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

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 3:06pm

Overheal wrote: »

So it’s an image effect you have no way to explain, when the glaringly obvious explanation is that is a worker using a metal cutting tool, which is sending sparks flying everywhere. We see similar in the video dohnjoe posted.

It not and you see why not if you watched Dohnjoe video. He picked out one spot with sparks pouring down from a height. He did not show you the sparks on the ground ( do you know why they disappear its magic;)

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 3:10pm

Overheal wrote: »

But you just said they were droplets flowing down a slope not small pools.

If they are small pools why are there no other images of this? Show me even a second photo that would support that these are dozens or more tiny little baby molten pools (which are magically staying molten, for no apparent reason) and not sparks in motion from a steel cutting tool.

You said droplets, I said liquid.

It's a real image it clear as day it is. I can't find every private image taken on 9/11 and especially images not uploaded to the web.

It clear as day the anomalies are caused by the two firemen. If you put on your thinking cap you see this?

Overheal · 15-03-2019 3:12pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You said droplets, I said liquid.

It's a real image it clear as day it is. I can't find every private image taken on 9/11 and especially images not uploaded to the web.

It clear as day the anomalies are caused by the two firemen. If you put on your thinking cap you see this?

Oh I’ve put on my thinking cap. Hence why I am able to see that it’s a steel cutting tool.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 3:23pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not and you see why not if you watched Dohnjoe video. He picked out one spot with sparks pouring down from a height. He did not show you the sparks on the ground ( do you know why they disappear its magic;)

They disappear at rest for the same reason little baby pools of liquid would not exist at rest the way you describe: they cool down.

Sparks do, however, bounce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V002IgYpklM

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

The Nal · 15-03-2019 4:05pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you put on your thinking cap you see this?

All irrelevant unless you can offer a theory on how they planted explosives in the buildings.

Lets try again.

The people who planted the explosives.

Who are they?

How did they get in the buildings?

What explosives did they use?

What floors did they have access to? And what parts of those floors?

Do these access points correlate to where they would've had to place explosives to bring the buildings down?

You mentioned the lower third of WT7. Wheres the evidence that people were in there placing explosives?

weisses · 15-03-2019 4:36pm

Overheal wrote: »

I can substantially prove an office fire occurred, whereas I have no evidence which can prove there was any thermite present.

How do you explain the removal of all supporting columns simultaneously to allow for free fall acceleration ? resulting in a near symmetrical collapse

That was my question

I see a pattern here of avoiding simple questions .... you want me to put them in bold next time ?

King Mob isn't capable of explaining it ... reading your replies I think you don't grasp it either

You can even use your cherished NIST report ...

weisses · 15-03-2019 4:42pm

King Mob wrote: »

Because the collapse started at the beginning of stage one. Throughout stage one the facade of the building was falling and experiencing resistance from the supports as they failed.
Then, after those supports failed, there was no more resistance, so the building could fall at free fall acceleration, which is stage 2.

And you blame others they don't understand Physics

Overheal · 15-03-2019 4:44pm

weisses wrote: »

How do you explain the removal of all supporting columns simultaneously to allow for free fall acceleration ? resulting in a near symmetrical collapse

That was my question

I see a pattern here of avoiding simple questions .... you want me to put them in bold next time ?

King Mob isn't capable of explaining it ... reading your replies I think you don't grasp it either

You can even use your cherished NIST report ...

A catastrophic failure as a result of major runaway fires which burned for 7+ hours without interdiction. Simple question, simple answer.

Now speaking of avoiding questions, I believe Dohnjoe has posted several that you truthers on this thread adamantly refuse to answer.

weisses · 15-03-2019 4:46pm

Overheal wrote: »

You say that, but you don't substantiate that.

Do you disagree that at least all the outer columns and supporting inner columns disappeared almost simultaneously ?

If you do disagree can you explain how building 7 could reach free fall acceleration with certain columns still providing support ?

weisses · 15-03-2019 4:48pm

Overheal wrote: »

A catastrophic failure as a result of major runaway fires which burned for 7+ hours without interdiction. Simple question, simple answer.

