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

Overheal

Not to mention the glaring misunderstanding of the term Nano

Cheerful Spring2

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.

Ignites at 400c and produces a high temp above 1500c + ( molten iron microspheres seen)
Thermite can not ignite at 400c. It reaction starts at 3000f (1600c)

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Ignites at 400c and produces a high temp above 1500c + ( molten iron microspheres seen)
Thermite can not ignite at 400c. It reaction starts at 3000f (1600c)

And why does a nano substance come in the form of such large chips that failed to ignite?

Going round in circles with you.

Dohnjoe

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.

Red paint

https://www.metabunk.org/investigating-active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust-from-the-9-11-wtc-catastrophe.t9485/

It's a classic example of dragging something down to granular scientific details in order to distract from the glaring fact that there's no evidence of demolition

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

And why does a nano substance come in the form of such large chips that failed to ignite?

Going round in circles with you.

You mean that "nano" isn't just a cool fancy futuristic word you can apply to anything to make it have whatever properties your story needs?
:eek:

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

And why does a nano substance come in the form of such large chips that failed to ignite?

Going round in circles with you.

There not large chips, they are nano- sized. You are posting off the cuff.

You just made a false post i said 400c burned. Even though i said multiple times the chips ignited at 400c.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There not large chips, they are nano- sized. You are posting off the cuff.

You just made a false post i said 400c burned. Even though i said multiple times the chips ignited at 400c.

They’re literally not.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There not large chips, they are nano- sized. You are posting off the cuff.

Cheerful, define what nano means.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, define what nano means.

It detailed in their study, a study you have not bothered reading. Does not stop you posting about it though

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It detailed in their study, a study you have not bothered reading. Does not stop you posting about it though

No, nano is a very common term. It doesn't need to be detailed in a study.
Define it please.
I don't think you can.
Dodging the question isn't going to help you. It's going to make you look sillier and sillier.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Red paint

https://www.metabunk.org/investigating-active-thermitic-material-discovered-in-dust-from-the-9-11-wtc-catastrophe.t9485/

It's a classic example of dragging something down to granular scientific details in order to distract from the glaring fact that there's no evidence of demolition

Mike what's everyone to believe they painted the steel with primer that has energetics. Its super energy red paint.

This a guy who think all UFO sightings involves a plane.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

No, nano is a very common term. It doesn't need to be detailed in a study.
Define it please.
I don't think you can.
Dodging the question isn't going to help you. It's going to make you look sillier and sillier.

Chips are 100 nanometers in size, detailed and explained in the study. They have similar dimensions.

I posted images before showing the red/chips. You have a habit of forgetting things, so it not surprising you keeping posting nonsense.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Chips are 100 nanometers in size, detailed and explained in the study. They have similar dimensions.

I posted images before showing the red/chips. You forgotten yesteday so it not surprising you keeping posting nonsense.

Cheerful, I'm asking you to define what the prefix "nano-" means.

Define the word please.

This is the third time asking.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, I'm asking you to define what the prefix "nano-" means.

Define the word please.

This is the third time asking.

Why? What is this going to prove for you? This is same crap, we had with freefall asking for information and was totally irrelevant.

Are you arguing the chips are sized not in nanometers? If you are disprove it? I not going down this road again playing silly games.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why? What is this going to prove for you? .

It proves that you don't understand any of the terms you are using.
So like freefall, you don't know what the prefix nano even means.

This in turn shows that you simply aren't capable of understanding any of the stuff you are posting. You are simply parroting it even though you don't know what it means.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

It proves that you don't understand any of the terms you are using.
So like freefall, you don't know what the prefix nano even means.

This in turn shows that you simply aren't capable of understanding any of the stuff you are posting. You are simply parroting it even though you don't know what it means.

It proves nothing. I even did the calculation in front of you for freefall and my final calculation was correct.

You for some reason believe people online are measuring balls thrown off the world trade seven roof to the ground

Yet he could not find any online link showing this to be true.

Nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. I don't even think you know what you mean half the time. If you going to dispute something stick to what study says, stop making it personal. Like i said you get some enjoyment or pleasure from this and it's odd.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It proves nothing. I even did the calculation in front of you for freefall and my final calculation was correct.

Lol. You've a very faulty memory. And that's a very very dishonest way of putting it.
You got the calculation correct.
After getting it wrong 3 times for various reasons.
And this was after many repeated attempts to get you to address the problem. Most of which you ignored or dodged because you couldn't address them.
And this also neglects the many statements you made that involved incorrect terms and usage of terms that denotes that you don't understand the math or physics involved.
And after all that, you didn't once demonstrate that you understood what freefall meant at all.

So yea... if you count that as a win for you. Good job.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. I don't even think you know what you mean half the time.

