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

Cheerful Spring2

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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

lol

King Mob

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

Also lol.

Cheerful Spring2

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

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

And it's just repeated again. Amazing.

Cheerful Spring2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring2

Jonathan Cole tried to melt steel with diesel fuel and fire for 24 hours and with gypsum wallboard added in.

Nothing happened to the steel. This test disproves the official story, and the only video, ever released that replicated the fire conditions for the Twin Towers. Never challenged by the debunkers.

This is a valid experiment to test the FEMA hypothesis

Jonathan Cole- Eutectic steel test.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Jonathan Cole tried to melt steel with diesel fuel and fire for 24 hours

Lol, why?

The buildings fell due to weakened steel and thermal expansion. Steel is vulnerable to fire.

Any youtube videos demonstrating how "thermite" can destroy a steel framed building from the top down in seconds?

Thats right there isn't. Has it ever happened before? nope. Therefore according to your logic, it's impossible

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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. 

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

Ok, so you cannot provide any examples.
So you must conclude that it is the first time in history these things happened. Yes or no?

I don't believe that demolished buildings fall at free fall because I have no reason to. It seems to be an invention of conspiracy theorists and conspiracy peddlers.
You are claiming that its so based on your assumptions.
However your description of how controlled demolition works is not accurate and not compatible with your other claims about how the towers fell. On top of this, we've seen time and again that you don't know anything about physics or engineering. For example you can't explain the difference between speed, velocity and acceleration and claimed they were interchangeable. Therefore your presumption about free fall is worthless.
You must either provide something solid from a repuatable source that confirms demolished buildings fall at freefall. Otherwise you have to admit that you can't and conclude that 9/11 was the first time in history such a thing happened.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so you cannot provide any examples.
So you must conclude that it is the first time in history these things happened. Yes or no?

I don't believe that demolished buildings fall at free fall because I have no reason to. It seems to be an invention of conspiracy theorists and conspiracy peddlers.
You are claiming that its so based on your assumptions.
However your description of how controlled demolition works is not accurate and not compatible with your other claims about how the towers fell. On top of this, we've seen time and again that you don't know anything about physics or engineering. For example you can't explain the difference between speed, velocity and acceleration and claimed they were interchangeable. Therefore your presumption about free fall is worthless.
You must either provide something solid from a repuatable source that confirms demolished buildings fall at freefall. Otherwise you have to admit that you can't and conclude that 9/11 was the first time in history such a thing happened.

Proof: Steel partly disappeared and evaporated (melted) and everybody can look at this phenomenon with their own eyes online. I have presented some pictures.
 
Jonathan Cole carried out a science experiment to investigate the FEMA official explanation and he convincingly showed fire+ gypsum wallboard, and other building materials did not erode, corrode or melt the steel!

If fire and construction/building materials did not melt the steel- what you left with as an excuse to solve the melted steel?

Thermal expansion is a theory NIST came up with on their own. They detected no evidence the steel expanded in a fire. 

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so you cannot provide any examples.
So you must conclude that it is the first time in history these things happened. Yes or no?

I don't believe that demolished buildings fall at free fall because I have no reason to. It seems to be an invention of conspiracy theorists and conspiracy peddlers.
You are claiming that its so based on your assumptions.
However your description of how controlled demolition works is not accurate and not compatible with your other claims about how the towers fell. On top of this, we've seen time and again that you don't know anything about physics or engineering. For example you can't explain the difference between speed, velocity and acceleration and claimed they were interchangeable. Therefore your presumption about free fall is worthless.
You must either provide something solid from a repuatable source that confirms demolished buildings fall at freefall. Otherwise you have to admit that you can't and conclude that 9/11 was the first time in history such a thing happened.

See once again you confirm my point. Avoided or decline to answer my question.
There speculation FSB in Russia blew up apartment blocks late 90s and other buildings to allow Putin to gain power in Russia . Example i have off the top of my head.

If you look up freefall, 9/11 stuff is all you can discover. 
Have you evidence freefall is not a component of controlled demolition?
You denying it so down to you to disprove the claim!

If i remember correct i did not acknowledge your  deflection. You composed three lines about what speed, velocity and acceleration meant. You got it backwards and mixed up. 

