remove multiple stacks of columns across the width of a building to facilitate a free-fall collapse.
    It is important, NIST missed in their investigations here something completely removed 8 floors of columns inside the building below. Freefall is a strong indicator of a controlled demolition of columns holding up the building. 


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's correct. You recycle the same broken truther points over and over

    You can keep writing the same nonsense over and over because there are no rules against it here. It's a safe space for that. On proper forums there are rules against that type of behavior - which is why you're here.

    They're not truther talking points.

    This is NIST saying this in Aug 2008. This was said during the presentation of their draft paper about the collapse, which you guys simply are not getting.

    NIST ruled out Freefall and then changed their mind in Nov 2008, their timelines that people like yourself ignore.

    Truther argued this occurred pre Aug 2008.
    : “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it....

    NIST refuted their claim during the conference.
    What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    When secret controlled demolition using super secret termite never dropped a steel framed-column building in the past or since 9/11 there must be a reason for that?
    YOUR explanation is faulty as HAS BEEN pointed out here for years.
    Random waffle removed

    See how it looks when I switch it a little?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    See how it looks when I switch it a little?

    The difference is we know controlled demolition have dropped steel-framed buildings in history.
    They're no examples of fire collapsing rows of steel columns inside a steel-framed building and causing a complete collapse:)

    The Nano thermite thesis centres on the material the found in the WTC Twin Towers dust. Nanothermite is more energetic than thermite, its a substance on the nanometer scale and can only be produced in sophisticated high level chemist workshop. 

    I wonder, why do people find it implausible when it all occurred on a day the US was attacked. There holes in the official narrative when Al Qeada terrorists were allowed to enter the US freely in 2000 and the CIA knew this and kept the information from the FBI. It not like they had no info to stop the plot days, weeks, months before 9/11. The 19 were not hiding out in some remote desert in Las Vegas. They were living in cities and using their real names.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    The difference is we know controlled demolition have dropped steel-framed buildings in history.
    They're no examples of fire collapsing rows of steel columns inside a steel-framed building and causing a complete collapse:)

    Never one prepared secretly and quietly though so because it's never happened before or since then it never happend on 9-11.

    This is your claim not mine, if it's never happened before or since then it can't have happened that day.
    Waffle deleted


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Never one prepared secretly and quietly though so because it's never happened before or since then it never happend on 9-11.

    This is your claim not mine, if it's never happened before or since then it can't have happened that day.

    This logic is flawed because to all purposes the population was not aware 19 guys were going to hijack the planes on 9/11 and fly them into buildings.  Just because you didn’t see them enter the buildings pre 9/11 doesn’t mean it did not happen. We have no security footage from inside the tower garage floors, or footage from inside the towers for the months leading up to the event. We don’t know who had access and what was possible. Debunkers assume it was not possible to wire up buildings for demolition and not be noticed. They forget the steel core is not exposed to the public you access it through doorways with restricted access.  Who ever did this are high level operatives and people in charge could make it happen.Plus you don’t need to wire up every floor for demolition. You just need to plant stuff on enough key supports to start a collapse. 


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    This logic is flawed because to all purposes the population was not aware 19 guys were going to hijack the planes on 9/11 and fly them into buildings.  Just because you didn’t see them enter the buildings pre 9/11 doesn’t mean it did not happen. We have no security footage from inside the tower garage floors, or footage from inside the towers for the months leading up to the event. We don’t know who had access and what was possible. Debunkers assume it was not possible to wire up buildings for demolition and not be noticed. They forget the steel core is not exposed to the public you access it through doorways with restricted access.  Who ever did this are high level operatives and people in charge could make it happen.Plus you don’t need to wire up every floor for demolition. You just need to plant stuff on enough key supports to start a collapse. 

    Waffle waffle waffle, the same blah blah blah that you have spouted for years. You have no evidence for any of this just lots of maybe/could have/might have.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,364 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    "Who ever did this are high level operatives and people in charge could make it happen"

    Lol


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Waffle waffle waffle, the same blah blah blah that you have spouted for years. You have no evidence for any of this just lots of maybe/could have/might have.

    There plenty of evidence but people like yourself ignore it.
    There photographs of melted steel columns, flanges, beams- NIST said was not possible to melt A36 steel by fire. 
    There evidence of Iron microspheres in WTC dust, this is evidence for nanothermite reaction/some explosive used. Fires at 1000c can not make Molten Iron spheres, end of the story.
    There evidence firefighters, and workers,  saw molten steel flowing like a liquid in the rubble pile- ignored by NIST.
    There explosions heard on videotape- ignored by NIST.
    I could go on all day explaining the anomalous findings, NIST ignored. 

    Just look at the top of the towers you will notice the top half peeled like a banana and there was nothing left to crush the bottom end.  NIST believe is floor trusses pulled everything down. What you actually see is the perimeter sucked in and then everything inside is pushed outwards. That’s an implosion
    occurring inside the building. 

    513289.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    There evidence of Iron microspheres in WTC dust, this is evidence for nanothermite reaction/some explosive used. Fires at 1000c can not make Molten Iron spheres, end of the story.
    But there are many other ways of creating microspheres that don't involve magic nanothermite.

    That's the point Mick West was making. You seem to not understand that.

    It's probably because you don't actually understand the science again and you're just parroting what you are told to by the con artists you follow religiously.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And again:
    No other steel framed building has ever been secretly demolished.
    No skyscraper of those sizes have ever been demolished.
    No building has ever been demolished by any kind of thermite.
    Etc.
    Etc.
    Etc.

