AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

King Mob · 17-05-2020 5:57pm

And again:
No other steel framed building has ever been secretly demolished.
No skyscraper of those sizes have ever been demolished.
No building has ever been demolished by any kind of thermite.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

These points have been brought up many times before, Cheerful ignores them every time because he realises that they expose the issue with his argument.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 6:22pm

King Mob wrote: »

And again:
No other steel framed building has ever been secretly demolished.
No skyscraper of those sizes have ever been demolished.
No building has ever been demolished by any kind of thermite.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

These points have been brought up many times before, Cheerful ignores them every time because he realises that they expose the issue with his argument.

Fail in rationale.
Controlled demolition is a known method to drop steel framed buildings.
We can look this up and observe crews taking out multiple columns stacks to bring a building down.
Fire: there no examples to look up and verify the mainstream view of events on 9/11.

The case for controlled demolition is stronger and clearer than the fire explanation.
Done in secret mean here?
"Someone did not notice the demolition crew placing the explosives on the steel? It bases your entire objection on someone not catching them doing the operation?

That’s false Metabunk found examples in history thermite was used to cut steel and bring down structures. So we know thermite can affect steel and weaken it in buildings.

Truthers claim is not thermite applied here to the steel, they do claim a military grade type of nanothermite was applied. You not following here is the properties and energy is different to standard thermite.

Truthers don’t claim only nanothermite was used to bring down the towers. It just something they found in the WTC dust. An exotic incendiary/explosive that would go long way to explaining why this was not an industry standard demolition. The conspirators were using materials you not find in other building collapses.
Make sense if you trying to hide your operation. They did not think a movement would spring up and start investigate every last detail and
be studying WTC dust samples.

King Mob · 17-05-2020 6:28pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Fail in rationale.
[

Yes I know Cheerful. That's the point. It's your rationale.
You are using that argument. We are just demonstrating how when it's turned around on you, you reject it out of hand because it's a dumb argument.

You also then do your best to weasel around things. For example:

found examples in history thermite was used to cut steel and bring down structures.

I didn't say structures. I said buildings.
No buildings have been demolished by nanothermite or any other type of thermite.

This also exposes your hypocrisy.
Steel structures have been brought down by fire.
But you will reject those examples.

Every single post you make only makes you more of a laughing stock.

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2020 6:32pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

When fire never dropped a steel framed-column building in the past or since 9/11 there must be a reason for that?

But that's the thing it has happened before. Steel is vulnerable to fire which is why steel is covered in fire-proof cladding in buildings. Steel structures have collapsed or partially collapsed in the past due to fire. Fires of just 600c (office fires) can weaken steel up to 60%.

This has been repeatedly explained and demonstrated, but you simply ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Again, you can explain day after day to a flat earther that the world is around, they can simply choose to kept rejecting it. This is all you do here. Rejecting it makes your "conspiracy" real. It doesn't take a genius to see what's going on.

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2020 6:34pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Controlled demolition is a known method to drop steel framed buildings.

Your argument has literally devolved into "buildings can be taken down by controlled demolition, therefore 911 was a secret demolition"

King Mob · 17-05-2020 6:37pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your argument has literally devolved into "buildings can be taken down by controlled demolition, therefore 911 was a secret demolition"

But remember, it's not like normal demolitions cause they used magic "exotic" materials like supernanothermite and silent explosions.
But then it's also exactly like normal demolitions when it suits.
And when it isn't like a normal demolition, well that's cause it's a special and unique demolition.

It's like trying to debate a child.
Once again I'm swinging towards the idea that Cheerful is in fact 12-14.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 6:42pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I know Cheerful. That's the point. It's your rationale.
You are using that argument. We are just demonstrating how when it's turned around on you, you reject it out of hand because it's a dumb argument.

You also then do your best to weasel around things. For example:

I didn't say structures. I said buildings.
No buildings have been demolished by nanothermite or any other type of thermite.

This also exposes your hypocrisy.
Steel structures have been brought down by fire.
But you will reject those examples.

Every single post you make only makes you more of a laughing stock.

