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

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-01-2020 4:25pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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..

The evidence has been there for over a decade now.

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 ****

Melted steel
Freefall
CIA knowing 9/11 hijackers were inside the country pre 9/11
Cover up of the Saudi role with 9/11.
Plus more things.

There is a clear direction of evidence that does demonstrate a conspiracy. The government under Bush did a great job convincing the world Bin laden and some fed up Muslims did 9/11 with no support structure to help them inside the United States.

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-01-2020 4:35pm

Richard Clarke was one of highest representatives in office and worked on terrorism issues for the White House pre 9/11.

When he confessed he was kept out of the loop by the CIA about the hijackers, then there was clearly a covert operation under way by the CIA that was never published and revealed to the American public. The CIA denied all claims of knowing about the hijackers pre 9/11

Clarke clearly outlining a conspiracy that took place at the very top of the US intelligence service

Cheerful Spring2 · 26-01-2020 4:47pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

I think it's red flag, when people ignore NIST removed construction materials from a girder to allow it to fail.
If this report came out in any time and not happened on 9/11 it be in a dustbin.
AE911 truth has discovered many engineers are not even aware of building seven, so explains why this joke of a report still accepted.
Fact is only 500 plus people have downloaded their ASCE journal paper.
AE911 doing the right thing informing engineers about this terrible study done by NIST.

Dohnjoe · 26-01-2020 11:16pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Melted steel
Freefall
CIA knowing 9/11 hijackers were inside the country pre 9/11
Cover up of the Saudi role with 9/11.
Plus more things.

Richard Clarke

"Melted steel" "Freefall" "Saudi stuff" "Richard Clarke" "Can't explain that!" - Alex Jones talking points

You're stating that three massive buildings were "secretly" blown up in broad daylight in the middle of New York.. how was it done? You can't explain it, no one can.

King Mob · 26-01-2020 11:58pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I not dodging.
.

Yes you are dodging.
You have not provided an example of a building that was demolished and fell at freefall. Show this and stop dodging.

King Mob · 27-01-2020 12:03am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

First time in history a fire caused a steel high rise to fully collapse,

First time in history that a demolished building fell at free fall.
First time in history that melted metal was found in a demolished building.

If your argument held and the fire explanation was impossible, then your explanation must also be impossible.

But that would be if your were apolying your logic equally. But you're not, partly because you dont even understand what you are claiming.

Dohnjoe · 27-01-2020 8:00pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

First time in history a fire caused a steel high rise to fully collapse

First time in history skyscrapers were "secretly blown up" by explosives after being rammed by airliners

I have to make the writing big. If something is impossible because "it's the first time it happened", then your conspiracy by that same logic is impossible

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 3:00pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Melted steel" "Freefall" "Saudi stuff" "Richard Clarke" "Can't explain that!" - Alex Jones talking points

You're stating that three massive buildings were "secretly" blown up in broad daylight in the middle of New York.. how was it done? You can't explain it, no one can.

They walked in, planted the materials, and left. Not that hard to figure out.
Just like the official story, nobody in the public knew 19 guys were planning to hijack planes on 9/11. Stuff goes on behind the scenes, all the time, you not privy to every conversation and event thats happens.

King Mob · 28-01-2020 3:02pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They walked in, planted the materials, and left. Not that hard to figure out.

Who walked in and when?
Where did they plant the materials exactly? When did they set them off and how did it cause the collapse?

The amount of questions we can ask you about your theory is staggering, but we all know you'd do nothing but dodge them.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 3:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

Who walked in and when?
Where did they plant the materials exactly? When did they set them off and how did it cause the collapse?

The amount of questions we can ask you about your theory is staggering, but we all know you'd do nothing but dodge them.

Nobody knows, who, when and where the planted the materials.The physical evidence found though after the collapse, supports the controlled demolition hypothesis.

You accept NIST and other engineers opinions about the fire temp or you don't?

NIST sets forth the highest temp inside WTC7 was 600c.

Since melted steel was found here and fire+ sulfur is official explantation.

