Free Fall thread

King Mob · 08-09-2020 1:07pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

In their report about the WTC dust they state 6 percent of the WTC dust had Iron Microspheres (molten Iron)

Cheerful. What's the other byproduct of a thermite reaction?
Iron and...?

Dohnjoe · 08-09-2020 1:13pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why the Molten Iron is a significant find.

To repeat the questions:

1. What was used to "blow up" the Twin Towers and WTC 7, was it thermite, nano-thermite, super thermite?

The substance you've chosen, does it burn or explode? which is it?

2. You claimed AE911 have a fleshed out theory. Well, where is it? I am dying to find out who did what and what really happened..

King Mob · 08-09-2020 1:26pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To repeat the questions:

1. What was used to "blow up" the Twin Towers and WTC 7, was it thermite, nano-thermite, super thermite?

The substance you've chosen, does it burn or explode? which is it?

2. You claimed AE911 have a fleshed out theory. Well, where is it? I am dying to find out who did what and what really happened..

Yea. This happens every time.
He comes up again points he can't address and he embarasses himself again. Then he gets all huffy and starts throwing out accusations of lying and not being able to understand his genius (all riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes) and then gish galloping with the same pictures he's shown over and over again.

And now it's the dodging of very simple questions because he knows he's cornered himself. Again.
I wager a stroppy dramatic exit is on the way.

Cheerful Spring2 · 08-09-2020 1:30pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To repeat the questions:

1. What was used to "blow up" the Twin Towers and WTC 7, was it thermite, nano-thermite, super thermite?

The substance you've chosen, does it burn or explode? which is it?

2. You claimed AE911 have a fleshed out theory. Well, where is it? I am dying to find out who did what and what really happened..

AE911 truth has already torn to shreds the NIST theory and what the other explanation here for the collapse?.
Mainstream study says column 79 buckled to fire. AE911 truth has shown collapse there due to fire was unworkable.

Explained why that is unworkable, doesn't seem to register

You want to wander off to debate “subjects” who did it and why. This is lazy thinking when the science already shows a fire collapse scenario impossible. Debunkers don't seem all that interested in knowing the full story why NIST removed construction fittings from the girder between column 79 and 44.

A connection that Mick West on video admits would make a difference.

King Mob · 08-09-2020 1:34pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

what the other explanation here for the collapse?.

You tell us.
You claimed you had a fleshed out theory.
Lets hear it?

I think you were lying when you said that, and as we've been seeing, you don't have any.

What's the other byproduct of a thermite reaction? Why are you running away from this question?

You said one byproduct, but not the other. Why is that?
Did you not know or are you not saying it for some reason?

Cheerful Spring2 · 08-09-2020 1:57pm

The official reason for the collapse is unworkable. The Debunkers can lie all they like doesn't change the real facts.

NIST decided on their own to change the building construction, and remove crucial elements from the girder on Floor 13. That's a deliberate move and is evidence there was a criminal cover up inside NIST.

Mick West accepted the evidence Tony presented, the stiffeners on the girder, will stop the girder from losing the connection at Column 79 and falling into the floor below.

The debunkers are told this and still they believe the official narrative for collapse. I can't fix stupid!

At 24 minutes Mick West a debunker admits ,AE911 work about the girder stiffeners, the web plate and other things is valid and comprehensive. Admits that connection is an issue. If you read the debunkers comments on here, they will lie.

Watch and listen,open your mind!

Dohnjoe · 08-09-2020 2:20pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

AE911 truth has already torn to shreds the NIST theory and what the other explanation here for the collapse?

Where is their detailed explanation for what "really" happened then?

Explained why that is unworkable, doesn't seem to register

And a group of flat-earthers have claimed a round earth is unworkable. Contrary to your personal beliefs, groups of people on the internet claiming things don't "make it so". It's just a claim until it's properly supported and demonstrated.

Therefore AE911 need to explain what alternatively happened, in detail, proper detail, and demonstrate the aspects of it. They haven't done that.

The questions remain

1. What was used to "blow up" the Twin Towers and WTC 7, was it thermite, nano-thermite, super thermite?

The substance you've chosen, does it burn or explode? which is it?

2. You claimed AE911 have a fleshed out theory. Well, where is it? I am dying to find out who did what and what really happened..

King Mob · 08-09-2020 2:43pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you read the debunkers comments on here, they will lie.