Again ..avoiding the question

Overheal wrote: »

Now speaking of avoiding questions, I believe Dohnjoe has posted several that you truthers on this thread adamantly refuse to answer.

I answered that .... maybe read back to catch up ? and maybe you can drop the truther remark while your at it

Overheal · 15-03-2019 4:51pm

weisses wrote: »

Do you disagree that at least all the outer columns and supporting inner columns disappeared almost simultaneously ?

If you do disagree can you explain how building 7 could reach free fall acceleration with certain columns still providing support ?

You’re falsely assuming that the entire building fell uniformly, inside and out. You’re also assuming that the crumbling/crushing involved would have proven to provide enough deceleration to slow the catastrophic pancaking of the building floors below that which would perceptibly be free fall.

weisses · 15-03-2019 5:01pm

Overheal wrote: »

You’re falsely assuming that the entire building fell uniformly, inside and out.

That is incorrect ... I am sure about the outer columns ... as is shown in every video available .. I'm not sure about columns internally which I stated in my post

Overheal wrote: »

You’re also assuming that the crumbling/crushing involved would have proven to provide enough deceleration to slow the catastrophic pancaking of the building floors below that which would perceptibly be free fall.

I don't believe I assumed that at all

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 5:04pm

Overheal wrote: »

They disappear at rest for the same reason little baby pools of liquid would not exist at rest the way you describe: they cool down.

Sparks do, however, bounce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V002IgYpklM

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

And Yet my picture showed the pool of red and yellow glowing liquid.

Good videos and they support my viewpoint thank you.

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 5:08pm

Overheal wrote: »

A catastrophic failure as a result of major runaway fires which burned for 7+ hours without interdiction. Simple question, simple answer.

Not true the seven hours is a myth.

weisses · 15-03-2019 5:08pm

Overheal wrote: »

You’re falsely assuming that the entire building fell uniformly, inside and out.

That is incorrect ... I am sure about the outer columns ... as is shown in every video available .. I'm not sure about columns internally which I stated in my post

Overheal wrote: »

You’re also assuming that the crumbling/crushing involved would have proven to provide enough deceleration to slow the catastrophic pancaking of the building floors below that which would perceptibly be free fall.

I don't believe I assumed that at all

Overheal · 15-03-2019 5:13pm

weisses wrote: »

That is incorrect ... I am sure about the outer columns ... as is shown in every video available .. I'm not sure about columns internally which I stated in my post

I don't believe I assumed that at all

But you're ignoring that NIST reported that the interior of the structure began to fail before the collapse of the exterior. This would have essentially crushed the spandrels along the exterior as it went down. So why are we assuming the building fell in free fall?

Like, can we go back to the basics for a second?

s = -gt^2.

s = 741 ft = 225.8 m
g = -9.81 m/s^2

So, t = sqrt((2*225.8)/g) = 6.78 seconds

Huh. So for the building to have collapsed in free fall acceleration, the entire building - the roof, in particular, would have had to have hit the ground in 6.78 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU

But that's not what we see in the footage. What isn't disputed here is that this footage shows the building disappear out of frame in 5.4 seconds. But, this is only 18 floors. The building (was) 47 god damn floors.

So what are truthers really trying to say here, exactly?

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 5:23pm

Overheal wrote: »

You’re falsely assuming that the entire building fell uniformly, inside and out. You’re also assuming that the crumbling/crushing involved would have proven to provide enough deceleration to slow the catastrophic pancaking of the building floors below that which would perceptibly be free fall.

NIST (their collapse model) image look closely>

Notice how their collapse is not symmetrical? Their columns are still buckling and breaking on the way down? They even shut it off before reaching the end to hide the fact the building was crushing like a can

The fact the building (real life) came down intact and there was no crushing like the NIST model is showing is proof of controlled demolition. You can't avoid crushing if the failure is slow, and take time. The only way to avoid crushing and get the building to fall symmetrically into its own footprint is by taking out 84 columns.