FEMA claims the temp needed to be 1000c. Fire theory hypothesis short by 500c. Thermal images only show 500c temps at this site. 9/11 Debunkers claim this corrison took place over a numbers of weeks in the rubble, the evidence does not support that conclusion.

Plus FEMA could not identify where the high concentration of sulfur came from that started the melted process. This finding was ignored later by NIST. Sulfur reducing the melting point of A36 by 500c it a big drop down from 1500c to 1000c. I have lot of problems with this theory, as A36 steel has sulfur content, and be surprised if that attacked the steel in a fire.

Melted steel is an identifier to something unusual and rare happened on 9/11- its evidence. Building fires don't normally stray from preconditions that are observed before. The melted steel is rare find, then it needed to be considered in judging what actually happened with the steel structure inside the building.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 3:36pm

King Mob wrote: »

First time in history that a demolished building fell at free fall.
First time in history that melted metal was found in a demolished building.

If your argument held and the fire explanation was impossible, then your explanation must also be impossible.

But that would be if your were apolying your logic equally. But you're not, partly because you dont even understand what you are claiming.

You don't practice any logic.
If you did, you be questioning why the CIA was keeping representatives out of the loop about terrorists entering the United States two years before 9/11!
The fact the CIA rebuffs they had preknowledge of the 9/11 hijackers movements, is a coverup.
It is pure crap- since the intelligences agencies had also this background info about Saudi spies and officials meeting hijackers at hotels, Mosques, and diners in different cities inside the United States.
CIA was well aware the Saudis were helping Al Qeada members years before 9/11.
Bush and his cronies like to pretend they could not imagine an attack inside the country pre 9/11, sure you only believe that if you lack commonsense.

The Nal · 28-01-2020 4:26pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They walked in, planted the materials, and left. Not that hard to figure out.

lol

King Mob · 28-01-2020 5:14pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nobody knows, who, when and where the planted the materials.

So you have no theory and can't even answer basic questions about it.

Therefore your theory is not true.

It also contradicts your claim:

They walked in, planted the materials, and left. Not that hard to figure out.

If it's not hard to figure out, how come no one knows anything about who did it and how?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You don't practice any logic.

I do practice logic.
For example, I am showing how your reasoning is flawed and contradictory.
You keep dodging it because you are dishonest and unable to confront the flaws in your argument and theory.

Your position is that "if you cannot find an example of an event occurring before, then such an event is impossible."
This is derived from your claim that: "It's the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire, therefore it's impossible"

You cannot show any other demolished buildings that fell at free fall speeds.
This is shown to be true.

You cannot show any other demolished buildings that have melted steel.
This is shown to be true.

You cannot show any other building that has been demolished with secret explosives/thermite.
This is shown to be true.

Therefore by your own logic, your theory must be equally impossible.

If this is not the case, please point to the flaw in my logic above?

Any points beyond that will be ignored.
If you don't respond to that very simple question, it will be you admitting that you cannot point to any such flaw and you accept my point.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 6:06pm

King Mob wrote: »

So you have no theory and can't even answer basic questions about it.

Therefore your theory is not true.

It also contradicts your claim:

If it's not hard to figure out, how come no one knows anything about who did it and how?

I do practice logic.
For example, I am showing how your reasoning is flawed and contradictory.
You keep dodging it because you are dishonest and unable to confront the flaws in your argument and theory.

Your position is that "if you cannot find an example of an event occurring before, then such an event is impossible."
This is derived from your claim that: "It's the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire, therefore it's impossible"

You cannot show any other demolished buildings that fell at free fall speeds.
This is shown to be true.

You cannot show any other demolished buildings that have melted steel.
This is shown to be true.

You cannot show any other building that has been demolished with secret explosives/thermite.
This is shown to be true.

Therefore by your own logic, your theory must be equally impossible.

If this is not the case, please point to the flaw in my logic above?

Any points beyond that will be ignored.
If you don't respond to that very simple question, it will be you admitting that you cannot point to any such flaw and you accept my point.

With this Investigation: Have you seen the security/ surveillance control tapes for the days and nights before 9/11?
Since your answer likely no, then nobody can say with certainty no men entered the buildings and planted materials for controlled demolition( yes/no)?

