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

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 3:09am

King Mob wrote: »

The idea of magic thermite is a wacky theory.

Her theory is much much more sound than yours (which basically is nothing).

She uses your exact same evidence to support her theory: ie. "I don't believe the NIST report".
She produces evidence that she claims can only be the result of a space laser.

So why do you not believe her?
What proof do you have that she's a shill?

Cause if anything, your own posts are doing a lot more to make conspiracy theorists look silly. How are we to know you're not a shill?

It wacky to you and people like you. The evidence supports a controlled demolition of WTC7.

What truly odd you can't seem to decipher fact from fiction.

You seem to not be able to process what is wrong with the NIST WTC7 images

Do you think WTC7 came down looking like a crushed soda can?.

King Mob · 14-10-2018 3:14am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It wacky to you and people like you. The evidence supports a controlled demolition of WTC7.

Great. So without refering to the problems you see in the NIST report, what evidence have you got?
We're four pages in and you've not produced a scrap of that?

Also again, gonna need some way of telling shills and real conspiracy theorists, cause again, you're doing so much damage to the credibility of conspiracy theorists...

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 3:19am

King Mob wrote: »

Great. So without refering to the problems you see in the NIST report, what evidence have you got?
We're four pages in and you've not produced a scrap of that?

Also again, gonna need some way of telling shills and real conspiracy theorists, cause again, you're doing so much damage to the credibility of conspiracy theorists...

You just don't understand the evidence that the problem.

Office fire is not hot enough to melt steel beams it's scientifically impossible. Ask any scientist on any board would 600c degree fire melt steel and wait for their answer.

That alone proves the WTC7 collapse was not natural.

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 3:26am

Kingmob is like everyone has forgotten what was found.

New York Times article from 2001.

quote
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

Dr Barnett could not explain what he saw. This seemly just got brushed to the side and forgotten.

Thats your smoking gun something else was involved. Dr Barret pretty much-confirmed steel could not be melted or evaporated as he put by just an office fire.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html

King Mob · 14-10-2018 4:58am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You just don't understand the evidence that the problem.

Office fire is not hot enough to melt steel beams it's scientifically impossible. Ask any scientist on any board would 600c degree fire melt steel and wait for their answer.

That alone proves the WTC7 collapse was not natural.

Well no it doesn't. Even if your argument held and was true and wasn't just you misunderstanding the report and it wasn't an oft debunked factoid, it just means that the NIST report isn't accurate.

It's not proof of any alternate theory.

It also would disprove the theories you natter on about as demolitions do not result in melted steel either.

The great Dr Judy Wood accounts for this however, as space lasers are more than enough to melt steel beams.

Again, it's nearly been 5 pages and you haven't produced jot one of evidence for any alternative theory.

Ipso · 14-10-2018 7:27am

Was WTC 7 the main target if that day and the twin towers were attacked as a distraction?
Or is it a case of convergent conspiracies or was the twin tower attack uncoevered and they piggy backed WTC 7 on top of it?

King Mob · 14-10-2018 8:44am

Ipso wrote: »

Was WTC 7 the main target if that day and the twin towers were attacked as a distraction?
Or is it a case of convergent conspiracies or was the twin tower attack uncoevered and they piggy backed WTC 7 on top of it?

Well obviously!
Cause the only way to get rid of some documents is to fly planes into two different buildings to start a fire in a 3rd, then rig that 3rd building to explode with experimental explosives that have never been used before.

You can't just steal or shred those documents. Someone might notice that....

GreeBo · 14-10-2018 11:28am

@cheerful spring

I'm confused why you go from
-NIST report has gaps
To
- it was an inside job with explosives

It send like a leap to me.... what is your evidence to help me understand this seeming leap?

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-10-2018 11:53am

GreeBo wrote: »

@cheerful spring

I'm confused why you go from
-NIST report has gaps
To
- it was an inside job with explosives

It send like a leap to me.... what is your evidence to help me understand this seeming leap?

Prepare yourself for "The evidence is all there and it's the only plausible explanation' but without him showing the evidence or explaining why its the only plausible explanation.

At least he isnt dumping tons of 2 hour long youtube vids in this thread

Yet.

Dohnjoe · 14-10-2018 12:17pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The evidence exists there just not a willingness in Washington to investigate this further.

What evidence? they found det cord? there were witnesses? there was a whistle-blower?