Velocity is not position/ correct term is displacement over a period of time. 
Speed is the distance divided by time/   not position over time like you said.
Speed and Velocity= motion, just Velocity a direction you head to at speed.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Proof: Steel partly disappeared and evaporated (melted) and everybody can look at this phenomenon with their own eyes online. I have presented some pictures.

haha!

Down the rabbit hole we go

Jonathan Cole carried out a science experiment to investigate the FEMA official explanation and he convincingly showed fire+ gypsum wallboard, and other building materials did not erode, corrode or melt the steel!

It's not a science experiment, it's some truther on youtube who doesn't understand simple scientific fundamentals. Like the difference between melting steel and weakening steel.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

controlled demolition

What "controlled demolition"?

You keep going on and on about it, yet when anyone asks you deflect or evade or Alex Jones it every time.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

haha!

Down the rabbit hole we go



It's not a science experiment, it's some truther on youtube who doesn't understand simple scientific fundamentals. Like the difference between melting steel and weakening steel.

Jonathan Cole job is a Civil Engineer. Qualified person to do an experiment?
What rabbit hole, are you on about?
 FEMA established there melted steel at ground zero. You still can't accept that's true and wonder why?

In clear language, describe what you see here in the picture. Is this a WTC7 partially melted steel column/ beam or weakened steel column/ beam?



I never told you all the steel melted. Some steel just gave away when the collapse began.

The rare phenomenon- melted steel was forgotten by NIST and officially FEMA before NIST did their study, stated the phenomenon began in a 1000c fire with sulfur attacking the steel.

Jonathan Cole prepared an experiment with the same fire conditions at the towers on 9/11 and let it burn for 24 hours.  He discovered there was no holes in the steel or any melting there after 24 hours. This video was made a decade ago and nobody from 9/11 debunker side, has shown his claim to be false with further evidence. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Jonathan Cole job is a Civil Engineer.

He's a 9/11 truther

 FEMA established there melted steel at ground zero.

Nah. You keep distorting and twisting things in order to imply that there was melted steel that was somehow created by your imaginary burning thermite stuff

Then in another post you'll suddenly claim there were explosives

It's like the Pentagon, it wasn't a plane, then it was

You chop and change because it's all an invention. The more you post here, anything, even nonsensical, the more "real" it becomes to you

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

See once again you confirm my point. Avoided or decline to answer my question.

But I directly and clearly answered your question.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There speculation FSB in Russia blew up apartment blocks late 90s and other buildings to allow Putin to gain power in Russia . Example i have off the top of my head.

Speculation is not evidence.

Please show an example you can demonstrate is real.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you look up freefall, 9/11 stuff is all you can discover. 
Have you evidence freefall is not a component of controlled demolition?

Yes. My evidence is that when you look up freefall and controlled demoliton you can only see claims made by conspiracy theorists.
If demolished buildings fell at free fall, then there would be some reference to this somewhere from a reputable source. But there isn't. If there were, you guys would be waving it around all the time.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You denying it so down to you to disprove the claim!

Thats the exact opposite of how the burden of proof works.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If i remember correct i did not acknowledge your  deflection. You composed three lines about what speed, velocity and acceleration meant. You got it backwards and mixed up. 

Velocity is not position/ correct term is displacement over a period of time. 
Speed is the distance divided by time/   not position over time like you said.

Thats not what I said. Why are you lying?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Speed and Velocity= motion, just Velocity a direction you head to at speed.

Not exactly accurate but close enough.
So whats acceleration and why did you claim that it was the same as speed?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Proof: Steel partly disappeared and evaporated (melted)

Evaporate does not mean melt.

The evapouration point of steel is 2856 °C.
Are you now saying that the tempuratures were that high?
Or did you just not know what evaporate means?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He's a 9/11 truther



Nah. You keep distorting and twisting things in order to imply that there was melted steel that was somehow created by your imaginary burning thermite stuff

Then in another post you'll suddenly claim there were explosives

It's like the Pentagon, it wasn't a plane, then it was

You chop and change because it's all an invention. The more you post here, anything, even nonsensical, the more "real" it becomes to you

Which facts am i twisting and distorting?
I have given you,  FEMA steel study, read it.

1) Do you disagree about the intergranular melting?
2) There was no mixture of Iron and Sulfur forming during the hot temp attack?

This is a necessary exercise for me to find out what you think!

Regards the Pentagon attack, going to chop and change again.

