Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

Options
12357…33

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, he claimed with all confidence that the flight that hit the pentagon actually flew over the pentagon and away while another entirely different plane was used to hit the building. This was all based on his ideas about the flight recorder data. However, he snookered himself and claimed that the flight data was completely inerrant and incorruptible but then couldn't explain how that flight data existed, was recovered or why it didn't show the plane flying away from the pentagon like he believed.

    His has since changed his theory to avoid this issue and pretends to have always been right.

    That’s a mix up of what I said. I said the plane flew more to the northeast. In the official report the plane came down Washington Blvd and that I have a problem with that. It too far to the Southwest. I do believe 77 now hit the Pentagon, but the direction is wrong. The FDR and FAA radar returns are correct, the 9/11 commission report position is wrong.


  • Options
    #123
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    That’s a mix up of what I said. I said the plane flew more to the northeast.
    No cheerful, you claimed that flight 77 flew over the pentagon and away while a different plane hit the pentagon.

    Don't lie about your own posts.


  • Options
    #124
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    No cheerful, you claimed that flight 77 flew over the pentagon and away while a different plane hit the pentagon.

    Don't lie about your own posts.

    I said no plane hit the Pentagon based on the 9/11 commission report findings. I researched more on this and found the FDR and FAA animations and then it made sense. The animations place the plane coming over the Navy Annex heading northeast. In the commission report the plane heading southwest of the Annex. When you look at one report you have false information.


  • Options
    #125
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    So wherever these microspheres came from, it can't be thermite.

    Excellent science there Kingmob. Where they came from matters,


  • Options
    #126
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I said no plane hit the Pentagon based on the 9/11 commission report findings. I researched more on this and found the FDR and FAA animations and then it made sense. The animations place the plane coming over the Navy Annex heading northeast. In the commission report the plane heading southwest of the Annex. When you look at one report you have false information.
    Wait, so you are now denying that you ever said that flight 77 flew over the pentagon?
    Really?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Excellent science there Kingmob. Where they came from matters,
    But again, it can't be from thermite.
    As I've explained:
    There's no examples of any building being demolished by thermite of any kind, so it's not possible for a building to be demolished by thermite of any kind.
    So wherever these microspheres came from, it can't be thermite.

    You keep cutting that part out.


  • Options
    #128
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,521 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    From about 6 minutes here. A thorough debunking about microscopic iron. Case closed there.



  • Options
    #129
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Wait, so you are now denying that you ever said that flight 77 flew over the pentagon?
    Really?

    I denied a plane hitting the Pentagon at the beginning when i thought it was only coming in from the southwest. When you learn more and see the FAA and FDR radar returns place the plane to the northeast the trajectory lines up with the damage at the Pentagon. I could not see how a plane coming in from the southwest could have hit the west wall at that angle.


  • Options
    #130
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,514 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    King Mob wrote: »
    No cheerful, you claimed that flight 77 flew over the pentagon and away while a different plane hit the pentagon.

    Don't lie about your own posts.

    He also claimed the pentagon was hit by an A3 and the Boeing flew off...
    A professional pilot painstakingly explained headings, reciprocals and magnetic offsets and was just ignored.


  • Options
    #131
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I denied a plane hitting the Pentagon at the beginning
    Yes. And you claimed that flight 77 flew over the pentagon and away.

    Are you denying you said this?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    banie01 wrote: »
    He also claimed the pentagon was hit by an A3 and the Boeing flew off...
    A professional pilot painstakingly explained headings, reciprocals and magnetic offsets and was just ignored.

    The problem with the Pentagon attack you have a plane going different directions in different reports. I can see now where the confusion is unlike you guys. A southwest plane could not have hit the Pentagon, it have to be very small if came in that way. If the plane lined up Northeast coming over the bridge it be heading in more straight and hit it dead on (nose first)


  • Options
    #133
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The problem with the Pentagon attack you have a plane going different directions in different reports. I can see now where the confusion is unlike you guys. A southwest plane could not have hit the Pentagon, it have to be very small if came in that way. If the plane lined up Northeast coming over the bridge it be heading in more straight and hit it dead on (nose first)
    Lol, and now you're deflecting from the topic again because you're backed into a corner.

