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

12-03-2019 05:00PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob needs to get a grip.

Why is replication important in science?
Getting the same result when an experiment is repeated is called replication. If research results can be replicated, it means they are more likely to be correct. Replication is important in science so scientists can “check their work.”

NIST refused to release their work.

It was peer reviewed.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0285-6
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0289-2
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5

weisses · 12-03-2019 05:00PM

Overheal wrote: »

It is also entirely possible the official explanation is entirely valid.

It is also entirely possible aliens gave everyone the false memory it happened at all.

I only posted what King Mob found a perfectly possible theory ... A theory I also find valid

12-03-2019 05:01PM

weisses wrote: »

Already answered ... And I am not going back on which cheer fulls theories I find far fetched

That's a lie.

You have not stated whether you buy cheerfuls nanothermite theory.
You are not addressing this as you know what will happen if you disagree with him.

You are fine with abject bull****, just as long as it's a conspiracy.

From now on, as you are dodging again, I will assume you also agree with cheerful's silly nonsense theory.
If this is not the case, you are going to have to explain your position.

weisses · 12-03-2019 05:02PM

King Mob wrote: »

It was peer reviewed.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0285-6
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0289-2
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-012-0286-5

Who were the authors and their affiliations ?

weisses · 12-03-2019 05:02PM

King Mob wrote: »

That's a lie.

You have not stated whether you buy cheerfuls nanothermite theory.
You are not addressing this as you know what will happen if you disagree with him.

That is not what you asked

12-03-2019 05:02PM

weisses wrote: »

I only posted what King Mob found a perfectly possible theory ... A theory I also find valid

And again, I clarified:
Perfectly possible in the same way the space laser theory is perfectly possible.

Your theory, where it's a controlled demolition using nanothermite is not possible.

12-03-2019 05:03PM

weisses wrote: »

Who were the authors and their affiliations ?

It's contained in the papers.
What's your point?

12-03-2019 05:04PM

weisses wrote: »

That is not what you asked

That's not a response...:rolleyes:

Are you just wasting time now?

weisses · 12-03-2019 05:05PM

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
So you have no point.
Great.

As you find it entirely possible 9/11 was allowed to happen could you share some information that lead you to this believe ?

weisses · 12-03-2019 05:06PM

King Mob wrote: »

That's not a response...:rolleyes:

Are you just wasting time now?

Nope ...You asked two different questions

1 about a theory

2 about another posters theory

weisses · 12-03-2019 05:08PM

King Mob wrote: »

And again, I clarified:
Perfectly possible in the same way the space laser theory is perfectly possible.

That is not what you said in that post .... space lasers were not mentioned and not referred to in any way

:rolleyes:

12-03-2019 05:08PM

weisses wrote: »

As you find it entirely possible 9/11 was allowed to happen could you share some information that lead you to this believe ?

As I explained in the post you like to quote, it doesn't have the silly contradictions like your theory does. It also don't rely on silly sci fi notions like yours does. It also don't rely on crap like Larry's confession like yours does.

But again, I don't believe it's true as it has it's own contradictions and it has no evidence.

Are you going to address any of the points you've abandoned?
If not, I will not be responding to any more questions about a theory I don't believe.

12-03-2019 05:10PM

weisses wrote: »

Nope ...You asked two different questions

1 about a theory

2 about another posters theory

Cool beans.

weisses wrote: »

That is not what you said in that post .... space lasers were not mentioned and not referred to in any way

:rolleyes:

Yes, I clarified later to you as you seem to have trouble understanding basic English or you are childishly misrepresenting my position as you have no real point.

weisses · 12-03-2019 05:11PM

King Mob wrote: »

As I explained in the post you like to quote, it doesn't have the silly contradictions like your theory does. It also don't rely on silly sci fi notions like yours does. It also don't rely on crap like Larry's confession like yours does.

Correct

It has nothing to do with me

It has to do with what you find possible

12-03-2019 05:13PM

weisses wrote: »

Correct

It has nothing to do with me

It has to do with what you find possible

Yup.
Great.
Have a point at all?

Do you believe cheerful's nanothermite theory is true?
If not, why not?
If so... lol

Which of his theories do you find far fetched?
All of them?
If you don't answer, it indicates it's all of them.

weisses · 12-03-2019 05:22PM

King Mob wrote: »

It's contained in the papers.
What's your point?

I know

Is NIST reviewing its own report ?

weisses · 12-03-2019 05:23PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yup.
Great.
Have a point at all?

Yes

You find it perfectly possible the US government allowed 9/11 to happen

That is a conspiracy theory

12-03-2019 05:25PM

weisses wrote: »

I know

Is NIST reviewing its own report ?

No.
The NIST and the people who wrote those papers did not conduct the peer review.