Cheerful, again you are making false hypocritical accusations to no one.
No one is believing you.
No one is falling for your rather desperate and pathetic tactic here.

You keep spaming the same debunked crap all while running from simple questions and points that highlight your incompetance and dishonesty.

The lastest example of this is illustrated by the simple question I've been asking.

You stated that iron was a byproduct of a thermite reaction. Which is true, it's one of the byproducts.
Yet you refuse to state what the other product is.
You know what the other byproduct is. But you don't want to mention it because it causes a fatal problem (one of many) for your conspiracy theory.
At the same time you keep holding up a particular study as unquestionably true, when you know that study also conclusively disproves your theory.

So again cheerful, stop dodging.
What's the other byproduct of a thermite reaction?
Why are you so afraid of answering direct questions?
Why do these simple questions make you so upset?
Why do you have to keep avoiding them and keeping lying and keep using dishonest tactics you know are dishonest.

If your theory was true, would you need to do all that stuff?

Cheerful Spring2 · 08-09-2020 2:48pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Where is their detailed explanation for what "really" happened then?

And a group of flat-earthers have claimed a round earth is unworkable. Contrary to your personal beliefs, groups of people on the internet claiming things don't "make it so". It's just a claim until it's properly supported and demonstrated.

Therefore AE911 need to explain what alternatively happened, in detail, proper detail, and demonstrate the aspects of it. They haven't done that.

The questions remain

1. What was used to "blow up" the Twin Towers and WTC 7, was it thermite, nano-thermite, super thermite?

The substance you've chosen, does it burn or explode? which is it?

2. You claimed AE911 have a fleshed out theory. Well, where is it? I am dying to find out who did what and what really happened..

Is this a trick question? You know Ae91 truth distributed a study last year and they explain all the details i discussed further there.
Flat Earth theory and 9/11 have in common?

We have some insight here to how your mind works. You determine the people involved in flat earth are of the same mindset as people who accept the 9/11 conspiracy?

We can demonstrate flat earth wrong by science. In the same instance, science has proven the 9/11 fire collapse theory to be inaccurate.
Some debunkers like Mick West are further along than you guys are at currently and he’s accepted Ae911 work is valid.. There progress there.

Mick is holding onto another fantasy this girder collapse was not the root cause for the collapse on Floor 13. His manipulating a model wrongly as evidence for his theory there were failures in the central floor of room 13.. NIST of course never claimed other girders dropped from there seat elsewhere before the girder A2001 collapse, but Mick still uses that model nevertheless.

King Mob · 08-09-2020 3:02pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is this a trick question? You know Ae91 truth distributed a study last year and they explain all the details i discussed further there.

Yes. A fraud study, riddled with flaws, delayed and changed frequently with no explanation. A study that despite promises, was not published in a reputable journal and it was not published.
A study that does not detail any alternative explanation for anything and actively contradicts the vague fantasies you've tried to suggest.
Hulsey's study is not compatible with your claims about nanothermite.

Cheerful Spring2 · 08-09-2020 3:05pm

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). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.

NIST collapse theory

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Dohnjoe and friends are not getting here is this girder > on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). Well this is the girder Mick West agreed should have had web stiffeners, a web plate, fasteners and was a valid concern.

Debunkers are so engrossed in their own beliefs they don't notice the problem.

Video here is proof of that 24 minutes. After 24 minutes, Mick says AE911 work for this connection was valid and comprehensive and accepted the stiffeners would prevent failure there, game over.

King Mob · 08-09-2020 3:08pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST collapse theory

You haven't presented any alternative theory though.

You said you had one.
You were lying it seems.

King Mob · 08-09-2020 3:13pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

.
Video here is proof of that 24 minutes. After 24 minutes, Mick says AE911 work for this connection was valid and comprehensive and accepted the stiffeners would prevent failure there, game over.

This is the third or fourth time you've changed your claim about what he said.
I suspect you're lying once again.

Mick did not say any such thing.

Dohnjoe · 08-09-2020 3:24pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You know Ae91 truth distributed a study last year and they explain all the details i discussed further there.

You are referring to a study which tries to deny that a building fell due to fire. Denial is not a theory.

The questions remain

1. What was used to "blow up" the Twin Towers and WTC 7, was it thermite, nano-thermite, super thermite?

The substance you've chosen, does it burn or explode? which is it?

2. You claimed AE911 have a fleshed out theory. Well, where is it? I am dying to find out who did what and what really happened..

