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, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to 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.




  • Registered Users Posts: 24,353 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    It's a simple question. Why aren't you able to answer it?

    The NIST don't really have much to fear from you given how pathetic your conspiracy ideas are.

    Do you not remember how you were telling us that there was going to be a scientific paper that would prove it all? But then when it came out you dropped it and now never mention it at all?

    Do you not remember the previous time you were claiming that your 9/11 grifters were about to win in a court case? And how now you never mention that at all?

    And again, you don't know what free fall actually is. You keep harping on about it, but when you were challenged on it you showed that you didn't understand basic math or physics. You couldn't even get terms correct.

    You are awful forgetful. It's like all that stuff was posted by someone else...

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,232 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

    You previously claimed that all 3 buildings were blown up. You described how it was done, do you even remember this?

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭ Fighting Tao

    Selective amnesia. It’s a common symptom they conspiracy theorists have.

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,353 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    Nah. They just out and out lie about their position when it's convenient. They'll say something, then deny they ever said it when the first statement becomes too embarrassing. They are making the bet that people aren't going to bother to trawl back through their posts to find the statement, so they believe they are safe. And should some one actually find what they said and point it out, well then they can shriek and throw a tantrum and then decide to ignore.

    Conspiracy theorists exist in a reality that is subject to rewriting depending on mood and what grifter they are listening to today. So to them it's not so much lying. It's more the belief that all reality is a lie, so therefore anything they say or want to be true is equally as valid as anything else.

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    I do yes and taken a bit of time to reply here.

    Skeptics/debunkers claim that controlled demolition isn't possible because we can't hear the sounds that are common to controlled demolition in an industrial/commercial setting. 

    In my opinion, the towers and building seven were not brought down in the same way. Using the video footage, I would argue that there is a loud noise that is associated with the controlled explosion before the collapse of the World Trade Center seven. According to NIST, no loud noise was heard on the ground or on video prior to the collapse events at seven ( another myth).

    Nobody claimed to have seen molten steel liquid flowing in the rubble of towers (another NIST myth) There is many genuine videos of the clean-up crew, the building engineers, architects, and New York firefighters, many others, all stating they saw a red hot and yellow liquid underneath the rubble, some of the liquid was directly beside the now broken steel core. The fact that NIST is denying this happened despite this mass of evidence and people's statements prove the investigation wasn't genuine and they had an agenda from the beginning. 

    Traffic jams, sirens on emergency vehicles- going off, and big crowds created a lot of noise around the towers, making background noise difficult to detect. The towers collapsed from the top-down, unlike building 7, with the top half falling through the bottom at an acceleration of gravity. There is no natural way for this to occur since when the collapse happens, the top half is crushing the lower half. 

    There is no natural way for this to occur. There are structural components underneath. It would be physically impossible unless you had something else that pushed structural components out of the way. The only way to achieve freefall is through controlled demolition. In order for the building to fall naturally, the top half has to push away the resistance of the bottom half, so you don't need to know anything about physics or mathematics. All buildings have structural resistance from the top down, so if you buy into the natural collapse theory, the top half has to push away the resistance of the bottom half. As a result, if you are using energy to break up resistance, you won't be in free fall. That's a red flag, debunkers prefer to ignore.

    Potentially what brought down the towers. Neils Harrit, a Danish chemist working at a university in Denmark, studied the dust from the towers and conducted research on it. He discovered tiny red and grey chips in the dust that seemed to mimic nanothermite's properties. Harrit reviewed research papers belonging to the US military and compared his chip results with what was observed in laboratory experiments carried out by the US military. Results are very unusual. The chips contained nanoparticles of thermite, which were visible under a microscope. In contrast with standard thermite, this has the unusual property of igniting at very low temperatures, while standard thermite requires a lot of heat to ignite. Having read the paper a while ago, now I forget things, but the conclusion was it was an energetic material manufactured in a sophisticated facility, capable of melting steel and causing instability and eventual collapse. Additional Harrit testing indicated a gas release, which may or may not explain why the tower burst into a mountain cloud of debris. It is most likely that the chips were in solid block form of material and were simply placed on steel columns, and when the planes hit the fire, heat ignited the chips, and then the core steel up top was dismantled.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,124 ✭✭✭✭ Timberrrrrrrr

    So we're back to you parroting the same shìte you have been spouting for years on this subject.

    Your wall of text above has nothing to do with the op, the op has nothing to do with 9-11, you will just use this new thread as a dumping ground for the unfounded nonsense that you have put in every thread in this 9-11 forum.

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,353 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    You were previously arguing that the demolition charges were actually silent because they were using a magic super nano thermite.

    You also agreed that the Harrit paper category proved that there couldn't have been any nanothermite because it showed that one of the byproducts were missing.