Your personal and subjective interpretation of a 3 year report is not a basis for Washington to hold another investigation

There are people who believe that Sandy Hook was an inside job, they have "as much" supporting evidence as you do, think there should be an investigation into it? should they be exhuming graves to satisfy a few truthers on the internet?

Or do you just dismiss them as "whackjobs"?

King Mob · 14-10-2018 12:39pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There are people who believe that Sandy Hook was an inside job, they have "as much" supporting evidence as you do, think there should be an investigation into it? should they be exhuming graves to satisfy a few truthers on the internet?

Or do you just dismiss them as "whackjobs"?

I would say in some parts more so cause at least there they try to provide more of an alternative theory.

Dohnjoe · 14-10-2018 12:45pm

King Mob wrote: »

I would say in some parts more so cause at least there they try to provide more of an alternative theory.

I remember the Sandy Hook threads here ages back and people passionately arguing that it could be inside job

The psychology remains the same, only the subject changes

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 1:10pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well no it doesn't. Even if your argument held and was true and wasn't just you misunderstanding the report and it wasn't an oft debunked factoid, it just means that the NIST report isn't accurate.

It's not proof of any alternate theory.

It also would disprove the theories you natter on about as demolitions do not result in melted steel either.

The great Dr Judy Wood accounts for this however, as space lasers are more than enough to melt steel beams.

Again, it's nearly been 5 pages and you haven't produced jot one of evidence for any alternative theory.

Ok, you just denying facts now. You denying a FEMA science paper.

Professors from the Worchester Polytechnic institute recovered pieces of the steel from WTC7 and identified it. The pieces they recovered had undergone intergranular melting. Pieces of this steel had melted away and this was caused by high temp and Sulphur they speculated?

The Professors at Worchestor recommended further study and investigation for the future as they could not identify the source of the sulphur. There testing showed it was elemental sulphur that had melted into the ingrains of the steel.

No office fire is hot enough to melt steel.

NIST denied pieces of WTC7 steel were recovered. Even though professors at Worchestor had identified these particular pieces of WTC7 steel in 2002 and even produced images of the given steel that had melted. That NIST continues to lie is not disputable it's true.

Sulphur is a substance used in thermate and can be added to nano thermite explosive.

King Mob · 14-10-2018 1:26pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Sulphur is a substance used in thermate and can be added to nano thermite explosive.

But that can't be the explaination.
Firstly Thermate and nano thermite have never been used for demolition, secret or otherwise. You argue that if there's no examples of something, then it can't happen.
Secondly, it can't be those things as there's no pictures of video of them or of them being planted. You argued previously that if there's no video or photographic evidence, then it can't exist.

Similarly, thermite doesn't leave melted steel. Neither do explosives, but since thermite isn't an explosive, we can rule those out.
Which begs the question of where that explosion sound you keep claiming comes from?
If it's thermite, then the explosion proves it wasn't...

Also, you haven't really answered my points at all...

The incomparable Dr Judy Wood's theory explains how there is melted steel where yours does not.
Why do you reject it?

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 1:27pm

GreeBo wrote: »

@cheerful spring

I'm confused why you go from
-NIST report has gaps
To
- it was an inside job with explosives

It send like a leap to me.... what is your evidence to help me understand this seeming leap?

NIST report is the cover-up. They ignored the evidence for political reasons. The evidence shows WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

It easy to see this when you read their report and see the errors made. You only have to observe their computer simulation model of the collapse see where they lied. I produced an image belonging to NIST on this thread showing a depiction of the collapse viewed from the north. They claim WTC7 looked like a crushed soda can as it fell down. That not true WTC7 fell down symmetrically there were no deformations of the roofline and east and west side walls in the actual collapse.

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 1:39pm

King Mob wrote: »

But that can't be the explaination.
Firstly Thermate and nano thermite have never been used for demolition, secret or otherwise. You argue that if there's no examples of something, then it can't happen.
Secondly, it can't be those things as there's no pictures of video of them or of them being planted. You argued previously that if there's no video or photographic evidence, then it can't exist.

Similarly, thermite doesn't leave melted steel. Neither do explosives, but since thermite isn't an explosive, we can rule those out.
Which begs the question of where that explosion sound you keep claiming comes from?
If it's thermite, then the explosion proves it wasn't...

Also, you haven't really answered my points at all...

The incomparable Dr Judy Wood's theory explains how there is melted steel where yours does not.
Why do you reject it?

Stop lying and denying facts thermate can melt steel. I have already produced a video of this experiment. What Scientists found in the WTC dust was nano-thermite a revolutionary new incendiary substance. Was this used with explosives we guessing, but WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Thermite was not used and nobody has ever said this was used here.

