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

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

1…7576788081…95

Comments

  • #2312
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Oh yeah and none of these people can explain how their thermite "burns" multiple steel girders in micro-seconds, but also explodes, sending concentrated "shotgun" style squibs out the side of the building

    In fact they can't explain any of it, much less support it


  • #2313
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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

    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.
    Why was there a difference in the dates?
    Was it a mistake?
    Did they lie?
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    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?
    So why did he wear a glove?
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Controlled demolition.
    I don't rule it out a powerful explosive was also used alongside the nanothermite on 9/11!
    But explosives don't cause melted steel.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

    Freefall is a feature of controlled demolition. Why do you think its not?
    Please show an example of a controlled demolition with freefall.


  • #2314
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,059 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Back to the "liquid iron" again?
    The lack of honesty or indeed of recall on the part of CS is staggering.
    All previously debunked and explained in painstaking detail, but now that "eutectic" is dropped from the claim it's different?

    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057919635/229/#post109664655
    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057919635/230/#post109665923
    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057919635/228/#post109662605


  • #2315
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    banie01 wrote: »
    Back to the "liquid iron" again?
    The lack of honesty or indeed of recall on the part of CS is staggering.
    All previously debunked and explained in painstaking detail, but now that "eutectic" is dropped from the claim it's different?

    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057919635/229/#post109664655
    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057919635/230/#post109665923
    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057919635/228/#post109662605

    Where the debunking, which post?
    Eutectic is a concoction of chemicals and metals that have melted below the recommended temperature.
    Does change what i reported the steel melted. 
    Reason FEMA stated eutectic liquid mixture- there was sulfur in the mixture also
    FEMA claim the sulfur attacked, the boundaries of the steel and started the process of melting below the recommended temp (1500c) for steel


  • #2316
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »


    Please show an example of a controlled demolition with freefall.

    Answered the first three already.

    Go on YouTube watch videos of a building imploding. You remove the supports to allow for a free fall collapse.

    What happens when building steel beams and columns are moved out of the way? This answers your question.


  • Advertisement
  • #2317
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Oh yeah and none of these people can explain how their thermite "burns" multiple steel girders in micro-seconds, but also explodes, sending concentrated "shotgun" style squibs out the side of the building

    In fact they can't explain any of it, much less support it

    That's untrue, the red/ yellow liquid pouring of the towers does show melting was happening inside the towers pre-collapse and timing and development of damage is unknown.

    Its not thermite.

    Red/ Grey chips have nanometer particles of AI, Silicon, Iron Oxide and Carbon in the red layer. They also found low traces of sulfur, and other chemicals.

    Nanothermite link.
    Nano-thermite or super-thermite is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
    What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reaction proceeds much more quickly.


  • #2318
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    That's untrue, the red/ yellow liquid pouring of the towers does show melting was happening inside the towers pre-collapse and timing and development of damage is unknown.

    No it's not untrue. It's bad science, which you rely on.

    You'll slam people like Alex Jones, yet here you are using all of his 911 talking points.


  • #2319
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,059 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    CS, rather than cut and paste Wikipedia articles that you clearly don't grasp.

    How about you explain the above in your own words?
    Then give a ballpark estimate on how much of the nano-thermite was used?
    Then explain how despite the vast and instantaneous ignition of such an amount of the supposed nano-thermite, that there are no reported UV spikes and the video and images of the collapse also don't show any massive UV release?

    Where are the blinded onlookers?


  • #2320
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    banie01 wrote: »
    CS, rather than cut and paste Wikipedia articles that you clearly don't grasp.

    How about you explain the above in your own words?
    Then give a ballpark estimate on how much of the nano-thermite was used?
    Then explain how despite the vast and instantaneous ignition of such an amount of the supposed nano-thermite, that there are no reported UV spikes and the video and images of the collapse also don't show any massive UV release?

    Where are the blinded onlookers?

    I created a thread asking for credible theories, it was like garlic to vampires.