It was discovered in certified WTC dust samples. You can see images of the substance. It not like Harrit and other scientists claimed something had taken place and then provided no synthetic chemical demonstration, verification?. All the appropriate tests were done and confirmed it was not paint chips. This nanometer/thermatic substance should not be there in the building so someone placed it there. Only reason you place nanometer chips in a building made of steel is to impair and weaken the structure column support.

This is why the Iron Microspheres found in the WTC dust should not be dismissed. A mainstream study found that 6 percent of the dust had Molten Iron spheres. Iron Microspheres is a recognised byproduct of a thermatic reaction. We have proof the truthers nanothermite findings not far-fetched and unbelieveable like you guys claim.

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2020 6:49pm

King Mob wrote: »

It's like trying to debate a child.

A child has basic logic and rational. When given a choice between:

1. Breaking news made a mistake

or

2. The plotters who secretly "blew up" the buildings decided to reveal their entire plan to a news agency in another country by giving them the exact time the building would be destroyed. At no benefit to the plotters. Or the news agency. With no other credible evidence whatsoever.

Cheerful decides it's the latter. It's unreal.

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2020 6:50pm

Here we go, it's all being dug up and recycled again.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 6:51pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A child has basic logic and rational. When given a choice between:

1. Breaking news made a mistake

or

2. The plotters who secretly "blew up" the buildings decided to reveal their entire plan to a news agency in another country by giving them the exact time the building would be destroyed. At no benefit to the plotters. Or the news agency. With no other credible evidence whatsoever.

Cheerful decides it's the latter. It's unreal.

Why would debunkers reject the science provided by the RJ Lee group?
If there claim is 6 percent of the WTC dust has Iron microspheres, then you need to explain that scientifically.
Nobody has done it. Mick has attempted to explain it by making excuses that workers made them and so on, totally ignorning a mainstream conclusion the spheres formed inside the building pre collapse.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-05-2020 6:53pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here we go, it's all being dug up and recycled again.

^^^ This!

Why does he need to create a new thread every few weeks just to post the same things

King Mob · 17-05-2020 6:57pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It was discovered in certified WTC dust samples. You can see images of the substance. It not like blah blah blah...you guys claim.

And you've just ignored everything i actually wrote in that post to rant on the same old crap again.

Pathetic.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 6:58pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

^^^ This!

Why does he need to create a new thread every few weeks just to post the same things

More posts not addressing the topic.
How were Iron Microspheres produced in a building that had 800c fires?
Nobody in the debunker movement wants to address that.

Like Chris Sarns said.
West isn't qualified to second-guess the RJ Lee Group. Let's look at this description of what the consulting firm does: "With more than 30 years in the business of testing materials, RJ Lee had the needed expertise in industrial forensics, in determining the severity of an environmental hazard, and of health risks."

RJ Lee is clear that "the microspheres were formed during the event" — not before, not after, but "during." There is no legitimate reason to doubt the findings of the RJ Lee Group's analysis.

King Mob · 17-05-2020 7:01pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

West isn't qualified to second-guess the RJ Lee Group.

But you are qualified to second guess literally every expert you decide to disagree with?

Lol

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How were Iron Microspheres produced in a building that had 800c fires?
Nobody in the debunker movement wants to address that.

But they did address that.
This guy called Mick West showed that there were a ton of ways to produce microspheres without high heat.

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2020 7:03pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why would debunkers

You agree with 99% of conclusions on skeptical sites like Metabunk.

You don't believe in chemtrails, you don't believe we're run by the illuminati, or Reptilians, you don't believe that Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Charlie Hebdo, Paris attacks, London attacks were inside jobs, you don't think the moon landing was faked

Yet here you are with no theory, using the same Alex Jones talking points, recycling the same crap, pretending something is a conspiracy

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2020 7:07pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

More posts not addressing the topic.

The sanity of your views is always the topic.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 7:09pm

King Mob wrote: »

But you are qualified to second guess literally every expert you decide to disagree with?

Lol

But they did address that.
This guy called Mick West showed that there were a ton of ways to produce microspheres without high heat.

