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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't understand science. Told you already.

Yes, you've said that, but when you have been asked any science questions you show yourself up as ignorant.
Completely and utterly.

You also seem to have issues with language and reading comphrension as you still have not addressed any questions put to you in the last few posts.

You seem obsessed with these paint chips as if they are new or haven't been debunked.
Or as if you understand any of the terms you are copy pasting...

Anyway, you can't provide the examples I asked for, so by your own argument, the buildings cannot be controlled demolitions.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not my problem you can't read the link. Upgrade your internet.

Upgrade my internet?

Jeez you really are obnoxiously wrong on all accounts!

The only way to look at that link is to use a special browser which i do not wish to have on my phone.

Either copy/paste the relevant information i have asked for (its never bothered you before) or i will report your post.

Also please provide proof of a building being demolished by controlled explosion where all explosives have been detonated simultaneously.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, you've said that, but when you have been asked any science questions you show yourself up as ignorant.
Completely and utterly.

You also seem to have issues with language and reading comphrension as you still have not addressed any questions put to you in the last few posts.

You seem obsessed with these paint chips as if they are new or haven't been debunked.
Or as if you understand any of the terms you are copy pasting...

Anyway, you can't provide the examples I asked for, so by your own argument, the buildings cannot be controlled demolitions.

Red/chips have not been debunked. One scientist involved in the government study of WTC dust claims he could not find any elemental aluminium in the chips. This is a lie. When asked about his work he confirmed he did no DSC testing of the chips. Poor scientific analysis. The debunkers on the JREF forum then claimed they only paint chips.

They got confronted about this and a debate was set up between Jay Howard ( a scientist or engineer i believe a truther and Oystein the most well known debunker of 9/11 controlled demolition.

The debate is here and Jay Howard destroyed the debunker nonsense with scientific facts.

I don't expect you to read this is for others to read.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289588

To this date, no peer review paper exists debunking Harrit claims.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Red/chips have not been debunked.

They have been.

But again, you dodge questions.
You utter joke.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You made the claim it's up to you to show the proof!

Do you think you know more than a highly qualified demolition expert? He laughs at NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC7. He worked for one of the top demolition companies in America. He answers your question around 2 minutes 48 seconds.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you think you know more than a highly qualified demolition expert?

lol

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you think you know more than a highly qualified demolition expert? He laughs at NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC7. He worked for one of the top demolition companies in America.

There is no proof in that video of a building being demolished in the way you have claimed.

Please show proof of a building being demolished by controlled explosion where all of the explosives were detonated simultaneously simultaneously.

Also please show evidence that fibre optics can/have been used to detonate explosives.

You have constantly badgered people to provide evidence without ever backing up your ridiculous claims. Please provide the evidence or be labelled a fraud.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There is no proof in that video of a building being demolished in the way you have claimed.

Please show proof of a building being demolished by controlled explosion where all of the explosives were detonated simultaneously simultaneously.

Also please show evidence that fibre optics can/have been used to detonate explosives.

You have constantly badgered people to provide evidence without ever backing up your ridiculous claims. Please provide the evidence or be labelled a fraud.

The video I posted debunks your claims. I even highlighted the time for you to hear how a demolition actually works.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The video I posted debunks your claims. I even highlighted the time for you to hear how a demolition actually works.

Where in that video does it show a building being demolished by controlled explosion where all the explosive are detonated simultaneously?

These are your claims so back them up you fraud!

King Mob wrote: »

They have been.

But again, you dodge questions.
You utter joke.

Kingmob cannot handle the truth:eek:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob cannot handle the truth:eek:

No, again, I can handle the truth.
You are dodging questions and deflecting.

You are having a bit of an episode because no one is playing along with you and your deflection tactics.
You are realising just how much of a joke you are to pretty much everyone.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Where in that video does it show a building being demolished by controlled explosion where all the explosive are detonated simultaneously?

These are your claims so back them up you fraud!

He explains the process on video. It occurs on all load floors ( support columns are broken and fail) simultaneously in milliseconds (not seconds) and then the building can fall down in synchronised fashion.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He explains the process on video. It occurs on all load floors ( support columns are broken and fail) simultaneously in milliseconds (not seconds) and then the building can fall down in synchronised fashion.

So then WTC7 can't be a controlled demolition as that's not what we see.

The penthouse falls first, followed by the rest of the building.

Simultaneously means at the same time, since you didn't know.

Also, it's not an answer to the question you were asked.

King Mob wrote: »

No, again, I can handle the truth.
You are dodging questions and deflecting.

You are having a bit of an episode because no one is playing along with you and your deflection tactics.
You are realising just how much of a joke you are to pretty much everyone.