    It's very desperate behaviour.


  • Options
    #134
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, and now you're deflecting from the topic again because you're backed into a corner.

    It's very desperate behaviour.

    You have two planes heading different directions (fact)
    The FAA and FDR animations don't support the 9/11 commission findings.
    FAA and FDR- Show the plane coming in heading Northeast over the Navy Annex.
    9/11 commission report- the plane to the right of the Annex heading down a highway at a height.
    It’s understandable why conspiracy people are confused when the mainstream reports are very different to each other.


  • Options
    #135
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, it can't be from thermite.
    As I've explained:
    .

    You explained nothing again its nanothermite not thermite :D
    What caused it then, you can't run away and not provide an explantation.


  • Options
    #136
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You explained nothing again its nanothermite not thermite :D
    What caused it then, you can't run away and not provide an explantation.
    But again I have explained why it's not important. You keep editing it out of the quotes because you are ignoring it.

    There's no examples of any building being demolished by thermite of any kind, so it's not possible for a building to be demolished by thermite of any kind.
    So wherever these microspheres came from, it can't be nanothermite.


  • Options
    #137
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,793 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    It’s understandable why conspiracy people are confused when the mainstream reports are very different to each other.

    There's no confusion. Conspiracy theories attempt to create confusion and doubt and denial in order to hint a conspiracy took place - it's the only way they can breathe life into their countless contradictory theories.

    Sandy Hook truthers use the exact same technique, Boston Marathan bombing truthers, Moon landing hoaxers, pretty soon you see the exact same pattern.

    "If something can't be explained it means some unexplained conspiracy took place" - conspiracy enthusiasts

    That's literally how they conjure their conspiracies, with denial of the event.


  • Options
    #138
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You have two planes heading different directions (fact)
    The FAA and FDR animations don't support the 9/11 commission findings.
    FAA and FDR- Show the plane coming in heading Northeast over the Navy Annex.
    9/11 commission report- the plane to the right of the Annex heading down a highway at a height.
    It’s understandable why conspiracy people are confused when the mainstream reports are very different to each other.

    Yes, and you claim that all this proved that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon and it was in fact an A3. You claimed flight 77 flew over the pentagon and away.

    That was so silly that even you rejected it.

    You can keep denying it all you like, it just makes you look more and more silly.


  • Options
    #139
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, and you claim that all this proved that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon and it was in fact an A3. You claimed flight 77 flew over the pentagon and away.

    That was so silly that even you rejected it.

    You can keep denying it all you like, it just makes you look more and more silly.

    You guys can’t read.
    The point is a plane heading southwest could not have hit the Pentagon.
    It could if the plane was heading northeast. That’s what I argued in the thread, the plane was heading this direction to have hit the Pentagon.
    What report do you guys believe here?
    Is the 9/11 commission correct or is the FDR and FAA returns more accurate?


  • Options
    #140
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,793 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, and you claim that all this proved that flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon and it was in fact an A3. You claimed flight 77 flew over the pentagon and away.

    Such an incredible coincidence how the same denial can lead to completely different and contradictory outcomes..
    • Dr Judy Wood attacks the NIST therefore energy weapons did it
    • Gage attacks the NIST therefore bombs were planted when the towers were built
    • Tony S attacks the NIST therefore nothing because he's too smart to commit to a theory he knows he can't support
    • Cheerful attacks the NIST therefore Larry Silverstein, Saudi royals, secret Nazi's were behind it

    Almost as if they all started with their conspiracies notion, then worked backwards to deny the event, and fit whatever conspiracy they could dream up into their views of it..

