AE911 truth vs Mick West ( Iron Microspheres)

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 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 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 wrote: »

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.

The alternative is that somehow, "they" managed to rig the two biggest buildings in the world in secret with a huge amount of explosives in one of the most densely populated place on earth. Undetected by the 200,000 people that passed through the buildings every day. Not seen by security, receptionists from 500 businesses, shift workers, police, tourists, contractors, cleaners, maintenance etc.

And then somehow managed to actually coordinate the explosions.

Its absolutely laughable.

King Mob wrote: »

Remember, it wasn't just explosives.
It was secret never before tested or used supernanothermite dispensed in a gel by 16 guys.

I forgot about the gel claim

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And then somehow managed to pull off all these demolitions, perfectly, in broad daylight, in the middle of New York, under the gaze of the world's press and intelligence agencies, without any leaks or whistle-blowers, without any physical evidence..

And they did all of this because they knew before hand for a fact that the planes wouldn't be able to take down the towers.
That fact is apparently so obvious that anyone can tell it's impossible without any training, knowledge, expertise or research or ability to do basic math.
And despite this, they spent billions on this conspiracy and just assumed it would work.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not a single insurance investigation (these guys had to pay out billions) discovered it..

The US president can't get a blowjob in the oval office without the world finding out, the US military can't plant WMD in the desert, the NSA can't keep a secret..

It's more than laughable, it wouldn't even make an episode of the Twilight Zone for being so batshiat absurd

And then they for some reason tell the BBC to announce it early.
And then Larry Silverstein for no reason at all just blabs it out to a camera on national TV.

storker wrote: »

Don't forget they also knew which floors of the building would be struck, by a not-very-manouvrable Boeing flown a student pilot who previously had flown nothing bigger than a Cessna.

Who conspiracy theorists frequently claim was too bad at piloting to actually hit the target in the first place.

Every single aspect of the conspiracy theory gets more and more ridiculous the more you examine it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Everyone can see you not providing any other explanation to explain it. What was the source then?

Cheerful, you're ignoring points again.

I will answer it in full if you give a direct answer to the simple question you keep dodging.
Can you provide any example of a building being demolished by any kind of thermite?

I am confident you will still dodge this question.

King Mob wrote: »

Who conspiracy theorists frequently claim was too bad at piloting to actually hit the target in the first place.

Every single aspect of the conspiracy theory gets more and more ridiculous the more you examine it.

Didnt CS once claim that there were no planes only holograms? My apologies info advance if it was another poster and I am confusing the two.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What the source for the Iron Microspheres in the WTC dust. If you have no explantation stop talking.

Lol See. Question dodged.

You keep claiming that because supposedly no building was destroyed by fire, it must be impossible.
There's no examples of any building that was demolished by thermite. By your logic it must be impossible too.

You keep avoiding this fact because you know that it shows your argument is false. You want to keep avoiding the fact because you will keep using that argument despite knowing it's wrong.

Likewise with these microspheres. You'll just dodge the inconvenient points about them. You're not capable of actually debating the topic.
If anyone else wants to discuss that topic with me, I'd be glad to.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Didnt CS once claim that there were no planes only holograms? My apologies info advance if it was another poster and I am confusing the two.

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.