NIST highest temp was 800c it only reached 1000c for seconds ( the airplane fuel blast).
Pure Iron/ Molten spheres are only seen at temperature above 1400c.
Since RG- Lee declared it happened inside the building why is Mick not doing experiments to establish how they were formed inside the towers? Does he think someone was walking around with a butane torch flaming steel? This is one of his experiments believe or not

King Mob · 17-05-2020 7:16pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST highest temp was 800c it only reached 1000c for seconds ( the airplane fuel blast).
Pure Iron/ Molten spheres are only seen at temperature above 1400c.
Since RG- Lee declared it happened inside the building why is Mick not doing experiments to establish how they were formed inside the towers? Does he think someone was walking around with a butane torch flaming steel? This is one of his experiments believe or not

All of this is word salad nonsense.

Also, again it bares pointing out you're using incorrect scientific notation.

Dohnjoe · 17-05-2020 7:19pm

Hmmm at some point we should ask a mod here to test out a new rule. Posters with a theory must directly support that theory (without relying on denial). You know, like normal science and history.

Would be interesting..

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 7:26pm

King Mob wrote: »

All of this is word salad nonsense.

Also, again it bares pointing out you're using incorrect scientific notation.

Same nonsense and never debating the topic. Head off to another site where this kind of debating style is acceptable.

You have provided no evidence to dispute my opinion here.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-05-2020 7:27pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Same nonsense and never debating the topic. Head off to another site where this kind of debating style is acceptable.

You have provided no evidence to dispute opinion here.

The irony :pac:

King Mob · 17-05-2020 7:32pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Same nonsense and never debating the topic.

Cheerful, you have been given countless chances to actually debate your beliefs like an adult.
Every single time you have failed to do so. You are not capable of any form of debate.

You have not once addressed any point or answered any question. You have not provided any evidence for anything. And you don't even have a sane coherent theory.

This is why you are considered a joke here.

This thread is you just repeating crap from proven fraudsters about a guy you've a weird issue with. Now you are using that thread to repeat your same tired nonsense again and again.

Why are you even bothering?

And I know you don't like it because it ruins the fun you have at pretending to be an expert, but you not understanding basic science is very on topic for all of these points.
For example, you do not know how to correctly denote temperature. This is something you learn in first year of secondary school science.
Have you ever taken a science class in your life?

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 7:36pm

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, you have been given countless chances to actually debate your beliefs like an adult.
Every single time you have failed to do so. You are not capable of any form of debate.

You have not once addressed any point or answered any question. You have not provided any evidence for anything. And you don't even have a sane coherent theory.

This is why you are considered a joke here.

This thread is you just repeating crap from proven fraudsters about a guy you've a weird issue with. Now you are using that thread to repeat your same tired nonsense again and again.

Why are you even bothering?

Debate

:D:D:D Your funny.

King Mob · 17-05-2020 7:40pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debate :D:D:D Your funny.

Cheerful, you are just deflecting again.

You aren't fooling anyone. You know what you're doing. We know what you're doing. Everyone who reads any of your posts can tell as well.

Why pretend?

Also it's "You're funny."
Again, this is illustrative of your poor reading and writing skills.
It undercuts you every single time you pretend to be an expert and it's made you a laughing stock.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 7:43pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

But that's the thing it has happened before. Steel is vulnerable to fire which is why steel is covered in fire-proof cladding in buildings. Steel structures have collapsed or partially collapsed in the past due to fire. Fires of just 600c (office fires) can weaken steel up to 60%.

Happened before provide one example. Name the building where it is located in Europe,. Asia, US, Canada.

King Mob · 17-05-2020 7:46pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Happened before provide one example. Name the building where it is located in Europe,. Asia, US, Canada.

Name one building that was demolished using any form of thermite.
One example.
Anywhere.
Any time.

Watch how you ignore this question.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 7:47pm

King Mob wrote: »

Name one building that was demolished using any form of thermite.
One example.
Anywhere.
Any time.

Watch how you ignore this question.

Was the question for you?
I addressed this already and you just ignore it.
Read the thread.