    Make-up-your-own-history-adventure


  • Options
    #141
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You guys can’t read.
    The point is a plane heading southwest could not have hit the Pentagon.
    It could if the plane was heading northeast. That’s what I argued in the thread, the plane was heading this direction to have hit the Pentagon.
    What report do you guys believe here?
    Is the 9/11 commission correct or is the FDR and FAA returns more accurate?
    But you're missing the point. We're not going to rehash all the same arguments you ran away from so you can deflect from the arguments you are currently running away from

    In that thread, you claimed that no 757 hit the pentagon. You claimed it was an A3 and that flight 77 flew over the building and away to parts unknown.
    You said all those things.
    You are now trying to rewrite history because you can't admit to being wrong.
    It's very Trumpian.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But again I have explained why it's not important. You keep editing it out of the quotes because you are ignoring it.

    There's no examples of any building being demolished by thermite of any kind, so it's not possible for a building to be demolished by thermite of any kind.
    So wherever these microspheres came from, it can't be nanothermite.

    The Iron Microspheres are there in the WTC dust. Saying I don’t want to believe nanothermite is the cause of it is stupid thinking. You have to provide a source then to explain the massive amount of Iron Fe spheres found. So far alternative explanation not provided by any of you.


  • Options
    #143
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,793 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You guys can’t read.

    Can read extremely well thanks. Also have good memories. You claimed it was a military jet because you read some conspiracy blog the day you were making that narrative up. You then changed it because it turned out to be such horse**** even you couldn't support it

    It then became the laziest conspiracy known to man, yes flight 77 hit, but from a sliiiightly different angle

    The equivalent of claiming yes man did land on the moon but from a sliiightly different angle, therefore the whole thing was a conspiracy, therefore I'm right! :)


  • Options
    #144
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Cheerful attacks the NIST therefore Larry Silverstein, Saudi royals, secret Nazi's were behind it
    I am curious what youtube video he watched that made him change his entire theory to the secret Nazis.
    Also why he was so willing to go with that conspiracy given his other claims about the Nazis during the holocaust.


  • Options
    #145
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The Iron Microspheres are there in the WTC dust. Saying I don’t want to believe nanothermite is the cause of it is stupid thinking. You have to provide a source then to explain the massive amount of Iron Fe spheres found. So far alternative explanation not provided by any of you.
    But cheerful, the iron microspheres can't be from nanothermite as it's impossible that nanothermite was used.

    Your own argument shows this for a fact.

    There's no examples of any building being demolished by thermite of any kind, so it's not possible for a building to be demolished by thermite of any kind.
    So wherever these microspheres came from, it can't be nanothermite.

    Can you provide any examples of any building being demolished by any kind of thermite?
    If not, then it means the nanothermite theory is impossible.


  • Options
    #146
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You guys can’t read.
    Also, again just a reminder. I spent four pages explaining to you the difference between the letter I and the letter L.


  • Options
    #147
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,521 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    The Iron Microspheres are there in the WTC dust. Saying I don’t want to believe nanothermite is the cause of it is stupid thinking. You have to provide a source then to explain the massive amount of Iron Fe spheres found. So far alternative explanation not provided by any of you.

    I posted a video which completely debunks it. Beyond any shadow of a doubt. One which you ignored.


  • Options
    #148
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But cheerful, the iron microspheres can't be from nanothermite as it's impossible that nanothermite was used.

    Your own argument shows this for a fact.

    T

    Worth noting like i said you provide no other explanation. Also, to be clear the truthers have. there unignited nanothermite chips when burned produce Iron spheres in abundance.This finding is uncomfortable for you i know..


  • Options
    #149
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Also, again just a reminder. I spent four pages explaining to you the difference between the letter I and the letter L.

    We have to explain to you in the past steel was made of Iron and you denied it and another poster bloodbath laughed at you.


  • Options
    #150
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Worth noting like i said you provide no other explanation. Also, to be clear the truthers have. there unignited nanothermite chips when burned produce Iron spheres in abundance.This finding is uncomfortable for you i know..
    But cheerful, it can't be nanothermite. Your own argument has shown that explanation is impossible. You keep ignoring that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    We have to explain to you in the past steel was made of Iron and you denied it and another poster bloodbath laughed at you.
    Cheerful, I never said that steel wasn't made of Iron.
    Why are you lying?


Advertisement