The video also shows the building went from a position of stength to complete failure in seconds.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 5:27pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NIST (their collapse model) image look closely>

Notice how their collapse is not symmetrical? Their columns are still buckling and breaking on the way down? They even shut it off before reaching the end to hide the fact the building was crushing like a can

The fact the building (real life) came down intact and there was no crushing like the NIST model is showing is proof of controlled demolition. You can't avoid crushing if the failure is slow, and take time. The only way to avoid crushing and get the building to fall symmetrically into its own footprint is by taking out 84 columns.

The video also shows the building went from a position of stength to complete failure in seconds.

I really dont give a flying **** about how inaccurate you think the NIST model is. It still doesn't prove thermite.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 5:30pm

The top 18 stories of the original WTC 7 would have approximately been 225.8 * (18/47) = 86.48 meters tall.

by s = -gt^2 they would need to fall in 4.2 seconds to be free fall action.

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 5:33pm

Overheal wrote: »

I really dont give a flying **** about how inaccurate you think the NIST model is. It still doesn't prove thermite.

It's their progressive collapse model. All their failures were modelled and this is the way it fell for them.

It proves the building came down by controlled demolition:)

Overheal · 15-03-2019 5:37pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s

"Simulated with completely new developed software designed for structural simulation, this revision of the old WTC 7 simulation attempt serves as validation case for the BCB software.

New in this simulation compared to the old one:
- Multiple constraints per connection are used to represent individual degrees of freedom (DOF)
- Breaking thresholds are computed from real world parameters
- Correct steel thicknesses and beam dimensions are used
- Plastic deformation is now simulated

While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because the removal of other columns led to much different collapses. More than that is hardly determinable, such a system behaves just to chaotic to tell what exact connection failed first. In this regard NIST might be wrong by declaring a specific failure point. However, I consider this not being an important question given the fact how compromised the structure around these three columns must have been exposed to fire for hours, a situation beyond any imaginable safety design specification.

Having said that, I want to emphasize that this video is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIAK6PAeyn8

Overheal · 15-03-2019 5:38pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's their progressive collapse model. All their failures were modelled and this is the way it fell for them.

It proves the building came down by controlled demolition:)

No, it does not. Controlled demolition theories have all been debunked. No thermite, no explosions, no explosive residue. No motive, either, for that matter, or clear statement of perpetrators.

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 5:41pm

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s

"Simulated with completely new developed software designed for structural simulation, this revision of the old WTC 7 simulation attempt serves as validation case for the BCB software.

New in this simulation compared to the old one:
- Multiple constraints per connection are used to represent individual degrees of freedom (DOF)
- Breaking thresholds are computed from real world parameters
- Correct steel thicknesses and beam dimensions are used
- Plastic deformation is now simulated

While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because the removal of other columns led to much different collapses. More than that is hardly determinable, such a system behaves just to chaotic to tell what exact connection failed first. In this regard NIST might be wrong by declaring a specific failure point. However, I consider this not being an important question given the fact how compromised the structure around these three columns must have been exposed to fire for hours, a situation beyond any imaginable safety design specification.

Having said that, I want to emphasize that this video is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIAK6PAeyn8

The first video is a lot of crap. Where the paper on this. And building toppling on its side a joke.

You must not have noticed the intact floors on the west side in the second video?

Overheal · 15-03-2019 5:49pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The first video is a lot of crap. Where the paper on this. And building toppling on its side a joke.

You must not have noticed the intact floors on the west side in the second video?

You’re still just proving you don’t know anything about engineering.

They’re just computer models. A computer model will never get you to 1:1 fidelity. None of these models were able to accurately simulate thermal load - we lack the data. The building wasn’t rigged up with a mesh of thermocouples. We don’t know the floor loading conditions, we can only approximate how and were office furniture and other equipment were distributed through the building. There are tens of thousands of parameters that would all have an effect on a simulation like these.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 5:55pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true the seven hours is a myth.

You really do dispute the most inane things for the silliest of reasons.

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 5:59pm

Overheal wrote: »

You’re still just proving you don’t know anything about engineering.

They’re just computer models. A computer model will never get you to 1:1 fidelity. None of these models were able to accurately simulate thermal load - we lack the data. The building wasn’t rigged up with a mesh of thermocouples. We don’t know the floor loading conditions, we can only approximate how and were office furniture and other equipment were distributed through the building. There are tens of thousands of parameters that would all have an effect on a simulation like these.