King Mob · 17-05-2020 7:49pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Was the question for you?
I addressed this already and you just ignore it.
Read the thread.

Lol, see. Question ignored.

This is because you know the answer exposes your argument to be silly.
That's why you are ignoring it.

Why are you using your argument when you know it's bad? Isn't that dishonest?

And no cheerful, you've never addressed this point. You are lying once again.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 7:50pm

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, you are just deflecting again.

You aren't fooling anyone. You know what you're doing. We know what you're doing. Everyone who reads any of your posts can tell as well.

Why pretend?

Also it's "You're funny."
Again, this is illustrative of your poor reading and writing skills.
It undercuts you every single time you pretend to be an expert and it's made you a laughing stock.

Embarrassing you not able to debate properly and provide explantations. Your style of debating only works on here and would not be accepted elsewhere.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-05-2020 7:56pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Was the question for you?
I addressed this already and you just ignore it.
Read the thread.

You were asked for an example of a BUILDING destroyed/demolished with thermite.

You answeredĺ

That’s false Metabunk found examples in history thermite was used to cut steel and bring down structures. So we know thermite can affect steel and weaken it in buildings.

Now instead of deflecting please show proof of a building bought down by thermite.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 8:00pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You were asked for an example of a BUILDING destroyed/demolished with thermite.

You answeredĺ

Now instead of deflecting please show proof of a building bought down by thermite.

Timber that logic makes no sense. Use your brain.

9/11 was the first time in history a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire.. There is no known examples anywhere in the world where fire alone progressively dropped a steel-framed building to the ground in the past or after 9/11

Why do you believe in miracles?
Controlled demolition is a known method to collapse steel-framed buildings!
Fire is unlikely- what you left with?
You guys ignore the obvious.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-05-2020 8:02pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Timber that logic makes no sense. Use your brain.

9/11 was the first time in history a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire.. There is no known examples anywhere in the world where fire alone progressively dropped a steel-framed building to the ground in the past or after 9/11

Why do you believe in miracles?
Controlled demolition is a known method to collapse steel-framed buildings!
Fire is unlikely- what you left with?
You guys ignore the obvious.

Instead of deflecting why not post the evidence I have asked for please.

King Mob · 17-05-2020 8:06pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Timber that logic makes no sense. Use your brain.

Again, it's your logic, just turned on your theory.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

9/11 was the first time in history a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire.. There is no known examples anywhere in the world where fire alone progressively dropped a steel-framed building to the ground in the past or after 9/11

9/11 was the first time in history a steel-framed building collapsed because of nanothermite/exotic material There is no known examples anywhere in the world where nanothermite/exotic materials progressively dropped a steel-framed building to the ground in the past or after 9/11

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Controlled demolition is a known method to collapse steel-framed buildings!

But nanothermite isn't a method of controlled demolition.
It's not a known method to collapse any kind of building because it's never actually happened before.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 8:06pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Instead of deflecting why not post the evidence I have asked for please.

I have provided the evidence in the past and now the nanothermite samples found in the WTC dust and Iron Microspheres found in WTC dust samples. You are ignoring the supportive evidence for demolition. You may not like the evidence, but its prove fire did not collapse the buildings on 9/11.

King Mob · 17-05-2020 8:09pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have provided the evidence in the past

Lol.
That's a big ol' lie.
You have not once provided any evidence of any type of thermite ever being used to demolish a building.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-05-2020 8:14pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have provided the evidence in the past and now the nanothermite samples found in the WTC dust and Iron Microspheres found in WTC dust samples. You are ignoring the supportive evidence for demolition. You may not like the evidence, but its prove fire did not collapse the buildings on 9/11.

No you haven't

Please post the evidence here for your claim, I don't want links to sites or long winded blogs full of maybe this or that.

Please post evidence that proves your claim 100% or close this idiotic thread, it's not like you dont have another 300 to spout your lies in anyway.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 8:21pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No you haven't

Please post the evidence here for your claim, I don't want links to sites or long winded blogs full of maybe this or that.

Please post evidence that proves your claim 100% or close this idiotic thread, it's not like you dont have another 300 to spout your lies in anyway.