Did some new work on this over the Christmas. I judge both sides are wrong. Both sides are wrong about the airplane location on 9/11. I  listened carefully to every interview and plotted their location, on the day, on a map, each person/eyewitness. 

The plane right wing hit light poles based on maps I have now studied. The airplane, came over the top of the Navy Annex roof, and flew over the top of the fuel station ( left-wing was out to the northeast of fuel station) and right wing( to the southwest of the fuel station) plane dropped and hit the Pentagon. The FAA/ Radar video animation is accurate for position, the attitude, of the plane is the only error, i found.

Problem
Official account: the airplane did not come over the top of the navy annex, it came down straight along Washington Blvd ( southwest) and hit the Pentagon. The left wing would have hit the poles travelling this direction. 

CIT version/truther version- there plane near the cemetery at Arlington no light poles hit. 

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Evaporate does not mean melt.

The evapouration point of steel is 2856 °C.
Are you now saying that the tempuratures were that high?
Or did you just not know what evaporate means?

Yes its possible.
Jonathan Cole experiment demonstrated the fire+ sulfur explanation did not disintegrate the steel beam.  This was a fuel-fed/ fire over a long period of time 24 hours. Second tower on 9/11 collapsed in 40 minutes after plane impact.
I open the steel got blasted with temps above 1500c.
Watch the video, the fire conditions and building materials all match.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes its possible..

Cheerful, you are now claiming that the steel turned into a gas and that the tenpuratures were nearly 3000 degrees.
That's silly.

Just admit the truth that you made a mistake when you said "evaporate" because you didnt realise what it meant.
Dont event a whole new aspect to your conspiracy theory to cover your incompetence.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But I directly and clearly answered your question.

Speculation is not evidence.

Please show an example you can demonstrate is real.

Yes. My evidence is that when you look up freefall and controlled demoliton you can only see claims made by conspiracy theorists.
If demolished buildings fell at free fall, then there would be some reference to this somewhere from a reputable source. But there isn't. If there were, you guys would be waving it around all the time.

Thats the exact opposite of how the burden of proof works.



Thats not what I said. Why are you lying?


Not exactly accurate but close enough.
So whats acceleration and why did you claim that it was the same as speed?

No- you never answered the question.
Read up about it. FSB operatives were caught planting bombs in one of the apartment blocks. They claimed it was an exercise and was forgotten about. 

Ryazan incident- Read that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

You claim the truthers are wrong.  So Why is there no 9/11 debunkers  posts/ blogs online disputing the freefall?

I have no time to go look up what you said, but i certain you said position over time and change of position over time. Either way, doesn't matter, you can claim i am lying. 

I said scientists use acceleration and speed to do a Kinematic equation. 

speed+ velocity= v and acceleration= GT. There motion changes.

Acceleration is a change in velocity in time. 

Speed is a not affected by direction.
Velocity is a direction/ displacement.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, you are now claiming that the steel turned into a gas and that the tenpuratures were nearly 3000 degrees.
That's silly.

Just admit the truth that you made a mistake when you said "evaporate" because you didnt realise what it meant.
Dont event a whole new aspect to your conspiracy theory to cover your incompetence.

This the theory in the truther community.

Q: How hot can office fires get?
A: Never above 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Q: How hot can fires from burning jet fuel get?
A: Never above 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Q: How hot does steel have to get in order to melt?
A: Over 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Q: How hot would the steel beams and girders in the three World Trade Center buildings have had to get in order to get the steel to boil and then evaporate holes in the metal on 9/11/2001?
A: Over 5,182 degrees Fahrenheit.

Federal Grand Jury Petition
Filed for New 9/11 Investigation

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

No- you never answered the question.

Where question are you efering to?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read up about it. FSB operatives were caught planting bombs in one of the apartment blocks. They claimed it was an exercise and was forgotten about. 

Ryazan incident- Read that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

Again speculation is not evidence.
Also were these apartment buildings steel frammed skyscrapers?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You claim the truthers are wrong.  So Why is there no 9/11 debunkers  posts/ blogs online disputing the freefall?

There is. You are looking at them now.

Why can you not find any references to demolished buildings falling at freefall from repuatable sources?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have no time to go look up what you said, but i certain you said position over time and change of position over time. Either way, doesn't matter, you can claim i am lying.

