Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If explosives were used it occurred inside the building not outside. The shock from the blasts would push steel, concrete and furniture sideways not downwards. It explains why all the steel got hurled hundreds of feet away in all directions sideways. You watching a top down building implosion.

I hope you realize you have no utter idea what an implosion actually is, based on this post. Conveniently, one can find the definition in the OP of the Implosion thread, which incidentally you totally read though and understood.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Prove it. Adam Lanza did the shooting.
Who is the other 14?
What their role in the conspiracy
Provide some information that proves other people are involved.

Interesting irony with this. Prove that 911 was an inside job, provide the direct evidence for it. Answer basic questions on it.

You haven't done any of that, you are virtually identical to Sandy Hook truthers who, like you, use doubt, incredulity and faulty logic to plant suspicion there was some vague conspiracy that both you and they cannot detail

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have posted this video before and I watched it. I went over every myth and wrote about it.

You claiming something is a myth doesn't make it so. You claiming the world is flat doesn't make it so. You claiming to have "debunked" something doesn't make it so. You seem to operate in an alternative reality where you think by just stating something it makes it so

You aren't a demolition expert, these guys are. I linked the head of one of the largest significant demolition companies in the world calling 911 controlled demolition nonsense. I also linked Richard Gage speculating that charges could have been set in the building when it was built, a man who every year holds a vote at the AIA to re-investigate 911, and every year they overwhelmingly reject it, because they, as experts, know it's utter nonsense

You are free to pontificate till you are red in the face, this isn't a religion, faith isn't going to make your baseless controlled demolitions exist to anyone else but yourself

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

I hope you realize you have no utter idea what an implosion actually is, based on this post. Conveniently, one can find the definition in the OP of the Implosion thread, which incidentally you totally read though and understood.

I actually do see what going on. I posted pictures before explaining it. The interior steel column columns and its failure is causing an inward pull causing the perimeter side walls to be pulled in ( i showed a picture of north tower and its side walls bowing in before) You seeing the effects on video. Steel and dust is then thrown sideways in all directions as the building collapsed downwards. The mechanism behind it and what caused the steel to be hurled 100s of feet away is unknown- NIST would not touch and explain it. They only studied the root cause and gave a theory why it collapsed.

NIST claim is this caused by a truss floor failure
Truthers claim high explosive + nanothermite was used and the steel hat truss failed first.

You can't compare twin towers demolition to other demolitions, it occurring at the top and working it way down to the bottom. Typically demolitions occur at the base and in the middle of the building.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You can't compare twin towers demolition to other demolitions, it occurring at the top and working it way down to the bottom. Typically demolitions occur at the base and in the middle of the building.

Lol
But the entire basis of the conspiracy nonsense is that the collapses looked like demolitions.

I guess you've changed your mind now and accept reality about the twin towers.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Lol
But the entire basis of the conspiracy nonsense is that the collapses looked like demolitions.

I guess you've changed your mind now and accept reality about the twin towers.

NIST never provided a full explantation for the twin towers collapse. NIST models could not predict what we saw, so they just ignored it. The event we saw on tv need explaining, it can not be left to just our imagination.

The top half of the building was basically destroyed in the air, so what pushing down the rest of the building? Lower sections should have slowed down the fall, as it carried more weight, and was not on fire. The building came down pretty much in freefall. When object interacts with another object it slows. It not what we saw on 9/11. There was like 70 floors underneath untouched by fire. For to keep going down like this, the resistance underneath had to be taken away.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You claiming something is a myth doesn't make it so. You claiming the world is flat doesn't make it so. You claiming to have "debunked" something doesn't make it so. You seem to operate in an alternative reality where you think by just stating something it makes it so

You aren't a demolition expert, these guys are. I linked the head of one of the largest significant demolition companies in the world calling 911 controlled demolition nonsense. I also linked Richard Gage speculating that charges could have been set in the building when it was built, a man who every year holds a vote at the AIA to re-investigate 911, and every year they overwhelmingly reject it, because they, as experts, know it's utter nonsense

You are free to pontificate till you are red in the face, this isn't a religion, faith isn't going to make your baseless controlled demolitions exist to anyone else but yourself

This demolition expert has not understood the other side arguments.