Official story- fire provoked the collapse. There was nobody as far as i know in law enforcement actively running after people who did the controlled demolition. This is not job of truthers to hunt down the people who did it.

The physical evidence found in aftermath of the event, is tanglible, it visual and hands on proof the buildings were demolished by explosives/ nanothermite.

Do we find melted steel in other steel building collapses due to fire?
If you don't what the next option since you claim to apply logic?

I would think we need a controlled demolition expert to answer the free fall question. I don't think they measure rate of fall when there demolishing( i can't find a paper), but make sense to me if they removing column supports and floor layers before onset of full collapse, the building will fall down at freefall speeds. Freefall just means here the upper building support smashing ontop of nothing, there no resistance on the way down to stop/or slow the collapse.

King Mob · 28-01-2020 6:23pm

You haven't answered the question I asked. Stop dodging.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The physical evidence found in aftermath of the event, is tanglible, it visual and hands on proof the buildings were demolished by explosives/ nanothermite.

Cool.
Point to an example of this happening before or just admit you can't/

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do we find melted steel in other steel building collapses due to fire?
If you don't what the next option since you claim to apply logic?

Again, we're discussing your logic here.

Do you admit that you can't provide an example?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I would think we need a controlled demolition expert to answer the free fall question. I don't think they measure rate of fall when there demolishing( i can't find a paper), but make sense to me if they removing column supports and floor layers before onset of full collapse, the building will fall down at freefall speeds.

Again, you have shown a profound ignorance of even the most basic things in science, physics and engineering. For example you didn't know the difference between speed, velocity and acceleration and claimed they were interchangeable. I'm pretty sure you still don't know.
What makes sense to you is worthless.

Either provide an example or admit you can't.

Seriously, stop dodging. You aren't fooling anyone. You know you can't answer.

King Mob · 28-01-2020 6:24pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is not job of truthers to hunt down the people who did it.

Also lol.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 6:35pm

King Mob wrote: »

You haven't answered the question I asked. Stop dodging.

Cool.
Point to an example of this happening before or just admit you can't/

Again, we're discussing your logic here.

Do you admit that you can't provide an example?

Again, you have shown a profound ignorance of even the most basic things in science, physics and engineering. For example you didn't know the difference between speed, velocity and acceleration and claimed they were interchangeable. I'm pretty sure you still don't know.
What makes sense to you is worthless.

Either provide an example or admit you can't.

Seriously, stop dodging. You aren't fooling anyone. You know you can't answer.

First time in history a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
First time we noticed steel had melted after a building collapse due to fire.

Is fire a workable cause- yes or no?
You have not, yet come to terms, that two events happened, never witnessed pre 9/11 and recorded or noticed after 9/11.

This just commonsense rational thinking. You trust in miracles, i don't.

You're an expert dodger and avoid answering questions since I have known you. What you think about me is irrelevant. I just what you to talk about the melted steel and give us a clear explantation how it happened?

You have shown ignorance about things all the time, i really don't care about that, its your lack of honesty when debating that gets me.

King Mob · 28-01-2020 6:36pm

Actually, i'll make it easier and clear for your cheerful. Just answer yes or no.

Can you provide an example of an building destroyed by secret demolition? Yes or no?
Can you provide an example of a demolished building falling at freefall? Yes or no?
Can you provide an example of any destoried building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

Dohnjoe · 28-01-2020 6:37pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nobody knows, who, when and where the planted the materials.

Exactly. No evidence.

The physical evidence found though after the collapse, supports the controlled demolition hypothesis.

No physical evidence found of any explosives.

King Mob · 28-01-2020 6:39pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I just what you to talk about the melted steel and give us a clear explantation how it happened?.

But we have talked about it and explained it to you several times. You ran away and brought up new points when you started to be backed into a corner.

Perhaps if you can answer the above questions with a simple yes or no, then maybe we can try again.

Dohnjoe · 28-01-2020 6:39pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

First time in history a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.

And it's just repeated again. Amazing.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 6:43pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Exactly. No evidence.

No physical evidence found of any explosives.

