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

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful. Change in position means distance traveled.

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


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

Speed: is not distance over time, if you prefer that word.
Speed is distance/ divided by time.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Speed: is not distance over time, if you prefer that word.
Speed is distance/ divided by time.

Lol cheerful, you are just making it worse.

"Over" and "divided by" mean exactly the same thing.

Also when you are saying "divided by" you don't need the additional /.

Your deflection is only making it look more and more like you don't understand children's level physics.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Lol cheerful, you are just making it worse.

"Over" and "divided by" mean exactly the same thing.

Also when you are saying "divided by" you don't need the additional /.

Your deflection is only making it look more and more like you don't understand children's level physics.

Over time, and divided by time, have a different meaning.

Cheerful Spring2

How can you divide when you don't have the hours traveled? t is meaningless for a time calculation

t= what?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Over time, and divided by time, have a different meaning.

Lol, no they don't. At all. You are making things up now.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(mathematics)

Division is most often shown by placing the dividend over the divisor with a horizontal line, also called a vinculum, between them.
...

This can be read out loud as "a divided by b" or "a over b".

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How can you divide when you don't have the hours traveled? t is meaningless for a time calculation

t= what?

That little t means "Time", cheerful.
It doesn't have to be in hours like you seem to thing it does. It can be in seconds.
In most physics stuff, seconds is preferred as that is the standard unit.

What do you mean by: "t is meaningless for a time calculation"?
I don't think you actually know and you are just trying to sound clever.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, no they don't. At all. You are making things up now.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(mathematics)

Stop it is obvious you were talking about distance over time travelled for speed.

You now trying to claim you were doing a division instead. I not buying it.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Stop it is obvious you were talking about distance over time travelled for speed.

You now trying to claim you were doing a division instead. I not buying it.

Lol, what are you talking about?

"Over" and "divided by" mean the same thing.
The link I just provided proves that even though it's common knowledge.

Distance over time traveled is speed.
Distance divided by time traveled is speed.

You are desperate to deflect and you are only making yourself look extremely silly now.

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?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

lol.
Also just noticed.

150 kilometers divided by 6 hours does not equal 25 miles per hour, cheerful.

"25mph an hour" is not a speed either.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

lol.
Also just noticed.

150 kilometers divided by 6 hours does not equal 25 miles per hour, cheerful.

"25mph an hour" is not a speed either.

25+ 25+25+25 = 100
25+25= 150km/hour.

25km/ hour is the time over 6 hours . I put mph instead of km/hour.


Either way, doesn't change divide and over time have different meanings in a sentence.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

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?

Still waiting for the reply to my question from two days ago. Start from there..

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I put mph instead of km/hour

Yes, which is a painfully silly mistake. Among many in that post and among many other mistakes you have made when you attempted to do maths or physics.
This is because you have problems with the basics.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Either way, doesn't change divide and over time have different meanings in a sentence.

But I've shown that they mean the same thing. I providwd you with the link you demanded and quoted exactly where it says this.
Do you disagree with that link?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Still waiting for the reply to my question from two days ago. Start from there..

Which question?
Is it the one about why I don't accept demolished buildings fall at free fall? If so, I have already answered that in full with great detail.

I think you are using this as an excuse to deflect from a point you can't deal with.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, which is a painfully silly mistake. Among many in that post and among many other mistakes you have made when you attempted to do maths or physics.
This is because you have problems with the basics.

But I've shown that they mean the same thing. I providwd you with the link you demanded and quoted exactly where it says this.
Do you disagree with that link?

I use the phone when I Am busy and computer when i have time for typing, so often i make quick posts and mistype something on the phone.
Anyway the speed calculation was correct.

Funny, look at the black sentences you highlighted with the links.  What word do you see there in the sentence was it ‘divide’ or ‘over time? 

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Which question?
Is it the one about why I don't accept demolished buildings fall at free fall? If so, I have already answered that in full with great detail.