We can demonstrate flat earth wrong by science.

Of course, but do flat-earthers accept that? The difference is, these people can detail their theory, you can't. You just hide behind endless denial and every once in awhile vague allude to a massive cast of characters from "secret Nazis" to Joe Biden, yet you can't explain, with evidence, what any of these characters did, when, there's no timeline, nothing

On top of that, your vague notions change all the time. At least flat-earthers stick to their theory. These people might be morons, but you're dishonest, and that is far worse.

Cheerful Spring2 · 08-09-2020 3:30pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are referring to a study which tries to deny that a building fell due to fire. Denial is not a theory.

.

I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand it. I don't think debunkers have read the NIST study.

We try again. The girder can not slip from its connection at column 79. What happens then, write a post that make sense.

King Mob · 08-09-2020 3:37pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand it. I don't think debunkers have read the NIST study.

Quick reminder. I had to spend a good 6 pages of a thread to get you to understand the difference between upper case letters and lower case letters.
You frequently misuse technical terms in the most comical and embarrassing ways.
You have not read any study in your life.

But then, when you do understand a concept, you're incredibly dishonest about it.
For example, you lately claimed that iron was a byproduct of a thermite reaction, yet you refused to mention the other byproduct.
You tried to pretend there wasn't any.
You still refuse to acknowledge it.

This is because the other byproduct is aluminium oxide.
Which was not found at ground zero. Which proves conclusively that there was no thermite reaction there.

Again, we know this because of a study you linked to because you thought it supported your insane conspiracy theory.

Cheerful Spring2 · 08-09-2020 4:03pm

King Mob wrote: »

Quick reminder. I had to spend a good 6 pages of a thread to get you to understand the difference between upper case letters and lower case letters.
You frequently misuse technical terms in the most comical and embarrassing ways.
You have not read any study in your life.

But then, when you do understand a concept, you're incredibly dishonest about it.
For example, you lately claimed that iron was a byproduct of a thermite reaction, yet you refused to mention the other byproduct.
You tried to pretend there wasn't any.
You still refuse to acknowledge it.

This is because the other byproduct is aluminium oxide.
Which was not found at ground zero. Which proves conclusively that there was no thermite reaction there.

Again, we know this because of a study you linked to because you thought it supported your insane conspiracy theory.

Kingmob. You have a mighty opinion of yourself!
Writing is not proof of intelligence, its evidence of someone who schooled alot. You are unable to see the issues here and that shows you have narrow bandwidth of actual intelligence. I know from this argument, behind it all you not that smart. Your computer handwriting is not all that good, to be bashing other people writing.

I barely understand the points your pass off as sentences at times.. You debate like a child and your posts have no counter arguments or details to it and you would fail in the physical world. Attacking someone's character on different threads for me shows you are computer bully too!

In last few days, you have not proven i was wrong. You just claim you have but that just more Kingmob believing his own lies, that sad debating.
The only dishonest person here is you. None of your friends will pull you for your lies and dishonest shifts. This thread is overpopulated with debunkers so we don’t hear other voices unfortunately and video i posted is information being generous your full of ****.

Please stop quoting every post of mine like a lost animal. I have a dog already at home don’t need another one. You don’t seem to get the message i don’t want to talk with you. Have you emotional problems, you need me to answer you?

Overheal · 08-09-2020 4:39pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob. You have a mighty opinion of yourself!
Writing is not proof of intelligence, its evidence of someone who schooled alot. You are unable to see the issues here and that shows you have narrow bandwidth of actual intelligence. I know from this argument, behind it all you not that smart. Your computer handwriting is not all that good, to be bashing other people writing.

I barely understand the points your pass off as sentences at times.. You debate like a child and your posts have no counter arguments or details to it and you would fail in the physical world. Attacking someone's character on different threads for me shows you are computer bully too!

In last few days, you have not proven i was wrong. You just claim you have but that just more Kingmob believing his own lies, that sad debating.
The only dishonest person here is you. None of your friends will pull you for your lies and dishonest shifts. This thread is overpopulated with debunkers so we don’t hear other voices unfortunately and video i posted is information being generous your full of ****.

Please stop quoting every post of mine like a lost animal. I have a dog already at home don’t need another one. You don’t seem to get the message i don’t want to talk with you. Have you emotional problems, you need me to answer you?

Permabanned.

Free Fall thread

Comments