  • #2321
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    I’d love to know how people picked small flakes out of the tonnes of dust that was created.


  • Advertisement
  • #2322
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Apparently you can send any piece of metal to a 911 scientist claiming it's from WTC, they won't ask questions

    Would have been fun if someone actually had the materials to conduct a small thermite burning session and sent them the melted metal

    Sorry I mean nano-thermite, oops I mean, "super"-thermite (I'm not kidding, by the end S Jones was claiming that "super-thermite" did the job)


  • #2323
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Answered the first three already.
    No you haven't.
    You dodged them. Cause you are dishonest and can't answer questions directly.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Go on YouTube watch videos of a building imploding. You remove the supports to allow for a free fall collapse.

    What happens when building steel beams and columns are moved out of the way? This answers your question.
    How can you tell from youtube that a building is falling at freefall?

    Again, please show something that shows that demolished buildings fall at free fall.
    Your watching and assumption about youtube is not enough.


  • #2324
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    banie01 wrote: »
    CS, rather than cut and paste Wikipedia articles that you clearly don't grasp.

    How about you explain the above in your own words?
    Then give a ballpark estimate on how much of the nano-thermite was used?
    Then explain how despite the vast and instantaneous ignition of such an amount of the supposed nano-thermite, that there are no reported UV spikes and the video and images of the collapse also don't show any massive UV release?

    Where are the blinded onlookers?

    I comprehended the ramifications of this revelation years ago. You guys have not yet and perhaps never will..
     I don't expect anyone can truly estimate precisely how much nanothermite was used in this attack. All we know for certain the red/grey chips are thermatic and they are found in WTC dust samples. 

     We indeed have evidence steel members melted, that further proof there were high temp events taking place on 9/11. 

    We can merely see the front and outside of Twin Towers and WTC7.
    It not a movie-you are expecting to see a bright flash of light on Sunny day? 
    There were firefighters inside the building heading to top floor. Do you see them ascending the stairs from the outside?


  • #2325
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No it's not untrue. It's bad science, which you rely on.

    You'll slam people like Alex Jones, yet here you are using all of his 911 talking points.

    How is not true?
     There steel spandrels all around the periphery wall. 
    Truthers are right melted Aluminium is silvery in tint.
    But i don't think truthers rule out some AI blended with the Iron mixture pouring out of the towers?


  • #2326
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    But cheerful you keep ignoring the fact that this is the first time in history that molten metal was found in a demolished building.
    Therefore it cant have been demolished.


  • #2327
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Ipso wrote: »
    I’d love to know how people picked small flakes out of the tonnes of dust that was created.

    Dust Samples were collected by New Yorkers after 9/11, dust covered Manhattan.
    AE911 chemists later had to do a painstaking, needle in a haystack work, to see if they can find anything in the small sample of dust.

    They discovered some micro sized red/gray chips in dust had embedded nanoparticle chemicals. The size of the chips are tiny. This is high level science engineering, to make chips of this size. This is not something a person made a home. The chips clearly were produced by people who had an advanced knowledge of nanoscience and had access to state-of-the-art chemistry lab.


  • #2328
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,059 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I comprehended the ramifications of this revelation years ago.

    This is probably the most funny and painfully ironic thing you have ever mashed into your keyboard.
    If the report was written in scientific English.
    Based on your "comprehension" as demonstrated on multiple occasions across this site...
    You didn't, you constantly misread, misinterpret and miss context.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I don't expect anyone can truly estimate precisely how much nanothermite was used in this attack. All we know for certain the red/grey chips are thermatic and they are found in WTC dust samples. 

    We don't know that though, chain of evidence and custody matters.
    You continually ignore that.
    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    not a movie-you are expecting to see a bright flash of light on Sunny day? 
    CS the level of High Energy emitted would blind people, it would also damage any CCD devices recording the event unless they were specifically hardened.
    Eye damage akin to looking at a nuclear blast and damaged cameras.
    Where are those reports?