I think you are using this as an excuse to deflect from a point you can't deal with.

Post 2364. You said, you'll answer when I gave a yes or no reply to the 4 questions.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I use the phone when I Am busy and computer when i have time for typing, so often i make quick posts and mistype something on the phone.

No. You are still deflecting and avoiding because yet again you've found yourself in a corner, with your lack of knowledge on display.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Anyway the speed calculation was correct.

Which calculation? You've made several, most of which were incorrect, like for example when you didn't know the difference between kilometers and miles.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Funny, look at the black sentences you highlighted with the links.  What word do you see there in the sentence was it ‘divide’ or ‘over time? 

Cheerful, "divide by" and "over" mean the same thing.
I have already provided you a link to show this for a fact.
You are reinventing terms to avoid admitting you are wrong.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Post 2364. You said, you'll answer when I gave a yes or no reply to the 4 questions.

You are now bring up a question from ten pages ago to deflect from the current point.
You have not responded with a yes or no reply to the 3 questions. You went off on a tangent and are now deflecting again.

If you want me to answer your question, supply the yes or no answers directly now.
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?

Just three words. you don't require anything more.

Cheerful Spring2

Kingmob: You have a terrible memory.

You post these links and even highlighted them and pretended they match your position.

Info you posted. Two difference sentences explaining speed and average velocity, with divided in the English sentence. You're guy who gives out when
people don't include proper information.

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:Average velocity is defined to be the change in position (divided) by the time of travel.

Over time has different meaning in English.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

You have not responded with a yes or no reply to the 3 questions. You went off on a tangent and are now deflecting again.

If you want me to answer your question, supply the yes or no answers directly now.
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?

Just three words. you don't require anything more.

You can’t stick to your word.
You said if i answer 4 questions- you’ll answer.
I knew you would not answer; it being like this since i started posting here.
You change the subject and demand everyone else do the talking.
You have limited grasp about the 9/11 subject, reason you keep demanding to know more.
When I try to get you to open up and gave an honest opinion you prefer not to. 
This is your bio of time spend on here. 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob: You have a terrible memory.

Over time has different meaning in English.

Cheerful, I have already shown you this.
"Over" is a very common way to say "divided by" in natural language. This is used all the time.
It is a ubiquitous phrase.

I have also shown you a link that specifically explains this to you.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(mathematics)

Division is most often shown by placing the dividend over the divisor with a horizontal line, also called a vinculum, between them. For example, a divided by b is written
a
---
b

This can be read out loud as "a divided by b" or "a over b".

Do you disagree with this link?

At the same time, I don't know how many times you have incorrectly used the symbol + when you should have said "multiplied by".

The problem here, as with many things is that you simply aren't able to read and write at a very good level.

Your misunderstanding of English and mathematical and other complex terms have lead you down some silly embarrassing conclusions.

You are now clinging to this notion that I am wrong about a commonly used phrased to pretend to not be embarrassed.
It's very silly and a little sad.

You have again avoided answering very simple yes or no questions, because you can't do so honestly.

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 destroyed building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

You just have to type yes or no. Nothing else.

Cheerful Spring2

For you make sense. Other people put divided in the sentence. Even your own links confirm that. If you were teaching a class you have to explain things properly before you start doing calculations which are completely different.  You even said Acceleration was a change in velocity and left it there. How do people follow what you saying- when you did not outline the task and definition?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

For you make sense. Other people put divided in the sentence. Even your own links confirm that. If you were teaching a class you have to explain things properly before you start doing calculations which are completely different. 

The about section makes no sense and I cannot decipher it.
I'm not teaching a class. I made that original comment to other people already familiar with basic physics as you had already left the thread in a strop.

You have claimed that "divided by" and "over" are not the same. But I've given you a link that says explictly that they are the same.
Do you disagree with that link?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You even said Acceleration was a change in velocity and left it there.

That is not what I said. You are once again misrepresenting what I said.