Dr Hulsey computer model looks like actual collapse. He teaches engineering to students at a recognised university in Alaska. You going to be back peddling with his study is out. If you watched his video you realise how wrong you are.

The Nal · 15-03-2019 6:03pm

Overheal wrote: »

You really do dispute the most inane things for the silliest of reasons.

And yet he cannot provide any evidence for the huge hole in his "theory". The elephant in the room. How they actually got the explosives into the building in the first place.

It would be like convicting someone of a shooting even though its was proven the murder weapon was never fired.

The ignorance and stupidity is breathtaking. Its hilarious stuff.

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 6:04pm

The Nal wrote: »

And yet he cannot provide any evidence for the huge hole in his "theory". The elephant in the room. How they actually got the explosives into the building in the first place.

It would be like convicting someone of a shooting even though its was proven the murder weapon was never fired.

The ignorance and stupidity is breathtaking. Its hilarious stuff.

They walked in the door and placed them there how else?

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 6:08pm

Overheal wrote: »

You really do dispute the most inane things for the silliest of reasons.

I dispute it because NIST does not even make this claim. The first reported fires on the Northside was between 1 pm and 2 pm. I Posted another report about this a while back.

The Nal · 15-03-2019 6:09pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They walked in the door and placed them there how else?

Who did?

How?

What sort of explosives?

Wheres the evidence? Sign in sheets, contracts with people masquerading as elevator maintenance companies etc.

How many witnesses saw and heard suspicious activity?

How many floors did they need to prepare?

What floors did they access?

Do these floors match the places they would've needed to prep to bring down the buildings?

How did no one see or hear anything suspicious in one of the busiest and most well secured square miles on planet earth.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 6:14pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey computer model looks like actual collapse. He teaches engineering to students at a recognised university in Alaska. You going to be back peddling with his study is out. If you watched his video you realise how wrong you are.

I scrubbed through that and didn’t see this alleged model of the actual collapse. Perhaps you could point it out.

I did catch that he states they only looked to model a few of the floors not the entire structure. He also expressed incredulity that the fires burned through the building for 7 hours - except, that’s exactly what happened. The proof is evident. The fires started right as a result of the towers failing, and WTC 7 collapsed 7 hours later, still burning.

Can you explain why the University of Alaska Fairbanks lists no paper, dissertation, thesis, article, conference literature, presentation, book, or other work of Dr. Leroy Hulsey that relates in any way to September 11th? The video you posted is several years old. Why is none of his supposed data available for dissemination or replication, or peer review? Why just a bunch of talks on YouTube?

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 6:18pm

The Nal wrote: »

Who did?

How?

What sort of explosives?

Wheres the evidence? Sign in sheets, contracts with people masquerading as elevator maintenance companies etc.

How many witnesses saw and heard suspicious activity?

How many floors did they need to prepare?

What floors did they access?

Do these floors match the places they would've needed to prep to bring down the buildings?

How did no one see or hear anything suspicious in one of the busiest and most well secured square miles on planet earth.

How?
Easy by accessing the elevator shafts

What sort of explosives?#
unknown

Wheres the evidence? Sign in sheets, contracts with people masquerading as elevator maintenance companies etc.
The buildings collapsed there no evidence left to find. Security tapes are gone

How many witnesses saw and heard suspicious activity?
Why would anyone be suspicious pre/911 and care about workers doing repair work out of sight?

How many floors did they need to prepare?
They access the steel core through the elevators shaft not floors.

What floors did they access?
explained above

Do these floors match the places they would've needed to prep to bring down the buildings?
explained above

How did no one see or hear anything suspicious in one of the busiest and most well secured square miles on planet earth.

Work can be done at evening or night when the place is quiet. They are out of the way in the elevator shafts. It, not Fort Knox, you have a number of security guys. to control and just bypass.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 6:21pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I dispute it because NIST does not even make this claim. The first reported fires on the Northside was between 1 pm and 2 pm. I Posted another report about this a while back.

Nonsense. When a fire is reported and when a fire actually began are not mutually exclusive.

