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

King Mob

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Mob

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Ipso

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

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)

King Mob

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.

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?

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?

King Mob

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.

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.

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?

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. 

King Mob

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?

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?

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

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. 

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 ****

King Mob

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.

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?

King Mob

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Cheerful Spring2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.