Maybe you don't read good like Kingmob?

I have provided the evidence in the past and now the nanothermite samples found in the WTC dust and Iron Microspheres found in WTC dust samples. You are ignoring the supportive evidence for demolition. You may not like the evidence, but its prove fire did not collapse the buildings on 9/11.

Why is so important to prove a negative?
You have to ignore all findings here, and that makes no sense, maybe it does for you guys.

King Mob · 17-05-2020 8:27pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Maybe you don't read good like Kingmob?

I have provided the evidence in the past
.

Deflection again cheerful. This is why you aren't capable of debate like an adult.
We're asking you to provide examples of buildings demolished by nanothermite.
You said your provided this in the past and you had examples.
This was a lie.

You are now dodging and deflecting from this point because you have again been caught out in a lie.
Again, you are dismissing your own arguments as crap.

I'm just not sure if you realise that's what you're doing or not.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-05-2020 8:31pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Maybe you don't read good like Kingmob?

I have provided the evidence in the past and now the nanothermite samples found in the WTC dust and Iron Microspheres found in WTC dust samples. You are ignoring the supportive evidence for demolition. You may not like the evidence, but its prove fire did not collapse the buildings on 9/11.

Why is so important to prove a negative?
You have to ignore all findings here, and that makes no sense, maybe it does for you guys.

So just as I thought

No evidence, just more waffle from you.

Cheerful Spring2 · 17-05-2020 8:53pm

King Mob wrote: »

Deflection again cheerful. This is why you aren't capable of debate like an adult.
We're asking you to provide examples of buildings demolished by nanothermite.
You said your provided this in the past and you had examples.
This was a lie.

You are now dodging and deflecting from this point because you have again been caught out in a lie.
Again, you are dismissing your own arguments as crap.

I'm just not sure if you realise that's what you're doing or not.

This is why, i don't believe you debate honestly. This was from days ago (below) and still waiting on an answer. We now gone off into different tangents about thermite collapsing other buildings and avoiding the topic.

Reason the Iron Microspheres is an important aspect.

This part you continue to ignore and even made a claim Mick addressed it is a big fat lie.
Mick trying to claim they were formed after the event, during a clean up or by another reason!

Highlighted here why the Iron Microspheres supports the truther version of events..
During their toxicological study of the WTC dust, the RJ Lee Group found that up to 6% of the weight of the dust was composed of previously molten iron microspheres.
Additional evidence of extreme temperatures, unaccounted for in the WTC official story.
NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers) below the required temp for creating Molten Iron spheres.

You may find it nonsense, but Iron Microspheres is a byproduct of a thermatic reaction.

King Mob · 18-05-2020 12:27am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is why, i don't believe you debate honestly. This was from days ago (below) and still waiting on an answer. We now gone off into different tangents about thermite collapsing other buildings and avoiding the topic.

Lol. It's funny how you want to suddenly go back to the original topic. Almost like you're avoiding the question.
This proves your dishonesty. You are purposefully dodging it. You know why you are dodging it. We know why you're dodging it.
Why are you pretending otherwise?

You can't provide any examples of any building being demolished by any kind of thermite. You can't do this because there are no examples since it's never happened before.
You won't admit this however as it shows your argument to be silly and hypocritical.
So you ignore it, dodge that fact and try to deflect. You will still use your argument however despite knowing it's bad because you are not a very honest person.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This part you continue to ignore and even made a claim Mick addressed it is a big fat lie.
Mick trying to claim they were formed after the event, during a clean up or by another reason!

Not his position. You are misrepresenting things as always.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Highlighted here why the Iron Microspheres supports the truther version of events..
During their toxicological study of the WTC dust, the RJ Lee Group found that up to 6% of the weight of the dust was composed of previously molten iron microspheres.
Additional evidence of extreme temperatures, unaccounted for in the WTC official story.
NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers) below the required temp for creating Molten Iron spheres.

You may find it nonsense, but Iron Microspheres is a byproduct of a thermatic reaction.

