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.
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.
SlowBlowin wrote: » Do you think he/she (Cheerful Spring) is just having a laugh ? Surely nobody can be this stupid ?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » FEMA said it was just Iron and Sulphur. How do you explain the lack of other elements in the mixture?
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.
SlowBlowin wrote: » Because Iron Sulphide is just Iron and Sulphur.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » It very weird the debunkers don't do experiments to find out.
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.
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
