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

24-01-2020 12:00AM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You imagine fire contributed to the building collapse and first time in history it occurred, so it know different.

I think the evidence supports controlled demolition. I believe the melted steel, the freefall, the NIST lies and omissions about the collapse and removal of wtc7 seven steel quickly and others things, is evidence for no fire collapse.

But melted steel and freefall arent features of demolitions.
If they are, please provide some examples along with the examples of secret denolitons that used thermite.

24-01-2020 12:08AM

banie01 wrote: »

The most important thing that some did on 9/11 was somehow decide to take forensic samples of dust that fell and then "certify" it's chain of custody.

Before passing it to a chemist who looked for samples.
That at least 7 years elapsed between the collection of the samples by random people with no forensic handling skills and no chain of custody and the undertaking of a study that "proved" the nano thermite isn't a problem at all ....

There's a great video out there with Steve Jones or whoever showing off one of the samples they used for the study. He makes a big deal about putting on a plastic glove before picking up the sample. But then during the course of the talk, he passes it between his gloved and ungloved hand.

The video also points out that there is a lot of inconsistancy about where and when the samples were collected. It seems that they were lying about that too.

24-01-2020 12:11AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are comparing rigging a building for demolition, which takes months, and vast amounts of loud, noisy work.. with people breaking into an office
.

Specifically with people who broke into an office and were caught.
Which then exposed a conspiracy that couldn't be covered up.

24-01-2020 05:39PM

King Mob wrote: »

There's a great video out there with Steve Jones or whoever showing off one of the samples they used for the study. He makes a big deal about putting on a plastic glove before picking up the sample. But then during the course of the talk, he passes it between his gloved and ungloved hand.

The video also points out that there is a lot of inconsistancy about where and when the samples were collected. It seems that they were lying about that too.

Here's the video detailing the suspiciousness about the samples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qROovaGUEI

The shenanigans with the glove starts at 5:15

Dohnjoe · 24-01-2020 06:06PM

King Mob wrote: »

Here's the video detailing the suspiciousness about the samples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qROovaGUEI

The shenanigans with the glove starts at 5:15

So he got the sample from some woman who claimed she took it from WTC steel that was dirty..

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-01-2020 07:37PM

King Mob wrote: »

Here's the video detailing the suspiciousness about the samples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qROovaGUEI

The shenanigans with the glove starts at 5:15

Had a look at your video. The guy needs to open his ears as Jones described the sample and said it was molten metal. It was not a sample of red/grey chips in the dust.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-01-2020 08:11PM

King Mob wrote: »

T

The video also points out that there is a lot of inconsistancy about where and when the samples were collected. It seems that they were lying about that too.

The person questions the date and year, when the samples are handed over, as they differ in the Harrit Bentham paper.
He grumbles about two samples from two people: Stephen White and Judy Intermont.

Jones conference was Dec 2017- mentioned he had four samples
Harrit paper says the White and Intermont samples were obtained in Feb 2018.

Yes he has a point about the dates, they don't match, but in Harrit paper they do state Stephen White signed an affivant late Jan 2018, for his personal information to be used and also verified this sample came from him.

It not big of a deal- what matters is peope are who they say they are and samples are legit WTC dust samples.

Dohnjoe · 24-01-2020 08:23PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Had a look at your video. The guy needs to open his ears as Jones described the sample and said it was molten metal. It was not a sample of red/grey chips in the dust.

It's a sample they were checking for "thermite"

He doesn't even seem to question the source of it, just accepts it's from WTC steel because some woman said so

And he's touching this piece with his fingers, leaving it on the table.

Later in the interview he gets interrupted by a co-member, surprise, surprise, Alex Jones, who adds some "context" to what he is saying.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-01-2020 08:47PM

banie01 wrote: »

The most important thing that some did on 9/11 was somehow decide to take forensic samples of dust that fell and then "certify" it's chain of custody.

Before passing it to a chemist who looked for samples.
That at least 7 years elapsed between the collection of the samples by random people with no forensic handling skills and no chain of custody and the undertaking of a study that "proved" the nano thermite isn't a problem at all ...

The study being published by a journal known to have "poor" peer review and which led to the resignation of its editor is ignored.

That the USGS published an analysis of the dust collected at 35 locations in November 2001 that showed nothing thermite"y" is ignored too.

Absolute rinse and repeat nonsense from our resident crank.
Who is just reposting bullshít over and over again in the hope that some of it sticks.

He quit because other editors let it play out,and published the paper, and after he complained about the subject later. He had a hissy fit and left the journal.

They're only two established cases of fraud on that site, yet Skeptics make a big deal of it.