You are lying and misrepresenting what I said.
You are now also lying about what you said a few posts ago.
Also now I am starting to think you dont know what "displacement" is. Define it please.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I said scientists use acceleration and speed to do a Kinematic equation. 

speed+ velocity= v and acceleration= GT. There motion changes.

These sentances make no sense.
And you are using the wrong letters in the equation.
I love it when you try to sound like you understand this stuff. It's wrong on so many levels and on the most basic stuff.
It's hilarious.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Acceleration is a change in velocity in time. 

Almost correct. The term "in time" makes no sense.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Velocity is a direction/ displacement.

That is not accurate.

Again. Hilarious.

Anyway before you try to deflect further, the point still remains that you logic is flawed and contradictory.
According to your claims 9/11 is the first time a skyscraper was demolished in secret.
It was the first time thermite was used.
It wss the first time melted steel was found in a demolition. (Also now gasous steel I guess.)
It was the first time a demolished building fell at free fall.

Your argument is that because it is also (supposedly) the first time a steel framed building fell due to fire, such a thing is impossible.

So either you have to conclude that your theory is impossible, or your arguement doesn't hold up.
Which is it?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This the theory in the truther community.

A: Over 5,182 degrees Fahrenheit.

Ah. I didnt realise they were that silly.

Cheerful Spring2

I have to work, early in the morning, so have not got time to address your nonsense.

Acceleration is a change in velocity+ change in time. You would say its change over time. You disagree about that. I just understand physics unlike you.

You don't understand the basics of free fall if you think the symbols are wrong.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have to work, early in the morning, so have not got time to address your nonsense.

Acceleration is a change in velocity+ change in time. You would say its change over time. You disagree about that. I just understand physics unlike you.

Cheerful, acceleration is not "change in velocity+ change in time."
That is the incorrect definition.
The "+" is not correct and the "change in time" is not correct.
I think this is your poor reading and writing skills coming into effect to prove my point.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You don't understand the basics of free fall if you think the symbols are wrong.

They are wrong.
Capital G is not the symbol for gravitional acceleration. It's a lower case g.
The symbol for time is not uppercase T, it's lower case t.
Saying "acceleration=gt" is not correct either, as this means "acceleration is equal to gravitational accleration multiplied by time." This is not true and it is not a valid equation.
"gt" is an term that will give you the change in velocity over the given time of an object falling under gravitational acceleration.

Capital G is the universal gravitational constant.
Capital T is either tempurature or the period of a cycle.

Again this is all first year secondary school physics and algebra.

So since you don't have a grasp on the most basic level of physics, I don't think your assumptions about something complex like the physics of a collasping building are good assumptions. And since you can't show anything else at all besides those bad assumptions to support the idea, I don't believe the claim that demolished buildings fall at freefall.

Thus we have to conclude that 9/11 was also the first time in history that a building fell at freefall.
Which therefore means the controlled demolition idea is impossible, according to your own logic.

Cheerful Spring2

I had to investigate and identify what you wrote. I was not mistaken or lying.
Your post. 



Acceleration is a change in velocity over a change in time. If you believe this wrong, prove it. 

"Speed is a not change in position over time"

Correct version Speed is the (equal) distance divided by time.

"Velocity is not a position over time in a specific direction"

Correct way to say is -  Velocity is the displacement that changes with time and 'over time is acceptable language.

I never claimed my English great.  You, write better than I, even so you have shown that you can debate or answer questions.  Most of your posts are about nothing. You just attack what posters say and then go from there, but when we try to involve you in debate you ignore us. You prefer to isolate yourself from debating. 

I not doing a test here, to put lower case letters for your benefit. 
Freefall v= gt 
A is symbol for ( acceleration)= g (rate of acceleration) because the object is accelerating in the vertical direction (downward)  Rate of acceleration for us 9.8m/s 2
t= time
V- speed
V- can be used for speed and velocity. 
g is the rate of acceleration due to gravity (9.8m/s 2)
 Any Change with Velocity you then accelerating.

Cheerful Spring2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

I think the evidence overwhelming the Russian FSB did the bombings to elect Putin and start a war in Chechnya. FSB carried out many attacks, and they overdid it and got caught.

info-

At 19:00, Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan, and called for the air bombing of the Chechen capital Grozny in response to the terrorism acts. He said

“ If the sacks which proved to contain explosive were noticed, that means there is a positive side to it, if only the fact that the public is reacting correctly to the events taking place in our country today. I'd like ...to thank the public... No panic, no sympathy for the bandits.
................................