  • #2329
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But cheerful you keep ignoring the fact that this is the first time in history that molten metal was found in a demolished building.
    Therefore it cant have been demolished.

     It first time molten steel has been discovered after a local building fire plus a demolished building by explosives. There a solution there don't you think?

    So undoubtedly the nano-thermite goes along way to show why mainstream engineering groups found millions of Iron Microspheres in WTC dust and to why there was partially melted steel girders and beams found after the collapse

    A byproduct of nano-thermite reaction is Iron Molten Microspheres. 


  • #2330
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
     It first time molten steel has been discovered after a local building fire plus a demolished building by explosives. There a solution there don't you think?
     
    But it can't be demolition either.
    It's the first time in history. it's never happened before. Therefore it's impossible.
    It's impossible for it to be a demolition.

    Why do you keep ignoring this?


  • #2331
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    But it can't be demolition either.
    It's the first time in history. it's never happened before. Therefore it's impossible.
    It's impossible for it to be a demolition.

    Why do you keep ignoring this?

    Thats silly? The buildings clearly collapsed on 9/11.
    Why put nanothermite in the buildings if served no purpose?


  • Advertisement
  • #2332
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
     It first time

    You can't wrap your head about 911, because it was the "first time" skyscrapers collapsed due to plane strikes and/or fire

    Yet you utterly accept it was the first time secret silent perfectly undetectable controlled demolitions were used

    One of those contradicts the other


  • #2333
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    banie01 wrote: »
    This is probably the most funny and painfully ironic thing you have ever mashed into your keyboard.
    If the report was written in scientific English.
    Based on your "comprehension" as demonstrated on multiple occasions across this site...
    You didn't, you constantly misread, misinterpret and miss context.



    We don't know that though, chain of evidence and custody matters.
    You continually ignore that.


    CS the level of High Energy emitted would blind people, it would also damage any CCD devices recording the event unless they were specifically hardened.
    Eye damage akin to looking at a nuclear blast and damaged cameras.
    Where are those reports?

    Only person who can't read correctly is you.
    9/11 truth debunkers recognize the dust samples are genuine, it only you who challenges the collection process. 
    Like i said Oystein's best-known debunker of nanothermite on the Skeptic international forum, he accepts the 4 samples of dust given to Jones are genuine.

    The steel hat truss is not exposed, it covered by drywall and concrete. The inside of the building was filled with smokeafter the attack so light likely blocked. We can't ask the people who died did you see a bright flash of light inside the building.

    The nanothermite experiements presented do not show a flash of light, what happened is a bright hot yellow/white fire flame shot out from inside the chip when got heated up. They also noticed a gas release. 


  • #2334
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Thats silly? The buildings clearly collapsed on 9/11.
    Why put nanothermite in the buildings if served no purpose?

    Why put explosives in the buildings? what if one of the planes missed?

    What planet are you from where you think the US president, who can't do a basic quid pro quo with Ukrainians, who can't get a blowjob in the oval office, who basically can't do anything without it being outed or leaked - can murder 3,000 Americans in cold blood, in the single craziest riskiest inside job ever created, all done in broad daylight under the glare of the media, and not a single foreign intelligence agency can spot it, the opposition (!!) can't spot it, thousands of investigative journalists in the media can't spot it, hostile nations can't spot it, not a single whistle blower, even one of the highest level NSA insider can spot it, the FBI don't detect it in the largest investigation in their history, subsequent presidents(!!!) don't spot it, no reputable group of demolition experts or engineers or experts spot it..

    And the only people who have "spotted it", are a bunch of internet conspiracy theorists, like Alex Jones, who don't have the first clue how to detail it, let alone support it, and are repeatedly full of ****


  • #2335
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Thats silly? The buildings clearly collapsed on 9/11.
    Why put nanothermite in the buildings if served no purpose?
    Dunno. Doesn't matter.
    It's the first time thermite was found at a demolition. Therefore it can't be a demolition.

    This is your logic.