We're almost there. And you've only been asked 4 times.
But still not quite right.
I didn't ask you to define a nanometer. I asked you to define what the prefix "nano-" means.
You can't do that because you don't know what it means.
Hence, any opinion you have about these paint chips is simply irrelevant.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. You've a very faulty memory. And that's a very very dishonest way of putting it.
You got the calculation correct.
After getting it wrong 3 times for various reasons.
And this was after repeated attempts to get you to address the problem.
And this also neglects the many statements you made that involved incorrect terms and usage of terms that denotes that you don't understand the math or physics involved.
And after all that, you didn't once demonstrate that you understood what freefall meant at all.


We're almost there. And you've only been asked 4 times.
But still not quite right.
I didn't ask you to define a nanometer. I asked you to define what the prefix "nano-" means.
You can't do that because you don't know what it means.
Hence, any opinion you have about these paint chips is simply irrelevant.

Lies.

I did a freefall calcuation for the new building and was correct.
Realising i did the wrong measurement, i corrected it for older building, i was correct again.
There was know problem. It was and issue that never needed to be discussed.

You know these posts are saved on this forum right?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Lies.

I did a freefall calcuation for the new building and was correct.
Realising i did the wrong measurement, i corrected it for older building, i was correct again.

You know these posts are saved on this forum right?

Oh please, paste it here

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Lies.

I did a freefall calcuation for the new building and was correct.
Realising i did the wrong measurement, i corrected it for older building, i was correct again.

You know these posts are saved on this forum right?

Yup.
You realise that too, right?

Your first answer, which you claimed to do in your head, was that it was "9-8 seconds."
Again you neglect to mention all the embarrassing attempts you made to sound clever and like you understand the math.
For example, you claimed several times that acceleration and speed were the same.
And that the "speed of gravity" was the same as acceleration due to gravity.

And again you've dodged the question.
You don't know what nano means.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yup.
You realise that too, right?

Your first answer, which you claimed to do in your head, was that it was "9-8 seconds."
Again you neglect to mention all the embarrassing attempts you made to sound clever and like you understand the math.
For example, you claimed several times that acceleration and speed were the same.
And that the "speed of gravity" was the same as acceleration due to gravity.

And again you've dodged the question.
You don't know what nano means.

I said off the top of my head. I did know the true calculation then.
After constant perstering, i decided to do it.
I went away and did a calculation on paper.
Was the new building- I got the height online, done the freefall calculation, the answer was correct.
I made a mistake though i was using the new building height- so i fixed it and changed things around in my next post and provided you with the answer., in front of you.,

Claiming i made a made a mistake three times is a lie.

I did the calculation for acceralation due to gravity too and you were wrong about that. I even posted a Physic teacher math and speed was included in his calculation when he did an online calculation for acceralation due to gravity. You forgotten that conventiently.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I even posted a Physic teacher

Cheerful.
It's Physics. With an S.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful.
It's Physics. With an S.

I type on big tv, a small screen probably be better for typing.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I even posted a Physic teacher math and speed was included in his calculation when he did an online calculation for acceralation due to gravity. You forgotten that conventiently.

Yes? And?

Cheerful, define the difference between speed, velocity and acceleration.
These are also terms I don't think you understand.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes? And?

Cheerful, define the difference between speed, velocity and acceleration.
These are also terms I don't think you understand.

I refuse. This thread about 9/11. This is not the kingmob thread.

I answered you dumb questions before and you have not processed it. I don't think you understand.

Do you still believe steel is not predominately Iron?
Do you still believe you saw an invisible man?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I refuse. This thread about 9/11. This is not the kingmob thread.

I answered you dumb questions before and you have not processed it. I don't think you understand.

So you can't explain the difference between them.
This shows my point.

You simply do not have the ability to understand any of the things you are talking about.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do you still believe steel is not predominately Iron
Do you still believe you saw an invisible man?

Never claimed either of these things.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I refuse. This thread about 9/11. This is not the kingmob thread.

I answered you dumb questions before and you have not processed it. I don't think you understand.

Do you still believe steel is not predominately Iron?
Do you still believe you saw an invisible man?

Answer his questions please as they are relevant to the discussion /mod

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Answer his questions please as they are relevant to the discussion /mod

There not. And you're a bias moderator with an agenda.

Go ahead do what you must. I be back on 3th of Sep when we actually have something new to discuss. If you choose to stop that, your choice.

Till then bye.

Overheal

It’s incredibly relevant that you can’t differentiate between key aspects of kinematics.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

It’s incredibly relevant that you can’t differentiate between key aspects of kinematics.

Read your own charter. So many rules broken by people you click likes to.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057423767