In September 23 Natalia Yukhnova, a telephone service employee in Ryazan, tapped into a suspicious phone call to Moscow and overheard the following instruction: "Leave one at a time, there are patrols everywhere".

The called number was traced to a telephone exchange unit serving FSB offices.] When arrested, the detainees produced FSB identification cards. They were soon released on orders from Moscow.
On 24 September, FSB director Nikolai Patrushev announced that it was an exercise that was being carried out to test responses after the earlier blasts. The Ryazan FSB "reacted with fury" and issued a statement saying:"This announcement came as a surprise to us and appeared at the moment when the ...FSB had identified the places of residence in Ryazan of those involved in planting the explosive device and was prepared to detain them." FSB also issued a public apology about the incident. In a live show on NTV Evgeniy Savostoyanov, former FSB director in Moscow, categorically denied that any such exercise could be performed on residential buildings with inhabitants inside and without notifying local authorities.

the position of Russian authorities on the Ryazan incident changed significantly over time. Initially, it was declared by the FSB and federal government to be a real threat. However, after the people who planted the bomb were identified as FSB operatives, the official version changed to “security training”.[58] FSB also initially reported that the explosives used by the terrorists was RDX (or “hexogen”). However, it declared later that the explosive was not RDX, but a mixture of aluminium powder, nitre (saltpeter), sugar and TNT prepared by the perpetrators in a concrete mixer at a fertiliser factory in Urus-Martan, Chechnya.[59][60] RDX is produced in only one factory in Russia, in the city of Perm.[22] According to David Satter, the FSB changed the story about the type of explosive, since it was difficult to explain how huge amounts of RDX disappeared from the closely guarded Perm facility.

Yuri Tkachenko, the police explosives expert who defused the Ryazan bomb, insisted that it was real. Tkachenko said that the explosives, including a timer, a power source, and a detonator were genuine military equipment and obviously prepared by a professional. He also said that the gas analyser that tested the vapours coming from the sacks unmistakably indicated the presence of RDX. Tkachenko said that it was out of the question that the analyser could have malfunctioned, as the gas analyser was of world-class quality, cost $20,000, and was maintained by a specialist who worked according to a strict schedule, checking the analyser after each use and making frequent prophylactic checks. Tkachenko pointed out that meticulous care in the handling of the gas analyser was a necessity because the lives of the bomb squad experts depended on the reliability of their equipment. The police officers who answered the original call and discovered the bomb also insisted that it was obvious from its appearance that the substance in the bomb was not sugar. However, later at a press conference on the occasion of the Federal Security Service Employee Day in December 2001, Tkachenko denounced his previous conclusions and said the detonator was a hunting cartridge that it would not be able to detonate any known explosives.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I had to investigate and identify what you wrote. I was not mistaken or lying.
Your post. 

You were lying.

You said:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If i remember correct i did not acknowledge your  deflection. You composed three lines about what speed, velocity and acceleration meant. You got it backwards and mixed up. 

Velocity is not position/ correct term is displacement over a period of time. 
Speed is the distance divided by time/   not position over time like you said.
Speed and Velocity= motion, just Velocity a direction you head to at speed.

Which is clearly not what I said. You lied.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Acceleration is a change in velocity over a change in time. If you believe this wrong, prove it. 

It's not a change in time.
And you originally said that it was change in velocity plus change in time.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

"Speed is a not change in position over time"

Correct version Speed is the (equal) distance divided by time.

"Velocity is not a position over time in a specific direction"

Correct way to say is -  Velocity is the displacement that changes with time and 'over time is acceptable language.

Cheerful, none of these make any sense and it's impossible to decipher.

And again, I don't think you know what displacement means.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I never claimed my English great.  You, write better than I, even so you have shown that you can debate or answer questions.  Most of your posts are about nothing. You just attack what posters say and then go from there, but when we try to involve you in debate you ignore us. You prefer to isolate yourself from debating. 

My point is that because your English isn't good and you have have poor reading and writing comprehension, it's leading you to make poor conclusions.
You are misinterpreting statements and complex sentences because you don't actually know what they mean.
You are misusing terms because you don't know what they mean.