King Mob · 14-10-2018 1:51pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Stop lying and denying facts thermate can melt steel.

I'm not lying.
Thermite does not produce flowing rivers of molten steel like you've claimed
Thermite does not produce explosions.
There's no photos or videos.
Thermite has never been used in a demolition.
A controlled demolition never produces molten steel.
But your own evidence and arguments it can't be thermite.

Dr Judy Wood is a scientist and her work concludes that it was a space laser and she produces a lot more evidence than just sulpher.
Again why do you deny her work?

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 2:09pm

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not lying.
Thermite does not produce flowing rivers of molten steel like you've claimed
Thermite does not produce explosions.
There's no photos or videos.
Thermite has never been used in a demolition.
A controlled demolition never produces molten steel.
But your own evidence and arguments it can't be thermite.

Dr Judy Wood is a scientist and her work concludes that it was a space laser and she produces a lot more evidence than just sulpher.
Again why do you deny her work?

I never claimed thermite melted the steel. You still seem unable to process this.

Scientists claim they found 100nv nanometer red/grey chips (nano-thermite) in the WTC dust. US military was experimenting with nano-thermite in the 90's to use with explosives.

Professor Harrit claims the chips ignite low temps and then they noticed in calorimeter the chips released a high energy spike. Thermite does not ignite at low temp it requires very high temp to ignite.

Liquid metal yellow in colour was seen pouring out of the towers on the 80th floor. That liquid has never been identified. False again there is pictures and videos of a yellow liquid in the rubble pile at WTC sites.

What unknown here what explosive was used to bring down WTC7? The Red/grey chips were found in the WTC dust. There is no way to tell what building the dust came from?

King Mob · 14-10-2018 2:15pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never claimed thermite melted the steel.
Liquid metal yellow in colour was seen pouring out of the towers on the 80th floor. That liquid has never been identified. False again there is pictures and videos of a yellow liquid in the rubble pile at WTC sites.

You have been saying repeatedly that thermite melted the steel. You then accused me of lying when you claimed I said that this wasn't the case.
You are very confused about your own theory.

Either way, neither thermite/nanothermite produces a liquid. So they can't have been what was used.
Neither can explosives.

A space laser can explain this liquid easily.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What unknown here what explosive was used to bring down WTC7? The Red/grey chips were found in the WTC dust. There is no way to tell what building the dust came from?

But explosives can't be used as you have no video or photo evidence of the charges, so they don't exist...

Space lasers can also cause red/grey chips. This is a well known fact.

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 2:17pm

Kingmob Dr Judy Wood is a scientist and her work concludes that it was a space laser and she produces a lot more evidence than just sulpher.
Again why do you deny her work?

There no evidence for this. Have you any images of this super beam hitting the towers?

It was proven scientifically by mainstream professors the steel melted. It verifiable information, not a conspiracy.

salmocab · 14-10-2018 2:19pm

Steel could be melted by arc flash which certainly could be present in any building collapse.

King Mob · 14-10-2018 2:20pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There no evidence for this. Have you any images of this super beam hitting the towers?

Nope. Why is that an issue for her theory?
Do you have images of the demolition charges? Them being planted?

Besides, everyone know that space lasers are invisible and fry cameras looking at them.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It was proven scientifically by mainstream professors the steel melted. It verifiable information, not a conspiracy.

But you just said that the steel didn't melt...?

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 2:21pm

King Mob wrote: »

You have been saying repeatedly that thermite melted the steel. You then accused me of lying when you claimed I said that this wasn't the case.
You are very confused about your own theory.

Either way, neither thermite/nanothermite produces a liquid. So they can't have been what was used.
Neither can explosives.

A space laser can explain this liquid easily.

But explosives can't be used as you have no video or photo evidence of the charges, so they don't exist...

Space lasers can also cause red/grey chips. This is a well known fact.

No, I did not stop lying. The video I produced was a thermate experiment.

Thermate includes sulphur and barium that thermite does not use.

You are a nano-thermite expert now?

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 2:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. Why is that an issue for her theory?
Do you have images of the demolition charges? Them being planted?

Besides, everyone know that space lasers are invisible and fry cameras looking at them.

But you just said that the steel didn't melt...?

Kingmob if you not going to debate honestly leave the thread. The first post today I made today, I clearly said Professors at Worchestor had identified WTC7 steel pieces were melted.