The peer review was conducted by the journal the papers were published in.

You clearly do not know what peer review is.

12-03-2019 05:26PM

weisses wrote: »

Yes

You find it perfectly possible the US government allowed 9/11 to happen

That is a conspiracy theory

Yes.
Ok.
I don't believe it's true though.
You don't believe it's true as it's not compatible with your theories of controlled demolition.

So what's your point?

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 05:27PM

weisses wrote: »

Yes

You find it perfectly possible the US government allowed 9/11 to happen

That is a conspiracy theory

Kingmob berates poster.s You don't have to believe every theory about 9/11. You can say you don't believe the nano-thermite theory.

You need to improve your social skills Kingmob. Do you go nuts like this in real life? I have lost my temper in the past because of this nonsense and deflection.

12-03-2019 05:29PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob berates poster. You don't have to believe every theory about 9/11. You can say you don't believe the nano-thermite theory.

Again, it shows that you guys don't actually care what's true, just that it's a conspiracy.
It also shows that Weisses is weasely and slippery and won't state his position clearly as it would contradict you and your theory and would require him to explain how your theories are an embarrassment.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 05:35PM

King Mob wrote: »

Again, it shows that you guys don't actually care what's true, just that it's a conspiracy.
It also shows that Weisses is weasely and slippery and won't state his position clearly as it would contradict you and your theory and would require him to explain how your theories are an embarrassment.

We care.

Let's get down to then, the truth. Do you believe a fire of 400c can melt steel?

No waffle straight answer?

12-03-2019 05:43PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We care.

Let's get down to then, the truth. Do you believe a fire of 400c can melt steel?

No waffle straight answer?

Lol. The hypocrisy is palpable.
Demanding answers when you cranks have done nothing to answer any questions up until the original questions in the opening post.

But straight answer:
No, a fire of a temperature of 400 degrees Celsius cannot melt steel.
(BTW, "400c" in scientific notion means "400 times the speed of light."
Degrees Celsius is denoted as "°C". Again something you learn in high school physics.)

Overheal · 12-03-2019 05:48PM

King Mob wrote: »

Again, it shows that you guys don't actually care what's true, just that it's a conspiracy.
It also shows that Weisses is weasely and slippery and won't state his position clearly as it would contradict you and your theory and would require him to explain how your theories are an embarrassment.

Out of order.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 05:53PM

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. The hypocrisy is palpable.
Demanding answers when you cranks have done nothing to answer any questions up until the original questions in the opening post.

But straight answer:
No, a fire of a temperature of 400 degrees Celsius cannot melt steel.
(BTW, "400c" in scientific notion means "400 times the speed of light."
Degrees Celsius is denoted as "°C". Again something you learn in high school physics.)

Do you not understand the fires in WTC7 never got to the point of melting steel according to NIST? There highest range was 600c. 900c below the temp required.

FEMA just by luck got a piece of the steel and had melted. We know the steel was blasted by a source of heat that got this high.

Nanothermite produces high heat and energy to melt steel.

12-03-2019 05:55PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you know why this is false? Dr Hulsey has done a finite element analysis of the collapse and his computer model looks like the actual collapse on 9/11. Dr Hulsey is not doing a half-arsed study.

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

12-03-2019 05:56PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you not understand the fires in WTC7 never got to the point of melting steel according to NIST? There highest range was 600c. 900c below the temp required.

FEMA just by luck got a piece of the steel and had melted. We know the steel was blasted by a source of heat that got this high.

Again, you don't understand what you are talking about.
Remember, you claimed there was no such thing as molten steel.

And again "c" means the speed of light, not degrees Celsius.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nanothermite produces high heat and energy to melt steel.

Mm hmm.
Source?
Peer reviewed one would be nice.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:01PM

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you don't understand what you are talking about.
Remember, you claimed there was no such thing as molten steel.

Mm hmm.
Source?
Peer reviewed one would be nice.

I told you Molten Steel when melted is Molten Iron ( 95 per cent Iron) you kept denying it.

Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F).
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

600c temp only lasted 15 minutes. Office fires never melt steel.

The Nal · 12-03-2019 06:02PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I explained multiple times to you guys it not thermite it nano-thermite engineered to release more energy.

OK. Nano thermite.

How did they place it across 77 floors in 3 very large and secure buildings?

When did it happen?

Who did it?

12-03-2019 06:03PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I told you Molten Steel when melted is Molten Iron ( 95 per cent Iron) you kept denying it.

Cool beans. Like I said. You have no idea what you're talking about. You are proving my point.

So show us the peer reviewed paper that you are using to prove that nanothermite can produce the effects you believe exist.
Last time asking. If you don't provide these papers, you are admitting that you can't show this.

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

Comments