He stated the truthers claimed thermite was used to bring down the towers. This is completely false info. Truthers evidence is nano-thermite. It not thermite as takes 3000F to ignite. The red/chips ignite at 400c and spike to temps above 1500c and leaves Molten Iron microspheres behind as a byproduct.

You expect me then to listen to him, when does even know that?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST never provided a full explantation for the twin towers collapse.

But you just said it doesn't look like a controlled demolition.

Any luck on getting the names and details of the 15 guys you think rigged it up?
If not, why not?
If not, do you admit that you plucked that number out of the air?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But you just said it doesn't look like a controlled demolition.

They are your words
I said it top to bottom implosion. Can it be done yes.
It would look a bit odd if the bottom half got demolished first- whoever this had to know planes were going to strike the upper half of the building.
It has all the features of controlled demolition- the energy release is slightly unusual with the steel pushed out sideways from its point of origin.
Concrete pulverising to fine dust particles high in the air is also interesting. You expect to see large chunks of concrete falling away and then breaking apart when it hit the ground.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST never provided a full explantation for the twin towers collapse. NIST models could not predict what we saw, so they just ignored it. The event we saw on tv need explaining, it can not be left to just our imagination.

The top half of the building was basically destroyed in the air, so what pushing down the rest of the building? Lower sections should have slowed down the fall, as it carried more weight, and was not on fire. The building came down pretty much in freefall. When object interacts with another object it slows. It not what we saw on 9/11. There was like 70 floors underneath untouched by fire. For to keep going down like this, the resistance underneath had to be taken away.

None of what you said is true nor does it make anything sense. We’ve covered all that before. It’s either a steel building implosion (which you clearly disagree with) or a collapse due to fire (which you also disagree with). You’re simultaneously rambling about special nano thermite (again - debunked at great length in vivid detail) and about steel and office debris being ejected hundreds of feet away. None of which is physically possible inside the conspiracy theory you’ve written yourself into a corner with.

So once again: what are you convinced of, exactly? Who did it? What did they do? How did they do it, exactly?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They are your words
I said it top to bottom implosion. Can it be done yes.
It would look a bit odd if the bottom half got demolished first- whoever this had to know planes were going to strike the upper half of the building.
It has all the features of controlled demolition- the energy release is slightly unusual with the steel pushed out sideways from its point of origin.
Concrete pulverising to fine dust particles high in the air is also interesting. You expect to see large chunks of concrete falling away and then breaking apart when it hit the ground.

So let the record also reflect you have no familiarity with the failure modes of concrete. Spoiler warning: I currently do work for a precast concrete company, and I assure you, that you have no idea, if you think concrete doesn’t sublimate when it fails.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

None of what you said is true nor does it make anything sense. We’ve covered all that before. It’s either a steel building implosion (which you clearly disagree with) or a collapse due to fire (which you also disagree with). You’re simultaneously rambling about special nano thermite (again - debunked at great length in vivid detail) and about steel and office debris being ejected hundreds of feet away. None of which is physically possible inside the conspiracy theory you’ve written yourself into a corner with.

You trying to claim 11 scientists who worked on it are all liars. They produced images of the red/chips and with great detail described their results. Its a scientific paper. They described all the experiments done . I just not buying it, your claim, its debunked.

And yet that's exactly what we see on TV footage. Steel hurled away 100s of feet. You think an office fire caused that? Can you provide your theory then, a different one.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You trying to claim 11 scientists who worked on it are all liars. They produced images of the red/chips and with great detail described their results. Its a scientific paper. They described all the experiments done . I just not buying it, your claim, its debunked.

And yet that's exactly what we see on TV footage. Steel hurled away 100s of feet. You think an office fire caused that? Can you provide your theory then, a different one.