    You claimed that a picture showing this "molten metal" in fact had a giant mirror in it that only you could see.

    You have also claimed that the demolitions were done by a team of 16 guys, including Larry Silverstien over a weekend. You claimed this was for all 3 buildings.

    You also again argue about math and physics when you've shown without any doubt you don't even have a elementary school understanding of these subjects.

    There's a reason no other conspiracy theorists want to talk to you man.

    You're incredibly embarrassing to them.

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,353 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    Yup. Him and the Op are just pissy that they aren't allowed to post on the Russia thread.

    The conspiracy theory forum is just a dumping ground for silly shite not welcome in adult discussions.

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    Since actual papers exist that describe what nanothermite can and cannot do, this theory is not unfounded. Red/ grey chips of nano-thermite can be seen in the dust samples. That's the question that needs answering: how did they end up in the dust? Harrit observed all the properties of thermite in his X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses. This is real science, despite claims to the contrary. On another site, debunkers, have no science background, claim that there is no aluminum in the red layer, but Harrit XEDS has proven this to be false. The claim that no aluminum exists is based on a study by an individual involved with an official government study of tower dust. For the truther community it looks like he was looking at primer red paint instead of red/chip chips. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,124 ✭✭✭✭ Timberrrrrrrr

    What does this have to do with the op? There's 20 other threads in this 9-11 forum where you have posted all this and been answered.

    What does any of the above have to do with this thread and its subject?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    Timber this image?

    As well, the image is a false memory. As I said, there are probably two firefighters' reflections here or some strange camera effect at play here. 

    In the right hand corner, there is a person standing next to the red/yellow liquid. Convinced of it ( i laughed) Since where are his legs? I start laughing. The image is plastered on the side of a broken steel building. (top right corner) laughed even more. 

    Once you got convinced that person in between the steel columns was a real person too, you argued endlessly over it. As a result, I started slagging off one user because he believes in little people who are 2 feet tall.

     Rather, it appears to be an oddity and the reflection mimics the firefighter on the left and position. He appears to be holding something in front of him. The little person is mimicking him. Maybe not the one who needs their eyes checked?

    After that got worse, you guys argued that it was not a pool of hot liquid, but sparks from cutting tools that were leaving the pool. Sparks don't form on the ground in a pool like this. Despite making lots of mistakes and errors on other things, i dont feel the need to talk about it 

    What is important is the NIST denials that anyone saw a red/yellow liquid flowing in the rubble after the collapse. The image alone proves the government version is not accurate.

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,124 ✭✭✭✭ Timberrrrrrrr

    Again, nothing to do with the op, just you using yet another thread to dump your silly theories, there are 20 other threads where you can and indeed have posted these.

    What's the conspiracy and what does it have to do with the subject in the op?

    If you have nothing to add to the op then I'll take it the subject is over and will report the thread as dead and ask admin to close it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    I'm not the one trying to close this thread, so stop pretending that you are interested in debating the original poster's comments. This thread has already died. I am not sure the original poster wants to back up his arguments. It is up to them to do so and take it from there. 

    There were posts sent my way, so I replied, but you often disregard those other posters add other subjects to the mix because they want to, but pretend otherwise later!! 

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,353 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    More childish and bizarre ranting.

    There's dozens of threads on this forum where you have dumped this silly theories before and then abandoned when you embarrassed yourself.

    You are simply hijacking this thread because you saw an opertunity to repeat the same tired bullshit along with your silly claims of a giant mirror in the tower wreckage.

    It's very odd. It's like you can't help yourself when someone mentions 9/11. You have to start dumping your talking points all over again. It's like a form of complusion with you.

    It's the same when people point out your holocaust denial.

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,232 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

    Good, so you've confirmed you believe all 3 towers were brought down using controlled demolition.

    How were WTC 1 and WTC 2 blown up? Who did it? and how did they do it? Give a timeline

    Remember, it doesn't matter what you personally believe (we had a poster go on for 20 pages that the world was flat), it matters what you can demonstrate.

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,232 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

    It's ground-zero workers cutting beams after 9/11. Plenty of photos/footage of it. I see 3 people in that photo, so does everyone else.

    If you literally see the world differently from everyone else, then how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

      The photograph shows three humans ( blue marks). You did not make that argument. According to you and your friends, the images in the red highlighted boxes represented people as well, which I disagree with.

    . The photo contains likely camera artifacts or strange reflections of the firefighters, as I mentioned. You told me that there were five people in the picture for a week. It seems odd that you have forgotten these details now.

    The fact that there were workers at Ground Zero cutting steel to load into trucks does not prove your point. Image mixing doesn't work here.

    You think it sparks coming from a cutting tool, which is obviously not the case.