The source of the fires was flaming debris that struck the building during the collapse of the north and/or south tower. This occurred at 9:59 and 10:28. This is not in dispute.

banie01 · 15-03-2019 6:22pm

Overheal wrote: »

. Why is none of his supposed data available for dissemination or replication, or peer review? Why just a bunch of talks on YouTube?

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx

Because Dr Hulsey is still involved in trying to rake in a living off truthers donations

I mean hoping for donations to cover the costs of the study.

The study that sets out to definitively prove a negative!
No credible scientist approaches any type of new study or experimental process with a definitive target.
A hypothesis yes, but not a conclusion!

Conclusions are shaped by data, and not vice versa!

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 6:28pm

Overheal wrote: »

I scrubbed through that and didn’t see this alleged model of the actual collapse. Perhaps you could point it out.

I did catch that he states they only looked to model a few of the floors not the entire structure. He also expressed incredulity that the fires burned through the building for 7 hours - except, that’s exactly what happened. The proof is evident. The fires started right as a result of the towers failing, and WTC 7 collapsed 7 hours later, still burning.

Can you explain why the University of Alaska Fairbanks lists no paper, dissertation, thesis, article, conference literature, presentation, book, or other work of Dr. Leroy Hulsey that relates in any way to September 11th? The video you posted is several years old. Why is none of his supposed data available for dissemination or replication, or peer review? Why just a bunch of talks on YouTube?

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx

His study has just completed. It was a three-year study. He only recently started talking about his model. His full complete study will be out soon for everyone to read and digest. Those are talks are early findings and talks about what he planned to research and his covering issues NIST never did. This will be most complete study of WTC7 ever done, outside of the NIST study.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 6:31pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

His study has just completed. It was a three-year study. He only recently started talking about his model. His full complete study will be out soon for everyone to read and digest. Those are talks are early findings and talks about what he planned to research and his covering issues NIST never did. This will be most complete study of WTC7 ever done, outside of the NIST study.

So you say. When did he announce this study was complete? November, right? It’s March now. Why is this study - if it is so important to the public discourse, being kept such a closely guarded secret? Is it because I have to pay to be the right Thetan level to access it?

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 6:33pm

Overheal wrote: »

Nonsense. When a fire is reported and when a fire actually began are not mutually exclusive.

The source of the fires was flaming debris that struck the building during the collapse of the north and/or south tower. This occurred at 9:59 and 10:28. This is not in dispute.

They only have photographs and reports of fires on northside late in the afternoon. Fires on the south side did not collapse the building, it was fires on the
east- north side that caused the collapse.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 6:36pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They only have photographs and reports of fires on northside late in the afternoon. Fires on the south side did not collapse the building, it was fires on the
east- north side that caused the collapse.

Cool story. But how did those fires start? When debris struck the building between 9:59 and 10:28 AM.

The Nal · 15-03-2019 6:40pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How?
Easy by accessing the elevator shafts

Do all 3 buildings elevator shafts lead to access to the relevant columns? Evidence for this please.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What sort of explosives?#
unknown

lol

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Wheres the evidence? Sign in sheets, contracts with people masquerading as elevator maintenance companies etc.
The buildings collapsed there no evidence left to find. Security tapes are gone

Not all of the companies in the building kept their records there. there were servers and internet in 2001. A lot of these financial companies have to keep records off site by law There would be a trail of them dealing with maintenance companies. Where is it please?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How many witnesses saw and heard suspicious activity?
Why would anyone be suspicious pre/911 and care about workers doing repair work out of sight?

People would be suspicious if people were tearing down walls and making loads of noise yes. Would you not ask what was going on? Thousands of people in the building. No one noticed

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How many floors did they need to prepare?
They access the steel core through the elevators shaft not floors.

OK which shafts? In all 3 buildings. Detail please. Proper answer no waffle.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What floors did they access?
explained above

Nope, not explained. Not explained at all.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do these floors match the places they would've needed to prep to bring down the buildings?
explained above

Nope, not explained. Not explained at all.

Floor numbers for each building please and also which elevator shaft on which floor corresponds with which column.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How did no one see or hear anything suspicious in one of the busiest and most well secured square miles on planet earth.