Again, we’ve already been through the debunking process, and other papers have discredited their work by virtue of trying to replicate it. They were unable to do so. Replication. You’re very big on replication as proof in the sciences. Why does the fact that their findings cannot be replicated not alert you to their bogus science?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Again, we’ve already been through the debunking process, and other papers have discredited their work by virtue of trying to replicate it. They were unable to do so. Replication. You’re very big on replication as proof in the sciences. Why does the fact that their findings cannot be replicated not alert you to their bogus science?

False. They're not even one peer to peer paper available debunking their work
True- One guy involved in official study of WTC dust claimed on International Skeptic forum., he found no Aluminium. Promised to release a study in 2012 and since then has disappeared.
False- Independent chemists have replicated Harrit study. but they're automatically proclaimed as truthers. Even though they had no previous history with the truth movement before then.

Bascially that's it.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You trying to claim 11 scientists who worked on it are all liars..

You have called thousands of scientists, engineers, historians and many other professionals, all far more qualified than you, liars.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It has all the features of controlled demolition-.

This contradicts what you just said:

You can't compare twin towers demolition to other demolitions, it occurring at the top and working it way down to the bottom. Typically demolitions occur at the base and in the middle of the building.

How can it have all the features of a controlled demolition, but also not be comparable to other controlled demolitions.
That doesn't make sense.

And I'll take it as a no on my other question, thus your claim about the demolition team is debunked.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

You have called thousands of scientists, engineers, historians and many other professionals, all far more qualified than you, liars.

Thousands name them all
You have met them, provide names
Skeptic like you claim hundreds of thousands of engineers agree with NIST
Yet only 500 of them could be bothered to download the papers they released
There well over 3000 Architects and Engineers who have signed the AE911 truth petition.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Thousands name them all

Name the 15 guys you think rigged up the WTC.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

This contradicts what you just said:



How can it have all the features of a controlled demolition, but also not be comparable to other controlled demolitions.
That doesn't make sense.

And I'll take it as a no on my other question, thus your claim about the demolition team is debunked.

The only difference is the energy release.
NIST could not explain it.
Truther can, high explosives was used.
They found evidence in the dust- nanothermite. A military engineered material product.
Nobody has debunked the red/grey chips yet, find me a scientific paper? Posting a rebuttal post on the JREF forum is not science. Dr Milette promised the Skeptics he have a paper out in a year, that was 2012.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The only difference is the energy release.
NIST could not explain it.
Truther can, high explosives was used.
They found evidence in the dust- nanothermite. A military engineered material product.
Nobody has debunked the red/grey chips yet, find me a scientific paper? Posting a rebuttal post on the JREF forum is not science. Dr Milette promised the Skeptics he have a paper out in a year, that was 2012.

Where is your proof the military engineered any such thing? Why has this alleged substance never appeared in any other application?

Also are you aware that thermite isn’t as much an explosive so much as a burning agent? Show me thermite that can cut through an I-Beam in mere seconds. Show me that it leaves molten steel pooling on the ground for hours if not days afterwards.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Thousands name them all
You have met them, provide names
Skeptic like you claim hundreds of thousands of engineers agree with NIST

To repeat for the 10th time since you are going on a rehashing spree

They do. The ACSE has 152,000 members, all registered engineers. They took part in the first investigation into 911, and the NIST investigation. They support those findings. They have never expressed support for controlled demolitions

There is the American Institute of Architects, 90,000 members. Each year Gage (who is a member) tries to get them to support a re-investigation into 911, he typically receives single digit percentage support for it - with thousands of professionals voting against it. They have openly distanced themselves from his conspiracy views

There are recognised associations representing millions of engineers and related professionals around the world, none of them are calling for reinvestigation, none of them openly support any of these conspiracy theories

There are engineering journals and books which reference the findings from the WTC collapses, findings that have been incorporated into building code, this stuff is taught in universities. At no point are the conspiracy theories part of any engineering curriculum

Taking bets on the next points that will be rehashed: the passport found on the ground, buildings have never fallen like that before, the "sound" of an explosion

This is literally the third or forth trip around the block with you. Once everything is addressed you just go on another tour of duty rehashing every bit of debunked info

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Truther can, high explosives was used.