Everyone would embrace a world renowned chemical journal reviewing the
Harrit findings, but that will never occur due to its subject matter! There only one challenger ( a scientist on his own) who stepped forward and tried to debunk Harrit findings, yet he disappeared after claiming he will soon get a peer review paper published. That all went on in 2012.

Regards USGS particle dust study. Finding the chips in the dust is difficult, you need to know what you're looking for to see them. To the naked eye they just look like paint chips. Harrit and his team of scientists had to carry out a number of experiments to verify what they had was nano-thermite. They had to go through a long process of doing different experiments and identify the chemical compositions of the chips. There no evidence USGS studied the chemical compostion of every paint chip and red/grey chips.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-01-2020 08:55PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a sample they were checking for "thermite"

He doesn't even seem to question the source of it, just accepts it's from WTC steel because some woman said so

And he's touching this piece with his fingers, leaving it on the table.

Later in the interview he gets interrupted by a co-member, surprise, surprise, Alex Jones, who adds some "context" to what he is saying.

Jones said he was holding molten metal in his hand. That hardly nanothermite chip that Harrit found in the dust. And video is just a few seconds long anyhow to establish the context. For me he just showing an example of what cooled molten metal looks like for the audience.

Edit: Watched more of the video. He claims a woman send him this sample after she read his paper. Jones never claims they found this metal in the WTC dust.
Molten metal is very different to molten steel. I think the guy who did this video is unware the claim by Harrit is the chips when ignited produce molten Iron, as a byproduct.

Dohnjoe · 24-01-2020 09:40PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

He quit because other editors let it play out,and published the paper, and after he complained about the subject later. He had a hissy fit and left the journal.

First, it wasn't a he it was a she. And rubbish. 911 truthers snuck one of their pseudo-scientific articles into a publication

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-01-2020 09:42PM

King Mob wrote: »

But melted steel and freefall arent features of demolitions.
If they are, please provide some examples along with the examples of secret denolitons that used thermite.

Finding Melted Steel is a noticeable anomaly. It's one reason truthers like myself don't accept the official account.
They're no fire on 9/11 hot enough to melt steel.
Yes, agreed- melted steel is not typically found after a standard controlled demolition. I have not seen evidence myself.

What we do is this below.

Melted steel is evidence there was acute extreme temps up to 1500c or higher!

Precipitated it Skeptics and truthers have disputed this for 15 years.
Truthers believe they found nano-thermite in the WTC dust, that for me clarifies why there was millions of Iron microspheres in the dust revealed in a mainstream study by RJ Lee group.

FEMA study about the steel: they state in writing at the end they are unsure if, started outside the building or inside the building. That's evidence that disregarded in the Skeptic community. Temps need to be very high to turn steel to a liquid of Iron and just not acceptable that this was not examined furtther by NIST.

Melted steel means connections, bolts, stiffiners everything will break and collapse, no steel can remain in frame, at temps of 1500c or higher.

banie01 · 24-01-2020 09:48PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

First, it wasn't a he it was a she. And rubbish. 911 truthers snuck one of their pseudo-scientific articles into a publication

I was going to point this out when I read CS's reply.
Thanks for bearing me to it.

Once again CS you are displaying your complete lack of attention to detail.
That any publisher "only" published 2 fraudulent articles is 2 too many.
The other issue, is that they are not a valid peer reviewed journal.
They are a payola mill.

There is no chain of custody for any of Harrit's samples that would stand to evidential standards.
An affidavit is a meaningless piece of paper when it comes to such standards.
Unless of course you believe that upon making an oath, that one is bound to be struck down by their deity should the be lying?

Dohnjoe · 24-01-2020 09:52PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Jones said he was holding molten metal in his hand. That hardly nanothermite chip that Harrit found in the dust. And video is just a few seconds long anyhow to establish the context. For me he just showing an example of what cooled molten metal looks like for the audience.

Edit: Watched more of the video. He claims a woman send him this sample after she read his paper. Jones never claims they found this metal in the WTC dust.
Molten metal is very different to molten steel. I think the guy who did this video is unware the claim by Harrit is the chips when ignited produce molten Iron, as a byproduct.

He has no idea of the real source of the material, whether it is 911 metal or not, he handles it incorrectly and states he will be testing it for "thermite"

And he's up on a stage with Alex Jones, who ****ing clarifies a point for him. It's a clown show.

banie01 · 24-01-2020 09:56PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"

And he's up on a stage with Alex Jones, who ****ing clarifies a point for him. It's a clown show.

The same Alex Jones who claimed under oath on more than one occasion, that he is a performance artist, playing a character who should not be taken seriously.

So why would anyone associated with him not be afforded the same level of "seriousness"?