You then compound this issue by stretching things even further rather than just considering that maybe you did just misunderstand or don't understand.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I not doing a test here, to put lower case letters for your benefit. 

It's not for my benefit. I'm just highlighting your lack of knowledge.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Freefall v= gt 

That's not what you previously claimed. You claimed that acceleration=GT.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A is symbol for ( acceleration)=

It's not. It's little a.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

 Rate of acceleration for us 9.8m/s 2

And again, you are using inaccurate notation.
It's 9.8m/s^2. Or 9.8ms^-1/2. Or 9.8 metres per second squared.
Or you use superscript, which I haven't bothered to look up how to do here.

"9.8m/s 2" as you type it is wrong as that means: 9.8 metres per second multiplied by 2.


Again, you are just hammering home your lack of knowledge.
Thus, using your own authority to insist that demolished buildings fall at freefall is ridiculous.
Thus, you have nothing to show that they do so.
Thus, 9/11 must be the first time it happened in history.
Thus by your logic, it is impossible and your theory is false.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

I think the evidence overwhelming the Russian FSB ....


Blah blah blah

You are now throwing out a new topic to deflect because you are once again embarrassed and pissed off that you've shown off your ignorance.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

You are now throwing out a new topic to deflect because you are once again embarrassed and pissed off that you've shown off your ignorance.

You post everyone can see. You don't know what, speed, acceleration and velocity is that obvious.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You post everyone can see. You don't know what, speed, acceleration and velocity is that obvious.

And now you are just mirroring things because you can't actually respond.
You have shown profound ignorance in physics and math cheerful.

But the point remains that 9/11 is the first time in history that a demolished building fell at freefall.
Therefore it's impossible.

Stop avoiding that point.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

And now you are just mirroring things because you can't actually respond.
You have shown profound ignorance in physics and math cheerful.

But the point remains that 9/11 is the first time in history that a demolished building fell at freefall.
Therefore it's impossible.

Stop avoiding that point.

Seems you cannot notice the errors in your posts. I have no comprehension issues you do. 
Show us where speed defined as a "change in position over time? An online site will do. Just an example? 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Seems you cannot notice the errors in your posts. I have no comprehension issues you do. 
Show us where speed defined as a "change in position over time? An online site will do. Just an example? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed

In everyday use and in kinematics, the speed of an object is the magnitude of its velocity (the rate of change of its position); it is thus a scalar quantity.[1] The average speed of an object in an interval of time is the distance travelled by the object divided by the duration of the interval;[2] the instantaneous speed is the limit of the average speed as the duration of the time interval approaches zero.

https://physics.info/velocity/

Don't like symbols? Well then, here's another way to define speed. Speed is the rate of change of distance with time.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/displacement-velocity-time/a/what-is-displacement
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/displacement-velocity-time/a/what-is-velocity

Displacement is defined to be the change in position of an object.

Your notion of velocity is probably similar to its scientific definition. You know that a large displacement in a small amount of time means a large velocity and that velocity has units of distance divided by time, such as miles per hour or kilometers per hour.
Average velocity is defined to be the change in position divided by the time of travel.

You are welcome to explain the errors in my posts, but I believe this would just result in more embarrassment on your part.
You are also still deflecting.

The point remains that 9/11 is the first time in history that a demolished building fell at freefall.
Therefore it's impossible.

Stop avoiding that point.

Cheerful Spring2

Kingmob stop embarrassing yourself.

Change in position over time, is what you said.

To calculate speed, you must calculate distance traveled and "divide" it by the hours travelled to get your speed

If you traveled 150km/hour and took 6 hours= Your speed is 25mph an hour.

Position change over time does not tell me what you speed was.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob stop embarrassing yourself.

Change in position over time, is what you said.

To calculate speed, you must calculate distance traveled and "divide" it by the hours travelled to get your speed

Cheerful. "Change in position" means "distance traveled". They are the same thing.
Also, you don't divide by "hours" you divide by time. Speed can be expressed in other units beyond miles per hour.

I provided you SEVERAL websites that directly state what you asked for.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you traveled 150km/hour and took 6 hours= Your speed is 25mph an hour.

150km/hour is a speed, not a distance cheerful.
That little slash means "per hour."

Again, you are making a show of yourself and proving my point.

If you would like we can move on.
Since we now know that 9/11 was the first time in history a demolished building fell at free fall, do you now agree that your demolition theory is false?