No evidence

They found evidence in the dust- nanothermite. A military engineered material product.

They didn't

Nobody has debunked the red/grey chips yet, find me a scientific paper?

No need

Posting a rebuttal post on the JREF forum is not science. Dr Milette promised the Skeptics he have a paper out in a year, that was 2012.

No one cares, the facts are damning, they don't need additional stuff because irrational people demand it

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Name the 15 guys you think rigged up the WTC.

Truthers have given over their evidence to the grand jury in New York. The likely suspects right now, is the ACE Elevator company. They went bust a few years after 9/11, after being rewarded a large project to upgrade elevators in the towers. Skilled not enough to stay in business? The Workers coming and going, are the suspects. It down to the FBI to investigate this company and check if its a front company. We know these companies exist, as urban moving systems was a Mossad company operating out of Queens New York. It was not suspicious till four of their employees were spotted filming the towers on 9/11. The FBI later confirmed this front company was operated by Mossad and the deported the Israeli spies back to Israel.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

the ACE Elevator company

So their names are...?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We know these companies exist, as urban moving systems was a Mossad company operating out of Queens New York. It was not suspicious till four of their employees were spotted filming the towers on 9/11. The FBI later confirmed this front company was operated by Mossad and the deported the Israeli spies back to Israel.

Lol. :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Truthers have given over their evidence to the grand jury in New York.

You know this "evidence" is public, there is nothing in there that names people who planted bombs or goes into any details on the conspiracy whatsoever

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The only difference is the energy release.

But that's not what you said.
You said they weren't comparable. But now you are saying they are exactly the same.

You seem confused.
Also I like how you're trying to use technical terms again. We are very aware that you do not understand them.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Where is your proof the military engineered any such thing? Why has this alleged substance never appeared in any other application?

Also are you aware that thermite isn’t as much an explosive so much as a burning agent? Show me thermite that can cut through an I-Beam in mere seconds. Show me that it leaves molten steel pooling on the ground for hours if not days afterwards.

Proof is the chips exist.
Skeptics claim they are paint chips.
False- Harrit and his team tested all possibilities, Skeptics ignore this.

They carried out a serious of tests, all listed here..
Magnet test: all samples
visual inspection: all samples
photomicrographs: all samples
BSE images: all samples
SEM images: all samples
XEDS graphs: all samples
XEDS maps: MEK chip and sample 1
DSC tests: 3 samples
Mass/energy calcs: all sample and comparative explosives
Volume/energy calcs: all sample and comparative explosives
post-burn residues comparison using:
visual inspection: at least 1 sample
photomicrographs: spheroid extracted from dust, spheroid extracted from burning test sample, and sample extracted from burning a known nanothermite.
XEDS graphs: spheroid extracted from dust, spheroid extracted from burning test sample, and sample extracted from burning a known nanothermite.

Thats the point, it is a foreign substance that should not be there in the dust. Reason truthers are not backing off. Skeptics only excuse is they are paint chips, and then they got excited when DR Millette claimed he found know elemental aluminium,and yet provided no evidence. His paper was never going to be released, he just came in to quietly debunk the paper, and disappear again. If he believed he was right, he would have released a peer to peer paper by now.

It not thermite- this needs 3000 f to ignite
The chips- ignite at 400c. There no way someone made that at home.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Proof is the chips exist.
Skeptics claim they are paint chips.
False- Harrit and his team tested all possibilities, Skeptics ignore this.

You are ignoring the rebuttals you have been show about this and you are ignoring the questions asked of you.

Every point you make is contradicted by your other statements or your behavior.

Overheal

If the magic chips burn at 400 C anyway, you’ve proven against the conspiracy again, as that’s well below what would be needed to begin to melt steel.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

If the magic chips burn at 400 C anyway, you’ve proven against the conspiracy again, as that’s well below what would be needed to begin to melt steel.

I'd also be curious how these chips survived the fires before they needed to go off and then after to be collected and analysed.

But I think it's just a case of Cheerful once again not thinking his claims through.