You have also avoided answering simple yes or no questions again.

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 destroyed building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

You just have to type yes or no. Nothing else.
If you deflect again or do not answer with anything other than a yes or no, I will take that as a No to all three questions and continue from there.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

The about section makes no sense and I cannot decipher it.
I'm not teaching a class. I made that original comment to other people already familiar with basic physics as you had already left the thread in a strop.

You have claimed that "divided by" and "over" are not the same. But I've given you a link that says explictly that they are the same.
Do you disagree with that link?


That is not what I said. You are once again misrepresenting what I said.

You have also avoided answering simple yes or no questions again.

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 destroyed building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

You just have to type yes or no. Nothing else.
If you deflect again or do not answer with anything beyond a yes or no, I will take that as a No to all three questions and continue from there.

Are you from the moon? Everyone saw what you posted and you highlighting in black. You have a memory of fish and forget what you post.

Divided was part of the sentence you highlighted. :eek:

Writing ability maybe not great, but totally wrong about my reading ability and comprehension. For me, you don't understand bad science from good science.

Read your last question.

Think about about what your asking!

If melted steel was never found after a local fire that destroyed a building.  Is the controlled demnolition scenario more likely to have caused this or the fire?

Work the scenario, use your brain!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Are you from the moon? Everyone saw what you posted and you highlighting in black. You have a memory of fish and forget what you post.

Divided was part of the sentence you highlighted. :eek:

Writing ability maybe not great, but totally wrong about my reading ability and comprehension. For me, you don't understand bad science from good science.

Cheerful.
"Divided by" and "over" in the context we are discussing mean the same thing.
I have shown this.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(mathematics)

Division is most often shown by placing the dividend over the divisor with a horizontal line, also called a vinculum, between them. For example, a divided by b is written
a
---
b

This can be read out loud as "a divided by b" or "a over b".

Do you believe this link is not correct?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read your last question.

Think about about what your asking!

If melted steel was never found after a local fire that destroyed a building.  Is the controlled demnolition scenario more likely to have caused this or the fire?

Work the scenario, use your brain!

So no to all 3 then. Great.
Therefore you have to conclude the controlled demolition theory is false.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful.


So no to all 3 then. Great.
Therefore you have to conclude the controlled demolition theory is false.

Why you not answering the question? You defend the official account then you need to debate the evidence and prove me wrong.

You accept melted steel was never found after a building collapse before 9/11?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why you not answering the question?

Because if I answered your question you would dodge and deflect like you ahve been doing for the last 170 pages.

You aren't able to answer yes or no questions directly.
You have to constantly lie about what I say.
You immediately abandon topics when it becomes clear you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

If you want me to answer your questions, you have to answer mine with a simple 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 destroyed building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Because if I answered your question you would dodge and deflect like you ahve been doing for the last 170 pages.

You aren't able to answer yes or no questions directly.
You have to constantly lie about what I say.
You immediately abandon topics when it becomes clear you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

If you want me to answer your questions, you have to answer mine with a simple 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 destroyed building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

It a simple question, why is so how hard is for you to explain it?
I gave you my version of what i think happened to the steel.
Debunk away and we debate from there.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It a simple question, why is so how hard is for you to explain it?
I gave you my version of what i think happened to the steel.
Debunk away and we debate from there.

If you want me to answer the question:
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 destroyed building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

If you want me to answer the question:
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 destroyed building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

You’re defending the official explantation for the colapse and you attack me for thinking something else happened to cause the collapse.

We know from a official FEMA study some steel partially melted at all three sites where the buildings collapsed. It is a phenomenon that nobody thought was possible. The expected to find bend steel and steel out of shape, but not steel with chunks taken out of it and steel that had melted.

Melted steel can’t be ignored. Truthers' evidence is finding a super thermite ( nanothermite) in the WTC dust. This is a material that known in science to cause the melting of steel.

Cheerful Spring2

Regards freefall.