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-01-2020 09:57PM

banie01 wrote: »

I was going to point this out when I read CS's reply.
Thanks for bearing me to it.

Once again CS you are displaying your complete lack of attention to detail.
That any publisher "only" published 2 fraudulent articles is 2 too many.
The other issue, is that they are not a valid peer reviewed journal.
They are a payola mill.

There is no chain of custody for any of Harrit's samples that would stand to evidential standards.
An affidavit is a meaningless piece of paper when it comes to such standards.
Unless of course you believe that upon making an oath, that one is bound to be struck down by their deity should the be lying?

Oystein better known Skeptics on international forum would oppose that as he recognizes the four samples are genuine. He done his research.

What he doesn't accept Harrit found nanothermite in the dust. His position is the red/grey chips are Lecelede paint chips. A primer paint used to protect the steel

Thats the position today- Mick West also claims the nanothermite chips are paint chips.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-01-2020 10:11PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He has no idea of the real source of the material, whether it is 911 metal or not, he handles it incorrectly and states he will be testing it for "thermite"

And he's up on a stage with Alex Jones, who ****ing clarifies a point for him. It's a clown show.

Where in video does he state he tests it for thermite? Timestamp please? He clearly says it a just piece of molten metal a woman send him after reading his paper.
Molten metal is not a byproduct of a thermite reaction. If he was showing molten steel then you'll have a point.

Dohnjoe · 24-01-2020 10:30PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Where in video does he state he tests it for thermite? Timestamp please? He clearly says it a just piece of molten metal a woman send him after reading his paper.
Molten metal is not a byproduct of a thermite reaction. If he was showing molten steel then you'll have a point.

Watch the full video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ0RFImiOMc

Even you, in your truther world, can see how wrong he has everything.

The alu flow isn't silvery, really? maybe it's all that burnt office debris and impurities.

You're probably wondering where he got that sample he's mishandling the entire time, oh hey some woman sent it in. Real scientists don't verify the source, naturally.

Cheerful Spring2 · 24-01-2020 11:17PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Watch the full video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ0RFImiOMc

Even you, in your truther world, can see how wrong he has everything.

The alu flow isn't silvery, really? maybe it's all that burnt office debris and impurities.

You're probably wondering where he got that sample he's mishandling the entire time, oh hey some woman sent it in. Real scientists don't verify the source, naturally.

It's an old video from 2006.
The samples collected are from 2007 to 2008. Harrit and his team wrote their paper in 2008-09. Different timelines.

I would not use the term 'molten metal' personally to describe what she allegedly gave him.
Molten metal can be various metals with different meltings points. Some metals don't need high temps to melt.

Jones claims in this video, it made of Iron and some other elements?

Molten Iron is only evidence a high temp reaction occurred to melt steel. You can melt Iron and there be no thermite needed.

After 9/11 event- molten Iron was found!

FEMA claimed it formed during a hot temp attack. Though NIST rep on video denied anyone saw molten Iron in the rubble, but clearly they lied when there multiple videos of people saying they saw a liquid of molten steel in the rubble.. Clearly NIST did not interview those people or likely just ignored their eyewitness testimony.

I don't follow Jones work all that much. I watch more of Dr Farrer videos and read his posts. He was involved in the Harrit study and was a co-author.

Dohnjoe · 24-01-2020 11:44PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's an old video from 2006.

And 9/11 happened in 2001. Truth has a habit of being consistent, so why do they have to keep changing and reinventing their argument?

Why does someone like you have to keep making excuses for them?

25-01-2020 12:51AM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes he has a point about the dates, they don't match,

Why don't they match?
Why did they lie?

Why did he put on a glove to touch the sample?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes, agreed- melted steel is not typically found after a standard controlled demolition. I have not seen evidence myself.

So therefore it can't be a controlled demolition as it would be the first time in history that such a thing occured.
Also, free fall is not a feature of controlled demolition. You have ignored that point.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-01-2020 01:49PM

King Mob wrote: »

Why don't they match?
Why did they lie?

Why did he put on a glove to touch the sample?

So therefore it can't be a controlled demolition as it would be the first time in history that such a thing occured.
Also, free fall is not a feature of controlled demolition. You have ignored that point.

Portions of the WTC dust powder samples got send to various people within the truth movement after Jones collected 4 to 5 samples from different individuals who resided in New York on Dec 2017

The disparity from Dec 2017 to Feb 2018. So the sample collection in Harrit paper is just a two month difference. Jones likely was in negotiations to get the two samples previous to 2018 and may have indeed received a small sample to analyze before that?

Misplaced dates is not that big of an issue, when the timeline gap is not that much apart.