Work can be done at evening or night when the place is quiet. They are out of the way in the elevator shafts. It, not Fort Knox, you have a number of security guys. to control and just bypass.

So was it done in the evening or night? How many offices were occupied at night? Wheres the evidence that security guys were in on it? What about the hundreds of night cleaners with access to areas office workers didn't have? What about vending machine stockists, shelf packers, restaurant and deli staff. fire and safety marshalls, private, security, people working night shifts....

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 6:40pm

Overheal wrote: »

So you say. When did he announce this study was complete? November, right? It’s March now. Why is this study - if it is so important to the public discourse, being kept such a closely guarded secret? Is it because I have to pay to be the right Thetan level to access it?

It complete now, they just doing an internal review and sending out to universities to be peer-reviewed. It going to be free and no payment required to access it. They are just preparing right now for the big reveal.

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 6:43pm

The Nal wrote: »

Do all 3 buildings elevator shafts lead to access to the relevant columns? Evidence for this please.

lol

Not all of the companies in the building kept their records there. there were servers and internet in 2001. A lot of these financial companies have to keep records off site by law There would be a trail of them dealing with maintenance companies. Where is it please?

People would be suspicious if people were tearing down walls and making loads of noise yes. Would you not ask what was going on? Thousands of people in the building. No one noticed

OK which shafts? In all 3 buildings. Detail please. Proper answer no waffle.

Nope, not explained. Not explained at all.

Nope, not explained. Not explained at all. Floor numbers for each building please.

So was it done in the evening or night? How many offices were occupied at night? Wheres the evidence that security guys were in on it? What about the hundreds of night cleaners with access to areas office workers didn't have? What about vending machine stockists, shelf packers, restaurant and deli staff. fire and safety marshalls, private, security, people working night shifts....

Cool story Nal it happened just get over it.

The Nal · 15-03-2019 6:44pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Cool story Nal it happened just get over it.

Nope sorry, didn't happen if there isn't any evidence.

Another utterly pathetic and laughable answer from you, debunking the controlled explosion theory.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 6:45pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Cool story Nal it happened just get over it.

If that’s your best dodge I think we’re done here.

The Nal · 15-03-2019 6:46pm

Overheal wrote: »

If that’s your best dodge I think we’re done here.

Pretty much yep. He can't provide any evidence for a conspiracy theory, in a conspiracy theory thread.

He loses this debate. He loses badly.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 6:50pm

The Nal wrote: »

Pretty much yep. He can't provide any evidence for a conspiracy theory, in a conspiracy theory thread.

He loses this debate. He loses badly.

And according to truther logic losing the debate means that your version of events was invalid.

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 6:50pm

Overheal wrote: »

If that’s your best dodge I think we’re done here.

He asking how it was done as if i have some secret information to reveal to him

The science and engineering has shown already the buildings fell down to control demolition. Who and Why and how they did this cannot be answered. My speculation I have given him what more does he want?

Overheal · 15-03-2019 6:52pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He asking how it was done as if i have some secret information to reveal to him

The science and engineering has shown already the buildings fell down to control demolition. Who and Why and how they did this cannot be answered. My speculation I have given him what more does he want?

The science and engineering you mention shows no such thing. We’ve been forward and backward through it. Now you’re just trolling.

The Nal · 15-03-2019 6:54pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The science and engineering has shown already the buildings fell down to control demolition. Who and Why and how they did this cannot be answered.

The science proves it but we don't know who, why or how? We dont know how....but it is scientific fact.

You lost the debate Cheerful, just take it on the chin and move on. You've had a really, really bad day.

Cheerful Spring · 15-03-2019 6:59pm

Overheal wrote: »

The science and engineering you mention shows no such thing. We’ve been forward and backward through it. Now you’re just trolling.

We see who trolling when the Hulsey study is out

WTC7 taken down by CD is proof, the official story is a myth.

Overheal · 15-03-2019 7:02pm

Closing this, nothing left for this thread but to descend into a dumpster fire if people can look a horse in the face and continue to insist it’s a duck.

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

Comments