Does this RJ study claim the microsphere are a byproduct of a thermatic reaction.
I'm going to bet that 1. it doesn't. And 2 you are going to avoid this question like you did with the last.
You are very dishonest like that.

Guy:Incognito · 18-05-2020 12:36am

If "truthers" are so convinced that it cant happen, why not all pump your money in to a fund to build a replica WTC and buy a plane.

Conduct the ultimate experiment by recreating it .

King Mob · 18-05-2020 12:43am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If "truthers" are so convinced that it cant happen, why not all pump your money in to a fund to build a replica WTC and buy a plane.

Conduct the ultimate experiment by recreating it .

Because that would mean they would be spending donation money on stuff rather than it going into the pockets of the heads of conspiracy organisations.

Cheerful Spring2 · 18-05-2020 1:51am

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. It's funny how you want to suddenly go back to the original topic. Almost like you're avoiding the question

My apologies for wanting to discuss the subject of the thread, silly me! You never do think that a problem obviously.

King Mob wrote: »

You can't provide any examples of any building being demolished by any kind of thermite. You can't do this because there are no examples since it's never happened before

And the thing is i never once claimed on here thermite was used to bring down buildings?
In fact, i just said there is evidence thermite was used in the past to cut steel construction used in buildings of other types.
Again you falsely associate thermite here as the discovery made. How many times do i have to tell you this, the truthers identified the red/gray chips as "nanothermite" Can you not read?

King Mob wrote: »

You won't admit this however as it shows your argument to be silly and hypocritical.
So you ignore it, dodge that fact and try to deflect. You will still use your argument however despite knowing it's bad because you are not a very honest person

Dodge should be your middle name. Accusing others of dodging topics is laughable.

King Mob wrote: »

Not his position. You are misrepresenting things as always

Yes it is his position and provided no evidence to dispute that.You even said yourself Mick experiments were about identifying other ways to make Iron Microspheres. Provide one experiment Mick did that challenges my assumption? Will you dodge this as well?

King Mob wrote: »

Does this RJ study claim the microsphere are a byproduct of a thermatic reaction

You definitely need help here. They were not tasked the job to be identifying the source for the Iron Microspheres in the dust. They studied, what the dust contained.

It's a scientific fact "Iron Microspheres are a byproduct of thermic reaction. If you believe there was other ways to produce them inside the building, then identify what you think happened here and stop deflecting.

Cheerful Spring2 · 18-05-2020 2:04am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If "truthers" are so convinced that it cant happen, why not all pump your money in to a fund to build a replica WTC and buy a plane.

Conduct the ultimate experiment by recreating it .

Have you a few billion dollars handy to make a replica?
A plane is made of aluminum, a very weak material. They're no way the plane damaged the steel core.
The fireball you saw is the airplane fuel exploding outside the building.

King Mob · 18-05-2020 2:14am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

My apologies for wanting to discuss the subject of the thread, silly me! You never do think that a problem obviously.

Funny how you only ever seem to want to do that when you want to dodge a topic.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

And the thing is i never once claimed on here thermite was used to bring down buildings?

Ok. Then provide an example of a building that was brought down with thermite or nanothermite or any other kind of thermite.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

In fact, i just said there is evidence thermite was used in the past to cut steel construction used in buildings of other types.

Ok? And?
There's tons of examples of fire partly bringing down buildings and structures. You reject those out of hand.
Why would you accept examples of Thermite partly doing the job?
It would be very hypocritical of you to declare one set of examples invalid while accepting the other as valid.
But you are a very very hypocritical person.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Again you falsely associate thermite here as the discovery made. How many times do i have to tell you this, the truthers identified the red/gray chips as "nanothermite" Can you not read?

:rolleyes: Nanothermite/thermite/magic thermite.
You use the term interchangably all the time when it suits you. You only get pedantic when you want to pretend to have a point.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes it is his position

It's not though. Why are you lying?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You definitely need help here. They were not tasked the job to be identifying the source for the Iron Microspheres in the dust. They studied, what the dust contained.

It's a scientific fact "Iron Microspheres are a byproduct of thermic reaction.