    A closer look reveals a large pool of liquid in a large area near the steel columns. It appears to be the result of sparks according to you. I consider your points of view when you find a pool of sparks flowing in a similar fashion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,353 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    Lol. You really don't understand how embarrassing this argument is. Do you?

    So what's causing these "reflections"?

    What camera effects do you believe are happening?

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    What might have caused the twin towers to collapse? I discussed this in post 36. Read the end.

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,232 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

    It's ground-zero workers cutting steel. You can subjectively decide there are mirrors and magnets and "pools" and whatever you want it to be.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,232 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

    You've spent years stating as fact that it was an inside job (which has changed many times)

    So now it's just your opinion that it "might" have been, correct?

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    You have looked at dozens of photographs on the Internet, yet you have failed to locate a pool of sparks flowing like lava.

    Is that not significant?

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,353 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    Any other photos of these pools of molten steel? Or the giant mirror?

    Or any other examples of these camera artifacts you're making up?

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,232 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

    Your interpretation of it is meaningless, there was a poster on the forum claiming that no one could prove gravity to them, therefore it didn't exist. Technically they were correct. No one, anywhere, can prove anything to you, that don't have to. No one can tell what state your mind is in.

    If you want to see things in photos, that's fine.

    Your whole spiel is that the buildings were blown up on 9/11, great, that would be incredible amazing, story of the century if true, but you haven't demonstrated it in any way.

    Who did it? names, how was it done? why rig the buildings, what if one of the planes missed? so many questions and you haven't answered any. Still waiting..

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    It is not the responsibility of the truther community to determine who committed the crime. Law enforcement terrorism units, Homeland Security, and the FBI are responsible for conducting this type of investigation. Can examine the science and disciplines surrounding the collapse in order to determine whether the official narrative is accurate or not. You and your "buddies" still do not seem to be getting this point. 

    Keep insisting there is no evidence for the controlled demolition of building seven, which only makes you look foolish. . Others have demonstrated for at least a decade that this statement is false.

    Is there any evidence?

    For the first time in history, a steel-framed building collapsed solely due to fire. That alone makes this event very unusual, happening periodically over the course of history. I would not disagree with your point of view.  

     Let us take a look at what is known to be true. 

    As the organization responsible for the mainstream engineering world's study of the collapse, NIST's conclusions matter.

    We have discussed on this site many times how the trigger event that triggered the collapse is terribly flawed and contains many errors, flaws, and omissions. NIST must therefore consider other explanations as to why building seven collapsed. 

    Their refusal to release their raw data for outside analysis is yet another indication they do not trust their work. NIST's virtual model of the collapse is inaccurate as there is no freefall at all, so how can you claim that the building collapsed due to fire in the way you believe it did?

    You do not indicate where the freefall took place in the NIST model !!!!!. Ignore that point.

    If you do not wish to have a serious discussion, then so be it. . Please locate the freefall in the NIST virtual model, and display it to all users here. It is not my intention to close my mind. I wish to offer you a chance to prove me wrong. I will wait to see how honest you are. 

    Also, the NIST collapse of Seven is not symmetrical.

    The building's architecture collapsed symmetrically. This final collapse in the NIST model shows deformations and looks as if someone put their hand into the building, closed it tightly, and began crushing it. Video evidence of the actual collapse does not display any of these features. The walls are coming down in a straight line. You will see all the deformations on video if all those deformations are really occurring inside the building.

    As a result of NIST not understanding what took place within the building that day, perpetuating lies and making mistakes, and hiding the truth continuously. In a situation where their own technical engineering is inconsistent, confusing, and does not make sense, they can not expect people to accept their explanation.




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,232 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

    You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to support that claim.

    Still waiting..

  • Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ Cheerful S

    This is not my responsibility or the responsibility of the truther community. On the contrary, NIST and debunkers claim there was freefall due to fire in the collapse. In which of the virtual models does freefall occur?

    That is why you avoid this at all costs because it is bullshit. 

    After denying freefall for seven years, NIST's final report stated that it had occurred during their new, nonsensical three-stage process. However, the virtual model does not match the data on paper. 

    The truther movement has relied on this fact to determine NIST is lying here, and the first statement they made regarding freefall reflects their true, accurate assessment of that collapse. In order to cover up, they needed to act quickly since they would be forced to take into account that someone actually brought down the building on September 11, 2001  

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,353 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob

    But we can't explain it to you because you don't understand what free fall is and won't accept that your ignorance of physics, math and basic English has lead you to a false conclusion.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,232 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe

    It's your claim, I haven't heard "secret Nazi's" and all that from anyone else. This is your own personal theory.

    If you don't have any theory there's nothing to discuss.

This discussion has been closed.