Now you saying I said the opposite

King Mob · 14-10-2018 2:29pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No, I did not stop lying. The video I produced was a thermate experiment.

Thermate includes sulphur and barium that thermite does not use.

You are a nano-thermite expert now?

But Thermite, nano or otherwise nor thermate cannot provide rivers of following metal. It just can't.
If it can, proof please.

Otherwise we have to conclude that it can't be the explain for how the tower came down.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob if you not going to debate honestly leave the thread. The first post today I made today, I clearly said Professors at Worchestor had identified WTC7 steel pieces were melted.

Now you saying I said the opposite

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never claimed thermite melted the steel.

Also you keep ignoring all the excellent points from Dr Judy Woods investigation. Are you closed minded to her theory?
If so, why?

Marty Bird · 14-10-2018 2:34pm

I heard the bang at the start of that video. Has it ever been identified what that bang was from?

Dohnjoe · 14-10-2018 2:34pm

Lads can we keep this thread as a alternative theories with evidence only thread

Not to backseat mod, but it will just get cluttered up

6 pages and so far no supporting evidence of another theory has been provided. Likewise no motives and no suspects.

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 2:39pm

King Mob wrote: »

But Thermite, nano or otherwise nor thermate cannot provide rivers of following metal. It just can't.
If it can, proof please.

Otherwise we have to conclude that it can't be the explain for how the tower came down.

Also you keep ignoring all the excellent points from Dr Judy Woods investigation. Are you closed minded to her theory?
If so, why?

There no way you can say that conclusively nano-thermite can't produce rivers of flowing melted metals. You, not an expert. You just give your opinion.

Either way river of yellow liquid was photographed and videoed. Eyewitnesses claim they saw melted steel and Iron in the rubble. There no argument to be had here this yellow liquid was observed in the rubble.

What you ignoring here again is a scientific paper released by FEMA in 2002 highlighted the steel in WTC7 was melted by high temp. You seem to not understand steel melts at 1500c.

If steel pieces were been edged out and melted this should have investigated further by NIST.

NIST ignored the FEMA recommendation and claimed they could not identify any piece of WTC7 steel? Are you going to believe that they could not find one piece of steel from WTC7 to study? They just forget the FEMA study and what they found?

King Mob · 14-10-2018 2:40pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There no way you can say that conclusively nano-thermite can't produce rivers of flowing melted metals. You, not an expert. You just give your opinion.

So then a space laser can also produce it.
So you now agree with Dr Judy Wood's expert opinion?

Dr. Bre · 14-10-2018 2:44pm

Dr Judy wondered why people jumped from the twin towers . ??

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 2:45pm

Marty Bird wrote: »

I heard the bang at the start of that video. Has it ever been identified what that bang was from?

No it hasn't been identified. Skeptics prefer to ignore it as if it's not relevant.

You hear the bang echo picked up audio and then you see the Penthouse fall in.

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 2:49pm

King Mob wrote: »

So then a space laser can also produce it.
So you now agree with Dr Judy Wood's expert opinion?

I don't agree with her opinion. There no evidence of light beam hitting the towers.

There is evidence for melted steel and scientifically proven by mainstream scientists.

Dohnjoe · 14-10-2018 2:51pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No it hasn't been identified. Skeptics prefer to ignore it as if it's not relevant.

You hear the bang echo picked up audio and then you see the Penthouse fall in.

There were multiple loud bangs on the day, elevators crashing to the ground, debris falling, transformers exploding, massive buildings generally falling down.

Is every one of those loud bangs is an explosive charge? No

You've just personally chosen one such sound, decided it is a "controlled explosion" because according to you "it happened just before the building fell". That's literally all the criteria to your assumption.

Reports and investigations have recorded no explosive blasts consistent with explosive charges

It's not evidence, it's just a "thing" you have created. You can write post after post claiming it - it's a fallacy. No one can deny disprove something you have created in your head, and you'll never accept any information that does explain it.

Circular.

Again, it's not supporting evidence of a controlled demolition. We still have nothing.

Dohnjoe · 14-10-2018 2:53pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There no evidence of light beam hitting the towers.

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition. There is no evidence of "mini-nukes". There is no evidence of hologram planes.

You are in the exact same criteria as Judy Wood, someone you dismiss as a crackpot.

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 2:59pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There were multiple loud bangs on the day, elevators crashing to the ground, debris falling, transformers exploding, massive buildings generally falling down.