You'd dodged the question.
Does this RJ study claim the microspheres in the dust are a byproduct of a thermatic reaction?
Yes or no?

Again, I have to make a ultimatum here. If you ignore this question again it will be you admitting that the answer is No.
Anything you post that isn't "Yes" followed by a direct quote will be taken as a "No".

Be honest and direct for once in your life.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you believe there was other ways to produce them inside the building, then identify what you think happened here and stop deflecting.

Well this one guy called Mick West did a bunch of experiments that showed there was a bunch of ways to produce microspheres without super high temperatures.

Cheerful Spring2 · 18-05-2020 2:40am

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Then provide an example of a building that was brought down with thermite or nanothermite or any other kind of thermite.

This subject matter you have not understand. For example: the Truthers have already discovered the nanothermite chips in the WTC dust! Your asking the wrong question. I'm just not interested in addressing something that does not need explaining here. Better question is why was there nanothermite in the dust? You don't want to talk about that for obvious reasons.

King Mob wrote: »

There's tons of examples of fire partly bringing down buildings and structures. You reject those out of hand.
Why would you accept examples of Thermite partly doing the job?
It would be very hypocritical of you to declare one set of examples invalid while accepting the other as valid

Of course, but again you ignore no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire alone. Buildings made of concrete and other materials have collapsed due to fire, but there no known examples of fire bringing down a steel framed column high rise building! Peoples views about other buildings collapsing by fire does not support their argument here.

King Mob wrote: »

It's not though. Why are you lying

I asked you to provide some proof i am lying and still have not done so.

King Mob wrote: »

You'd dodged the question.
Does this RJ study claim the microspheres in the dust are a byproduct of a thermatic reaction

You can not read. I already told you want the study was about.

.

Cheerful Spring2 · 18-05-2020 2:51am

King Mob wrote: »

Well this one guy called Mick West did a bunch of experiments that showed there was a bunch of ways to produce microspheres without super high temperatures.

What experiment? Direct me to the correct page on Metabunk please, i want to see this.

King Mob · 18-05-2020 3:42am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This subject matter you have not understand. For example: the Truthers have already discovered the nanothermite chips in the WTC dust! Your asking the wrong question. I'm just not interested in addressing something that does not need explaining here. Better question is why was there nanothermite in the dust? You don't want to talk about that for obvious reasons.

Lol what?
Truthers have discovered no such thing.
You can keep saying that all you like, but it's not going to magically make it true.

We have talked about it before. You are clinging to one discredited study from a fraudulent journal.
It's another obvious scam that you've swallowed without critical thought.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Of course,

Of course what? Can you provide an example or not?
You keep dodging this point and it's really funny and illustrative.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

but again you ignore no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire alone.

Let's pretend that's true.
No building at all has collapsed due to any kind of thermite demolition.
So by your own logic, your theory cannot be true.

Again, I'm not sure if you're dodging because of your dishonesty, or you just don't understand what you are claiming...

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I asked you to provide some proof i am lying and still have not done so.

But you are lying. We both know you're misrepresenting his position.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You can not read. I already told you want the study was about.

Yes, you dodged the question before. And you've dodged the question here again.
The RJ study does not claim that the microspheres were because of a thermitic reaction.
Therefore, you can't claim that the study supports your silly conspiracy theory. Again, that's you misrepresenting things.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What experiment? Direct me to the correct page on Metabunk please, i want to see this.

See, there's your proof you're lying about Mick West's position.
You haven't actually read his posts in question. You're only repeating what you're being told by the con artists at AE9/11.

If you haven't even seen his arguments, you cannot be accurately representing his position.
Thus, you lie about it.
You lie a lot to defend your silly childish conspiracy theories.

Dohnjoe · 18-05-2020 11:56am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If "truthers" are so convinced that it cant happen, why not all pump your money in to a fund to build a replica WTC and buy a plane.

Conduct the ultimate experiment by recreating it .

The experiment already happened. Another tower, the same size as the North Tower was hit with a fuel laden airliner. And it fell.

You cannot get a more solid, definitive experiment than that.

AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Comments