Official explantation: In contrast, building implosion techniques do not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to collapse a structure. Instead, the goal is to induce a progressive collapse by weakening or removing critical supports, therefore the building can no longer withstand gravity loads and will fail under its own weight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion


NIST version is the freefall was caused by a fire, thermal expansion/ progressive collapse. Truther believe the supports were removed by explosives/nanothermite.

Crucially and i know i keep saying it, NIST denied free-fall originally on camera. That mistake could be dismissed, if was said early in the study progress, but they said this during the presentation of their draft paper after six years. I don't understand how NIST can turn around and then claim they knew about freefall from the beginning?

This video destroys every statement they made in the revised edition of their report. Listen, carefully to the NIST spokesman deny free fall on camera

If you want to understand why truthers are not believing NIST watch this and learn.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You’re defending the official explantation .

If you want me to answer the question:
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 destroyed building that had melted metal present? Yes or no?

It's not hard to answer these questions. You only have to type yes or no.
Why are you avoiding answering them directly.

Official explantation: In contrast, building implosion techniques do not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to collapse a structure. Instead, the goal is to induce a progressive collapse by weakening or removing critical supports, therefore the building can no longer withstand gravity loads and will fail under its own weight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion

Yes. This is not compatible with the idea of free fall.
Removing or weakening critical supports does not mean removing all supports.

Also, why are you quoting from wikipedia? I quoted from wikipedia to explain why you were wrong about mathematical terminology, yet you ignored that completely and rejected it.
A bit hypocritical.

Cheerful Spring2

In the thread I responded to the three questions.  You have the memory of a fish.

Freefall is a component of a controlled demolition. Freefall happened, even NIST agreed this developed after denying it first and, only
After David Chandler humiliated them at their own press conference in Aug 2008- did they fix the omission, and include Freefall in their new revised final report in Nov 2008. This was the last word from NIST about the collapse. 

For free fall to have ensued, the floors, beams and girders and columns, had to be already gone,  before the onset of full collapse on video. We can see the building still/ motionless on video and then sudden uncontrollable collapse.

This is the catch and you still have not watched the video I provided.
NIST on video (Aug 2008) ruled out free fall because there was structural resistance below that would slow down the collapse of the building! 
NIST on video said free fall was an impossibility as their collapse model showed, a sequence of slow failures across the building was happening and none of their failures are rapid and instant.

NIST never thought freefall was a possible due to fires inside the buildings. The lies they told later are not believeable. 

Cheerful Spring2

Listen to their answer about free fall. There no doubt NIST lied later.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

After David Chandler humiliated them

He didn't humiliate anyone, he's a crank

WTC 7 took awhile to fall. The internals went first, then the out facade came down.

There's no debate. Literally, the only people who don't accept it are internet conspiracy theorists who have no conspiracy.

There isn't any body of experts or scientists or engineers who claim it didn't fall due to fire, but that it wasn't some outlandish conspiracy either

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He didn't humiliate anyone, he's a crank

WTC 7 took awhile to fall. The internals went first, then the out facade came down.

There's no debate. Literally, the only people who don't accept it are internet conspiracy theorists who have no conspiracy.

There isn't any body of experts or scientists or engineers who claim it didn't fall due to fire, but that it wasn't some outlandish conspiracy either

You’re a bad listener. The video has audio and everyone can hear what NIST said in Aug 2008. Watch it, open your ears to facts. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You’re a bad listener. The video has audio and everyone can hear what NIST said in Aug 2008. Watch it, open your ears to facts. 

I've seen it, you literally see and hear things that you clearly don't understand. Like when someone posted a photo in here of a man cutting metal, you saw all sorts of crazy ****.

It's not possible to debate properly with someone who lives in their own reality and has extreme difficulty grasping basic physics and logic

I suggest you open your mind and watch videos like the below instead of nonsense truther videos

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've seen it, you literally see and hear things that you clearly don't understand. Like when someone posted a photo in here of a man cutting metal, you saw all sorts of crazy ****.