Is every one of those loud bangs is an explosive charge? No

You've just personally chosen one such sound, decided it is a "controlled explosion" because according to you "it happened just before the building fell". That's literally all the criteria to your assumption.

Reports and investigations have recorded no explosive blasts consistent with explosive charges

It's not evidence, it's just a "thing" you have created. You can write post after post claiming it - it's a fallacy. No one can deny disprove something you have created in your head, and you'll never accept any information that does explain it.

Circular.

Again, it's not supporting evidence of a controlled demolition. We still have nothing.

Don't dispute that multiple noises were heard during the day..

The building was perfectly still no noise. Suddenly a bang is heard the echo reverberates, then 1 second later you see the first signs of collapse happening, the Penthouse drops from the roof. Five to six seconds later the entire building starts collapsing. This is clearly a controlled demolition.

Both events are linked you can't dispute that.

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 3:04pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition. There is no evidence of "mini-nukes". There is no evidence of hologram planes.

You are in the exact same criteria as Judy Wood, someone you dismiss as a crackpot.

You just can't see it that the problem. If you were so confident NIST was right how come you still have replied to my question.

Do you think WTC7 fell like a crushed soda can? Stop throwing out ad-hominems and answer the question.

Dohnjoe · 14-10-2018 3:05pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is clearly a controlled demolition.

It's a personal invention and speculation in your head.

In a previous thread you claimed it was utterly impossible an airliner could hit the Pentagon. You invented it in your head, you created your own fact and despite all the evidence provided to the contrary, you ruled that it was impossible

You later just randomly changed your mind, suddenly it was possible

None of this is about 911, it's about psychology

I can ask a mod to delete all posts with no supporting credible evidence of alternative theories in this thread and we are back to square one

King Mob · 14-10-2018 3:11pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't agree with her opinion. There no evidence of light beam hitting the towers.

There is evidence for melted steel and scientifically proven by mainstream scientists.

But she's a scientist. She did research. You're not an expert, so you can't really disagree with her.

And again, where did I say that she claimed a beam of light hit the building?
I already told you that space lasers are invisible and fry cameras that look at them. Everyone knows that.

Where is your photos or video of the demolition charges?
Don't have any?
So therefore, using your own impeccable logic, they can't exist.

Dohnjoe · 14-10-2018 3:13pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You just can't

Trying to suck me into circular "prove it to me" arguments doesn't work

It's a classic denialism trick. "You can't prove something to me I will never accept".

Therefore this thread is about providing credible evidence supporting an alternative theory

You are repeatedly demonstrating that you can't do that, which is why you are resorting to these tricks and fallacies in order to deflect from the simple fact that you can't support your own theory in any reasonable way

You may not be able to see this, but anyone else reading this thread can

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 3:14pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a personal invention and speculation in your head.

In a previous thread you claimed it was utterly impossible an airliner could hit the Pentagon. You invented it in your head, you created your own fact and despite all the evidence provided to the contrary, you ruled that it was impossible

You later just randomly changed your mind, suddenly it was possible

None of this is about 911, it's about psychology

I can ask a mod to delete all posts with no supporting credible evidence of alternative theories in this thread and we are back to square one

Skeptics will always try to deflect away and not answer. We have been over this about the plane. I did not rule out a plane hit. I said based on the physical damage and where the 9/11 commission states the plane was a smaller plane hit the Pentagon.

New Information I found. I now believe a commercial airliner did impact the Pentagon but not in the spot the 9/11 commission claims.. Opinions change you never change yours because you think you always right no matter what.

NIST denied anyone heard a noise prior to any collapse event. Someone else on this thread hears the bang so maybe you should re-evaluate NIST claims on this matter?

weisses · 14-10-2018 3:17pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They are basic questions.

1. Who did this?

2. Why did they do it?

3. How did they do it?

And failure to answer the above means what exactly ?

Even Nist who had all the access needed (at least what was left over from the hastily destroyed evidence) Could only come up with a hypothesis that needed to be revised because joe public found glaring holes in the report on a regular basis

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 3:23pm

King Mob wrote: »

But she's a scientist. She did research. You're not an expert, so you can't really disagree with her.

And again, where did I say that she claimed a beam of light hit the building?
I already told you that space lasers are invisible and fry cameras that look at them. Everyone knows that.

Where is your photos or video of the demolition charges?
Don't have any?
So therefore, using your own impeccable logic, they can't exist.

Name one scientist who agrees with her from the mainstream? She has to prove her theory.