    These points have been brought up many times before, Cheerful ignores them every time because he realises that they expose the issue with his argument.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    And again:
    No other steel framed building has ever been secretly demolished.
    No skyscraper of those sizes have ever been demolished.
    No building has ever been demolished by any kind of thermite.
    Etc.
    Etc.
    Etc.

    These points have been brought up many times before, Cheerful ignores them every time because he realises that they expose the issue with his argument.

    Fail in rationale.
    Controlled demolition is a known method to drop steel framed buildings. 
    We can look this up and observe crews taking out multiple columns stacks to bring a building down.
    Fire: there no examples to look up and verify the mainstream view of events on 9/11.

    The case for controlled demolition is stronger and clearer than the fire explanation.
    Done in secret mean here?
    "Someone did not notice the demolition crew placing the explosives on the steel? It bases your entire objection on someone not catching them doing the operation?

    That’s false Metabunk found examples in history thermite was used to cut steel and bring down structures. So we know thermite can affect steel and weaken it in buildings.

    Truthers claim is not thermite applied here to the steel, they do claim a military grade type of nanothermite was applied. You not following here is the properties and energy is different to standard thermite.

    Truthers don’t claim only nanothermite was used to bring down the towers. It just something they found in the WTC dust. An exotic incendiary/explosive that would go long way to explaining why this was not an industry standard demolition. The conspirators were using materials you not find in other building collapses. 
    Make sense if you trying to hide your operation. They did not think a movement would spring up and start investigate every last detail and
    be studying WTC dust samples.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fail in rationale.
    [
    Yes I know Cheerful. That's the point. It's your rationale.
    You are using that argument. We are just demonstrating how when it's turned around on you, you reject it out of hand because it's a dumb argument.

    You also then do your best to weasel around things. For example:
    found examples in history thermite was used to cut steel and bring down structures.
    I didn't say structures. I said buildings.
    No buildings have been demolished by nanothermite or any other type of thermite.

    This also exposes your hypocrisy.
    Steel structures have been brought down by fire.
    But you will reject those examples.

    Every single post you make only makes you more of a laughing stock.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    When fire never dropped a steel framed-column building in the past or since 9/11 there must be a reason for that?

    But that's the thing it has happened before. Steel is vulnerable to fire which is why steel is covered in fire-proof cladding in buildings. Steel structures have collapsed or partially collapsed in the past due to fire. Fires of just 600c (office fires) can weaken steel up to 60%.

    Steel_strength_in_fire.png

    This has been repeatedly explained and demonstrated, but you simply ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

    Again, you can explain day after day to a flat earther that the world is around, they can simply choose to kept rejecting it. This is all you do here. Rejecting it makes your "conspiracy" real. It doesn't take a genius to see what's going on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Controlled demolition is a known method to drop steel framed buildings. 

    Your argument has literally devolved into "buildings can be taken down by controlled demolition, therefore 911 was a secret demolition"


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Your argument has literally devolved into "buildings can be taken down by controlled demolition, therefore 911 was a secret demolition"
    But remember, it's not like normal demolitions cause they used magic "exotic" materials like supernanothermite and silent explosions.
    But then it's also exactly like normal demolitions when it suits.
    And when it isn't like a normal demolition, well that's cause it's a special and unique demolition.

    It's like trying to debate a child.
    Once again I'm swinging towards the idea that Cheerful is in fact 12-14.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes I know Cheerful. That's the point. It's your rationale.
    You are using that argument. We are just demonstrating how when it's turned around on you, you reject it out of hand because it's a dumb argument.

    You also then do your best to weasel around things. For example:

    I didn't say structures. I said buildings.
    No buildings have been demolished by nanothermite or any other type of thermite.

    This also exposes your hypocrisy.
    Steel structures have been brought down by fire.
    But you will reject those examples.

    Every single post you make only makes you more of a laughing stock.

    It was discovered in certified WTC dust samples. You can see images of the substance. It not like Harrit and other scientists claimed something had taken place and then provided no synthetic chemical demonstration, verification?.  All the appropriate tests were done and confirmed it was not paint chips. This nanometer/thermatic substance should not be there in the building so someone placed it there.  Only reason you place nanometer chips in a building made of steel is to impair and weaken the structure column support.

    This is why the Iron Microspheres found in the WTC dust should not be dismissed. A mainstream study found that 6 percent of the dust had Molten Iron spheres. Iron Microspheres is a recognised byproduct of a thermatic reaction.  We have proof the truthers nanothermite findings not far-fetched and unbelieveable like you guys claim. 


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »

    It's like trying to debate a child.

    A child has basic logic and rational. When given a choice between:

    1. Breaking news made a mistake

    or

    2. The plotters who secretly "blew up" the buildings decided to reveal their entire plan to a news agency in another country by giving them the exact time the building would be destroyed. At no benefit to the plotters. Or the news agency. With no other credible evidence whatsoever.

    Cheerful decides it's the latter. It's unreal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Here we go, it's all being dug up and recycled again.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A child has basic logic and rational. When given a choice between:

    1. Breaking news made a mistake

    or

    2. The plotters who secretly "blew up" the buildings decided to reveal their entire plan to a news agency in another country by giving them the exact time the building would be destroyed. At no benefit to the plotters. Or the news agency. With no other credible evidence whatsoever.

    Cheerful decides it's the latter. It's unreal.

    Why would debunkers reject the science provided by the RJ Lee group?
    If there claim is 6 percent of the WTC dust has Iron microspheres, then you need to explain that scientifically.
    Nobody has done it. Mick has attempted to explain it by making excuses that workers made them and so on, totally ignorning a mainstream conclusion the spheres formed inside the building pre collapse.


Advertisement