It's not possible to debate properly with someone who lives in their own reality and has extreme difficulty grasping basic physics and logic

I suggest you open your mind and watch videos like the below instead of nonsense truther videos

I very much doubt you watched it. NIST ruled out free fall in their own explanation for the collapse in Aug 2008 (fact) You can only come away thinking some else, if you’re a bad listener, or i guess in this case, have blocked out information when does not conform with your own belief?

Man cutting steel? What you on about there?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe: NIST answered the freefall question at 2 minutes and finished up at just after the 4 minute mark. Literally takes two minutes to hear their thoughts.

When you finished, post your explanation with words!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST ruled out free fall in their own explanation for the collapse in Aug 2008 (fact)

No they didn't, you just don't understand the context, therefore inside job. It's a very convenient mechanism to have.

It allows you to maintain an absurd belief and rationalise it with yourself.

If you had a genuine objective interest in the subject there are any number of structural engineering forums or "ask an engineer" type forums you could be using. But that's something that would threaten your belief, so you don't seek it out.

That's the most interesting thing about people with extreme beliefs, the real information and experts are right there for them to check and reference, but they don't. It's almost like deep down they know their beliefs are bull****..

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No they didn't, you just don't understand the context, therefore inside job. It's a very convenient mechanism to have.

It allows you to maintain an absurd belief and rationalise it with yourself.

If you had a genuine objective interest in the subject there are any number of structural engineering forums or "ask an engineer" type forums you could be using. But that's something that would threaten your belief, so you don't seek it out.

That's the most interesting thing about people with extreme beliefs, the real information and experts are right there for them to check and reference, but they don't. It's almost like deep down they know their beliefs are bull****..

What context? Their own calculations ruled out Freefall he even said this on video! And he went further and said, free fall was not expected because there was structural support underneath, and their failures were slow and not instant and rapid across the building. He’s ruling out Freefall at the conference. 
You attack truthers for pointing this out to debunkers? You so convinced that truthers are nuts, you will ignore evidence that supports their case!

Funny when you did not explain, what you think they said on video!

Cheerful Spring2

To listen to two minutes of video, I not demanding a lot. If you disagree about my explanation. Give me your version based on the video and we'll debate from there!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What context? Their own calculations ruled out Freefall he even said this on video!

It's been explained to you concisely and simply many times, but you refuse the explanations. By rejecting explanations it helps you preserve your belief, which is clearly your priority, or you wouldn't be here

"I can't understand X, therefore it must have been an inside job, which is my belief anyway"

It's denialism. That's all you do here, because it is all you can do. Flat earthers do it, they have entire forums dedicated to it

As mentioned if you claimed the Titanic didn't sink due to an iceberg, the first thing people would ask you is, how did it sink. When you can't answer that, and can only engage in denialism, well, they know what's going on. That's what's going on here.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's been explained to you concisely and simply many times, but you refuse the explanations. By rejecting explanations it helps you preserve your belief, which is clearly your priority, or you wouldn't be here

"I can't understand X, therefore it must have been an inside job, which is my belief anyway"

It's denialism. That's all you do here, because it is all you can do. Flat earthers do it, they have entire forums dedicated to it

As mentioned if you claimed the Titanic didn't sink due to an iceberg, the first thing people would ask you is, how did it sink. When you can't answer that, and can only engage in denialism, well, they know what's going on. That's what's going on here.

Another post about nothing.

I provided video evidence with NIST denying free fall. You can continue with these nothing posts, if you like, others can think it cool, to me just shows your brain closed off and you will get on well with the extreme religious zealots

Cheerful Spring2

To listen to two minutes of video, I not demanding a lot. If you disagree about my explanation. Give me your version based on the video and we'll debate from there!

This is a forum to talk about evidence.
You can find a website explaining this, if you finding it difficult to answer?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you disagree about my explanation. Give me your version based on the video and we'll debate from there!