  • #2336
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You can't wrap your head about 911, because it was the "first time" skyscrapers collapsed due to plane strikes and/or fire

    Yet you utterly accept it was the first time secret silent perfectly undetectable controlled demolitions were used

    One of those contradicts the other

    Three Skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11 not two.
    Only two got hit by a plane.
    Third WTC7 collapse was caused by a local fire according to NIST.
    Building seven clearly proves the conspiracy, due to NIST removing construction materials from the beams and girders to enable collapse in their models. NIST not noticing free fall for six years and they dodging questions about melted beams and girders.
    Office fires can not melt steel beams and girders. Why would I trust them when they lie and omit things from the building construction?


  • #2337
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Three Skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11 not two.
    Only two got hit by a plane.
    Third WTC7 collapse was caused by a local fire according to NIST.
    Building seven clearly proves the conspiracy, due to NIST removing construction materials from the beams and girders to enable collapse in their models. NIST not noticing free fall for six years and they dodging questions about paritly melted beams and girders.
    Office fires can melt steel beam and girders. Why would i trust them when they lie and omitt things from the building construction?

    Cheerful you've run away from another point.

    Please point to an example of a demolition where the building fell at free fall.

    You have been asked this many times before. You keep dodging it because you can't do it.


  • #2338
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful you've run away from another point.

    Please point to an example of a demolition where the building fell at free fall.

    You have been asked this many times before. You keep dodging it because you can't do it.

     I not dodging. 
    Your belief  fire collapse caused this freefall collapse! You need to explain how that occurred at each stage., since you believe the official story.

    I believe free fall can only happen, when explosives/ nanothermite removed the building support resistance to nothing. Only known way to do that in quick time is by controlled demolition.


  • #2339
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Three Skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11 not two.
    Only two got hit by a plane.
    Third WTC7 collapse was caused by a local fire according to NIST.
    Building seven clearly proves the conspiracy, due to NIST removing construction materials from the beams and girders to enable collapse in their models. NIST not noticing free fall for six years and they dodging questions about melted beams and girders.
    Office fires can not melt steel beams and girders. Why would I trust them when they lie and omit things from the building construction?

    You aren't addressing the point. It's incredible

    You claim something is impossible because it's the "first time in history it happened", yet your wild conspiracy would be the "first time in history" that happened

    By your own logic, your conspiracy is impossible

    So which is it?


  • #2340
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
     I not dodging. 

    Yes you are. You dodge, and deflect, and evade endlessly.

    Those are big red flags. Start scrutinising any Sandy Hook truther or Boston marathon bombing truther and they use precisely the same tricks and techniques and mental gymnastics you do

    Why is that?

    You literally use the same talking points that Alex Jones came up with over a decade ago

    And like you, these people don't have a credible theory either. They just endlessly attack the facts in order to cast doubt on them in order to hint at some wild theory they never detail


  • Advertisement
  • #2341
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You aren't addressing the point. It's incredible

    You claim something is impossible because it's the "first time in history it happened", yet your wild conspiracy would be the "first time in history" that happened

    By your own logic, your conspiracy is impossible

    So which is it?

    First time in history a fire caused a steel high rise to fully collapse, then why do people like you overlook alternative explantations for the collapse?

    Building seven- FEMA discovered steel that had partially melted. That a trace there was a high temp event taking place on 9/11...

    FEMA distinctly stated in their report the corrosion of the steel/melting was caused by 1000c heat+ sulfur. An approach based on what they found after the steel cooled.

    NIST holds the heat inside building seven was only 600c- so that rules out a local fire, on its own, causing this inside the building. We then have to have to identify evidence for 1000c fire at WTC7 wreckage site. Thermal images only show 500c temps at WTC7 site few days after collapse.

    Further examinations demanded to be carried out to show the sulfur would reduce the melting point of A36 by 500c.

    I find it strange after finding melted steel, this phenomenon was not researched further- why it happened the work on it just stopped.


Advertisement