I just explained to you only one scientist has attempted to debunk Harrit claims and even promised the debunkers he release a peer review paper soon . This was 2012 still waiting for the paper now 2019.

:rolleyes: Debunked theory lol

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you think you know more than a highly qualified demolition expert

He isnt a highly qualified demolition expert. Hes a demoltion loader. A qualification that takes two days to achieve. He drives the truck, places explosives where hes told to and takes photos. He is also not an expert on building physics.

I love how nutters cling to flimsy evidence. Hilarious.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He explains the process on video. It occurs on all load floors ( support columns are broken and fail) simultaneously in milliseconds (not seconds) and then the building can fall down in synchronised fashion.

You're nothing but a fraud who scatters the thread with bullsh/t and runs away from questions.

King Mob wrote: »

So then WTC7 can't be a controlled demolition as that's not what we see.

The penthouse falls first, followed by the rest of the building.

Simultaneously means at the same time, since you didn't know.

Also, it's not an answer to the question you were asked.

The Penthouse and other structures are sitting on a closed secured roof.

When the support columns are removed (explosions went off) then the crashing occurs that takes a number of seconds to complete.

The Nal wrote: »

He isnt a highly qualified demolition expert. Hes a demoltion loader. A qualification that takes two days to achieve. He drives the truck, places explosives where hes told to and takes photos. He is also not an expert on building physics.

I love how nutters cling to flimsy evidence. Hilarious.

He's a demolition expert despite what you claim. He works for one of the top demolition companies in the world. I trust he knows what he talking about unlike you.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're nothing but a fraud who scatters the thread with bullsh/t and runs away from questions.

Only frauds are people who deny evidence and deflect and don't talk about the real evidence.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He's a demolition expert despite what you claim. He works for one of the top demolition companies in the world. I trust he knows what he talking about unlike you.

Go away you absolute fraud! You're this sites biggest joke at this stage.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He's a demolition expert despite what you claim. He works for one of the top demolition company in the world. I trust he knows what he talking about unlike you.

Would you let the hygienist do a root canal on you at the dentist?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Go away you absolute fraud! You're this sites biggest joke at this stage.

I just proved your ridiculous claims wrong

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just explained to you only one scientist has attempted to debunk Harrit claims and even promised the debunkers he release a peer review paper soon . This was 2012 still waiting for the paper now 2019.

:rolleyes: Debunked theory lol

You explained that, but you didn't do anythign to show it and no one believes you as you are delusional liar who doesn't even understand what peer review is.

You again dodge the questions.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Penthouse and other structures are sitting on a closed secured roof.

So why did it fall down?

The Nal wrote: »

Would you let the hygienist do a root canal on you at the dentist?

Delusional like the rest of your debunker pals. He described the job he did for the company and he worked for a controlled demolition company.

Have you ever worked for a demolition company?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Delusional like the rest of your debunker pals. He described the job he did for the company and he worked for a controlled demolition company.

Have you ever worked for a demolition company?

Nope but I worked on a ship before and I havent a clue how to sail.

Im really only here to see you dodge questions and ignore anything remotely challenging.

Sometimes you just have to let stupid be stupid.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Delusional like the rest of your debunker pals.

And again, mirroring and parroting comments because you are unable to think independently.
This is just getting sadder and sadder.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you think you know more than a highly qualified demolition expert?

Here's a demolitions expert (and firefighter) on 911 conspiracy theories

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktfnyC5lR3U

Here is a demolitions expert from the largest demolition companies in the world on the subject. Bonus: Richard Gage (911 conspiracy theorist) appears and suggests that explosives could have been planted when the building was built in the 80's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIIWbEgESJY

A futile exercise for you, but this is for others reading this thread

King Mob wrote: »

You explained that, but you didn't do anythign to show it and no one believes you as you are delusional liar who doesn't even understand what peer review is.

You again dodge the questions.

So why did it fall down?

I actually think there something wrong with you debunkers mentally? Study needs to be done on it.

I just posted evidence molybdenum cannot melt in an office fire. You can not think outside of the box. Your brain is not wired to think about it any further. It does not even register with you this is problematic.

Floors and the part of the or all of the roof collapsed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I actually think there something wrong with you debunkers mentally? Study needs to be done on it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just posted evidence molybdenum cannot melt in an office fire. You can not think outside of the box. Your brain is not wired to think about it any further. It does even not register with you this is problematic.

But again, you are completely ignorant of science.
I don't believe your "evidence".
No one does.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Floors and the part of the or all of the roof collapsed.

But why?
Which part of the floor and roof?
Why did it collapse before the "simultaneous" explosions?