You aren't debating

This is a forum to talk about evidence.

No it isn't. It's a forum that revolves almost entirely around you and your beliefs.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

In the thread I responded to the three questions.  You have the memory of a fish.

. 

No, you haven't.
They are simple yes or no questions and you haven't actually said yes or no. You go of on your usual rants and repeat thr same stuff because you dont want to give the honset answers since they will undermine your position.
The honest answers are all "no".
This is because its the first time in history any of those things have happened. Therefore, the demolition theory must be false according to your logic.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You aren't debating



No it isn't. It's a forum that revolves almost entirely around you and your beliefs.

Not a belief there's evidence. NIST even lied about the noise heard before the collapse. NIST claimed no noise was heard on videotape pre-collapse.

Another lie when everyone can hear the noise, bang, explosion on video.

Echo of the explosion is picked up on mic 1 to 2 seconds.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

No, you haven't.
They are simple yes or no questions and you haven't actually said yes or no. You go of on your usual rants and repeat thr same stuff because you dont want to give the honset answers since they will undermine your position.
The honest answers are all "no".
This is because its the first time in history any of those things have happened. Therefore, the demolition theory must be false according to your logic.

I don’t see how your opinion is logical?

There's only two options here the steel was melted by fire or was melted by something placed in the buildings before the attacks?

Jonathan Cole ( civil engineer)  carried out an experiment and proved fire and building materials did not melt the steel, corrode it or result in erosion. The only option left is somebody placed a melting explosive/ or super thermite in the buildings to have them fall down on 9/11.

We a solid proof of temps at the WTC7 site after collapse. At the lower end 550c and the higher end 600c

Official explantation.
FEMA opinion this melting started when a fire of 1000c was present. They’re also claiming sulfur attacked the steel and reduced the melting point of the carbon-based steel. 

FEMA unable to explain where the pure sulfur came from, suggested further research.  Debunkers came along later and claimed the sulfur was from the gypsum wallboard. Nobody explains how you go about pulling pure sulfur from the calcium silicate/ Gysum wallboard? Jonathan Cole proved this theory to be wrong. 

King Mob

You've yet again failed to answer simple yes or no questions because of your dishonesty.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don’t see how your opinion is logical?
 

Well it's not. I'm just applying your logic fairly.
You can't provide any example of any building being demolished in secret.
You can't provide any example of any building being demolished by thermite.
You can't provide any example of a demolition resulting in melted metal.
You can't provide any example of a demolished building falling at freefall.

So none of these things happened before.
This has been shown by your constant dodging and deflect. These things are facts.

So since it is the first time in history ANY of these things happened, we can conclude that your controlled demolition theory is false.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There's only two options here  

No. There isn't.

We a solid proof of temps at the WTC7 site after collapse. At the lower end 550c and the higher end 600c

Hang on now, you're contradicting yourself. You claimed it was nearly 3000 degrees.
3000 is a bigger number than 600.

Ipso

See everyone in six months.

cj maxx

King Mob wrote: »

You've yet again failed to answer simple yes or no questions because of your dishonesty.

Well it's not. I'm just applying your logic fairly.
You can't provide any example of any building being demolished in secret.
You can't provide any example of any building being demolished by thermite.
You can't provide any example of a demolition resulting in melted metal.
You can't provide any example of a demolished building falling at freefall.

So none of these things happened before.
This has been shown by your constant dodging and deflect. These things are facts.

So since it is the first time in history ANY of these things happened, we can conclude that your controlled demolition theory is false.


No. There isn't.

Hang on now, you're contradicting yourself. You claimed it was nearly 3000 degrees.
3000 is a bigger number than 600.

Sorry for quoting the whole text and I haven't read the whole thread but one thing stands out to me when demolition is mentioned. By memory I'm sure one building was demolished with 1 or 2 days later as it was going to fall. I've googled and googled but I can find which building it was 7,10 ? But it stuck in my mind how they could do it so quickly