When the hardline 9/11 debunkers on International Skeptics forum agree, the dust samples are legitimate. What the point of arguing about dates?

The divergence between the two sides, debunkers believe Harrit red/grey chips are just paint chips and truthers say no they are nanothermite chips. For me this where the debate rests, not somewhere else.

It's a piece of molten metal he asserts, but he then describes in Dohnjoe video, it's made of Iron and other elements. I think the glove unnecessary when this only minor piece already reduced and cooled from a molten state. The transfer of bacteria from the hand to the Iron piece will unlikely cause much contamination to change what Jones claims he already discovered?

Controlled demolition.
I don't rule it out a powerful explosive was also used alongside the nanothermite on 9/11!
The steel 'FEMA' confirmed had melted for me is information the truthers are not crazy and there theory about the nanothermite is another explanation for the discovery of melted steel.
NIST even admits in their building seven report fires at its highest peak only reached 600c for 15 minutes throughout the day.
NIST is fully aware, the melted steel, cann't be blamed on fire, and likely the reason they avoided the topic and lied about people seeing a liquid of molten steel.

Freefall is a feature of controlled demolition. Why do you think its not?

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-01-2020 02:03PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And 9/11 happened in 2001. Truth has a habit of being consistent, so why do they have to keep changing and reinventing their argument?

Why does someone like you have to keep making excuses for them?

FEMA informed us in their paper in 2002 sections of the steel melted.
Melted steel is not something you can overlook.
NIST never talked about this discovery, in their study.
When asked did they test for thermite and explosives, they said they did not.

FEMA was explicit in their report there uncertain how long it took to happen, they were undecided where the sulfur content came from and they wrre uncertain if it happened outside the building or inside building seven!

They even called it an unusual phenomenon. It not something they have seen before after building fires.

Debunkers just like to pretend FEMA settled on one cause it happened outside the building.

Dohnjoe · 25-01-2020 02:07PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Portions of the WTC dust powder samples got send to various people within the truth movement after Jones collected 4 to 5 samples from different individuals who resided in New York on Dec 2017

Some woman sent him something she claimed was from WTC, he was literally performing tests on the samples, and contaminating the samples on a recorded show. That's bad science at best, lunacy at worst.

None of this sideshow matters. Not one single person; Alex Jones, Gage, Tony S, S Jones can put forward a credible theory. Nor do they try, nor do they care.

This is just fantasy denialism nothing else

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-01-2020 02:12PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some woman sent him something she claimed was from WTC, he was literally performing tests on the samples, and contaminating the samples on a recorded show. That's bad science at best, lunacy at worst.

None of this sideshow matters. Not one single person; Alex Jones, Gage, Tony S, S Jones can put forward a credible theory. Nor do they try, nor do they care.

This is just fantasy denialism nothing else

FEMA confirmed molten steel event in their steel study from 2002. Why do Skeptics attack the truth movement when FEMA already established this as a fact?
Woman giving Jones a molten piece of Iron from ground zero, it not that crazy.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-01-2020 02:16PM

FEMA says in the open statement a hot liquid of Iron formed during this hot temp corrosion attack.
Hot liquid of Iron= Molten steel

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf

Dohnjoe · 25-01-2020 02:19PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Woman giving Jones a molten piece of Iron from ground zero, it not that crazy.

How do you know it's from ground zero?

How do you know it's not from me or anyone, from my local building site?

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-01-2020 02:28PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

How do you know it's from ground zero?

How do you know it's not from me or anyone, from my local building site?

We don't know.
Still Skeptics overlook 'molten steel' was a mainstream discovery on 9/11
NIST on video denied it we have the video. Ask yourself, why they deny it?

John Gross was the lead engineer for the building seven study. He ignores the videos with people claiming they saw a liquid of Iron.

Cheerful Spring2 · 25-01-2020 02:47PM

My favourite picture from ground zero.

Firefighters on the John Gross video describe seeing at ground zero a red/yellow molten steel liquid that poured like Lava.

John Gross likes to pretend they're no eyewitnesses or pictures, that back up their claims.

Dohnjoe · 25-01-2020 03:16PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We don't know.

Exactly. It's worse than that. He doesn't know, but he assumes. Unscientific. (anyone could have sent him samples from anywhere. Can't confirm the source? any work on it is naturally null and invalid)

The way he mishandles and contaminates the sample? Unscientific

The way he assumes liquid aluminium from burning towers would be identical to molten aluminium he made at home? Unscientific

Regular guest on the Alex Jones show? Red flag

Put on paid leave from his university? Another red flag

Last I heard he dropped off the whole 911 radar and was researching cold fusion and perpetual motion stuff

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

Comments