NIST did not test for explosives or thermite- read their questions and answers page online. How can you find something you don't test for?

Melted steel is evidence of a high temp event.
Truthers found nanothermite material in the dust, explains why steel would be melting.
Another piece of evidence debunkers ignore.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 6:47pm

King Mob wrote: »

But we have talked about it and explained it to you several times. You ran away and brought up new points when you started to be backed into a corner.

Perhaps if you can answer the above questions with a simple yes or no, then maybe we can try again.

Explain in one sentence then not difficult.

Harrit burned red/greys chips at 430c in the calorimeter and when they looked at chips after burn there was balls of Molten Iron.

Explain why that's not evidence of thermatic reaction?

King Mob · 28-01-2020 6:50pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Explain in one sentence then not difficult.

Answer the previous yes or no questions first.

Otherwise I will take it that your answer to all of them is no.

I've been trying to get you to address a single point for upwards of a dozen pages and in that time you've danced and jumped around to all of your talking points so much you've circled around at least twice.

I'm not dodging questions, I'm just trying to get you to focus on one thing.
But I don't think you can.

Dohnjoe · 28-01-2020 6:56pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST did not test for explosives or thermite-

They found no evidence of a blast event, plain and simple

They found no evidence that thermite was used at all

"13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound's thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions."
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

As explained to you, many times, buildings contain compounds that are also found in thermite. Common compounds. You don't want to accept or understand that because it refutes your conspiracy stuff

Dohnjoe · 28-01-2020 6:57pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Explain in one sentence then not difficult.

Harrit burned red/greys chips at 430c in the calorimeter and when they looked at chips after burn there was balls of Molten Iron.

Explain why that's not evidence of thermatic reaction?

No explosives or physical evidence of explosives were found in any of the buildings, there is no credible theory of planted explosives being used on 9/11.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 7:15pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They found no evidence of a blast event, plain and simple

They found no evidence that thermite was used at all

"13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound's thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions."
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

As explained to you, many times, buildings contain compounds that are also found in thermite. Common compounds. You don't want to accept or understand that because it refutes your conspiracy stuff

Looked at the application, not the same as checking for explosives on the steel.

They ruled out thermite based on volumes needed to destroy steel columns. Make sense give them that for thermite.

Truthers have never claimed "thermite" brought down the buildings. They discovered nanothermite- a military use super thermite. We got a unique material here in the WTC dust. It's in form of micro-sized chip, not powder form, and has embedded nano sized chemical particles. Thats nano-engineering.

If truthers claimed thermite brought down the building, i would have problem with this, due to ignite temp to get the ignition started and rate of energy output from the ignition.

Regards the noise, NIST is full of ****. We have CBS video recording of building seven that picked up a loud bang, one second before the roof caved in and Penthouse dropped. Claiming no loud bang was heard is not true.

NIST claimed no steel melted on 9/11 and there lying about that.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 7:23pm

Gypsum wallboard is nonsense. It made of calcium silicate. How can the sulfur separate from the calcium to make pure sulfur? FEMA found no calcium either way.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 7:40pm

King Mob wrote: »

Actually, i'll make it easier and clear for your cheerful. Just answer yes or no.

Can you provide an example of an building destroyed by secret demolition? Yes or no?
Can you provide an example of a demolished building falling at freefall? Yes or no?
Can you provide an example of any destoried building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

Examples would be 9/11. Previous to that i would say no, least to my knowledge.

This freefall question- Would need an controlled demolition expert to confirm. I can not find any paper online where demolition crews wrote about measuring the collapse after taking away the building support structure.

Care to explain why you believe freefall is not feature of a controlled demolition? I gave my reason.

Melting A36 steel found after collapse of steel building due to fire. I never seen examples- i say no.

Cheerful Spring2 · 28-01-2020 7:53pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No explosives or physical evidence of explosives were found in any of the buildings, there is no credible theory of planted explosives being used on 9/11.

See the stuff on chips ( Molten Iron spheres) that's what the R & J lee group claimed they found in the WTC dust.

Burned nanothermite red/grey chips

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

Comments