There proper scientific work being done to investigate the collapse of WTC7. Work that will be peer-reviewed.

banie01 · 14-10-2018 3:26pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Both events are linked you can't dispute that.

Correalation does not equal causation.
What evidence can you provide other than your belief, that the sound is actually the initiation of a controlled demolition?

You dismiss out of hand any objection to nano-thermite without presenting any factual evidence that it actually even exists in easily handled and ignited format!

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 3:27pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Trying to suck me into circular "prove it to me" arguments doesn't work

It's a classic denialism trick. "You can't prove something to me I will never accept".

Therefore this thread is about providing credible evidence supporting an alternative theory

You are repeatedly demonstrating that you can't do that, which is why you are resorting to these tricks and fallacies in order to deflect from the simple fact that you can't support your own theory in any reasonable way

You may not be able to see this, but anyone else reading this thread can

You just don't want to debate the subject. You know the NIST images are not representative of the actual collapse. If you were an honest person you admit that.

King Mob · 14-10-2018 3:29pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Name one scientist who agrees with her from the mainstream? She has to prove her theory.

There proper scientific work being done to investigate the collapse of WTC7. Work that will be peer-reviewed.

Lol. You have no sense of irony.

However, there are plenty of other scientists in the conspiracy world who buy into her theory.
Some of them have also been from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
She has published her work openly for anyone to peer review.

Why do you not believe her?

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-10-2018 3:34pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition. There is no evidence of "mini-nukes". There is no evidence of hologram planes.

You are in the exact same criteria as Judy Wood, someone you dismiss as a crackpot.

OMG i forgot about this one, didn't he once claim on a thread that there were no planes and it was all holograms to make the sheeple think it was a terror attack when really it was super nano thermite that was used?

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 3:37pm

banie01 wrote: »

Correalation does not equal causation.
What evidence can you provide other than your belief, that the sound is actually the initiation of a controlled demolition?

You dismiss out of hand any objection to nano-thermite without presenting any factual evidence that it actually even exists!

The noise of collapsing floors was not picked up by audio. Remember NIST is claiming floors, steel beams and columns, and furniture fittings elevators were all collapsing inside the building when the Penthouse fell in The noise picked up was so loud the echo was picked up blocks away from the site.

The building was motionless not a hinting of anything was happening. Then you hear a loud bang. Almost immediately the Penthouse started falling from the roofline.

It was scientifically proven the red/grey chips are nano-thermite. They're not a single peer-reviewed paper released by Skeptics that disproves the scientist's claims.

Paper is here if you interested.

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

banie01 · 14-10-2018 3:37pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

OMG i forgot about this one, dudnt he ince claim on a thread that there were no planes and it was all holograms to make the sheeple think it was a terror attack when really it was super nano thermite that was used?

Yep and the plane that hit the pentagon was an A-3 Sky Warrior.
Then proceeded to disagree with his own thesis completely.

Cheerful Spring · 14-10-2018 3:42pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

OMG i forgot about this one, didn't he once claim on a thread that there were no planes and it was all holograms to make the sheeple think it was a terror attack when really it was super nano thermite that was used?

I never said anything about holograms you thinking of someone else.

You don't understand the evidence, that not unusual when it comes to Skeptics. You can see even in this thread Dohjoe can't even address the NIST images because he knows he looks foolish if he attempted to try.

Instead, he uses deflections tactics and ad-hominems.

banie01 · 14-10-2018 3:53pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The noise of collapsing floors was not picked up by audio. Remember NIST is claiming floors, steel beams and columns, and furniture fittings elevators were all collapsing inside the building when the Penthouse fell in The noise picked up was so loud the echo was picked up blocks away from the site.

The building was motionless not a hinting of anything was happening. Then you hear a loud bang. Almost immediately the Penthouse started falling from the roofline.

It was scientifically proven the red/grey chips are nano-thermite. They're not a single peer-reviewed paper released by Skeptics that disproves the scientist's claims.

Paper is here if you interested.

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

That paper is based on 4 samples that were not collected by verifiably forensic means. It makes a blanket assumption of genuine sourcing and from its outset is based on flawed sample security.
Assuming any form of Nano Thermite was used, where was the UV spike?
Where are the damaged eyes from the thousands watching the incipient collapse?

If it was a controlled collapse via thermite/nano-thermite.
How was the burn initiated silently?
Simultanously at multiple points in the building?
How was the material placed?
By Whom?
To what end?

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

Comments