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

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But again, you've just shown that your explanation is impossible.
No building has ever been demolished by thermite.

So therefore, it can't have been a controlled demolition.

Why are you arguing against your own logic?

Red/gray chips ignited at 430c. A flame released within the chip above 1500c to 3000c. We recognize this because the burned chips had Iron Microspheres! Iron Microspheres are a byproduct of a thermite reaction.

They're no type of thermite on the market today that ignites at 430c temp. 

So the red/gray chips are unique and clearly engineered substance. 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Red/gray chips ignited... 

Ok Good for you. But you are missing the point.

Your own argument shows that the controlled demolition theory is impossible.

So you should abandon the flawed impossible controlled demolition theory.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Like Dr Judy Wood? :rolleyes:

There 10 authors of Harrit nanothermite paper- 5 are chemists from different countries.

Judy Wood- has no scientific experiments, is all theory.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Harrit is a chemist from Denmark. Who taught at a university.

And? Dr Judy Wood has a PhD in materials science. She thinks secret energy weapons blew up the towers.

Steve Jones

Another truther, he was forced into early retirement by his university

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And? Dr Judy Wood has a PhD in materials science. She thinks secret energy weapons blew up the towers.



Another truther, he was forced into early retirement by his university

AE911 truth members are engineers, architects and scientists, very few members who speak for them are unqualified.

It is amazing that so many people who are qualified about the subject get ignored by the mainstream media. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There 10 authors of Harrit nanothermite paper- 5 are chemists from different countries.

Cool. It's long debunked.

Note how you keep rehashing all this stuff again. It's like you keep hoping you'll come across something that can't be explained (to you) or some obtuse technical question that can't be answered (to your satisfaction)

..therefore conspiracy

But when we ask you what happened, then like Niels, like Jones, like Gage, like anyone in the truth movement, you can't give a credible answer

And when you try to, it's some personally invented made-up stuff

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There 10 authors of Harrit nanothermite paper- 5 are chemists from different countries.

Judy Wood- has no scientific experiments, is all theory.

She has plenty of experiments. More than your pet theory does in fact.
She's also far more qualified than you and a taught at a university.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Cool. It's long debunked.

Note how you keep rehashing all this stuff again. It's like you keep hoping you'll come across something that can't be explained (to you) or some obtuse technical question that can't be answered (to your satisfaction)

..therefore conspiracy

But when we ask you what happened, then like Niels, like Jones, like Gage, like anyone in the truth movement, you can't give a credible answer

And when you try to, it's some personally invented made-up stuff

It is debunked on a forum site by people who are unqualified to judge. You accept the opinion of nameless people on Skeptic forums. 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

AE911 truth members are engineers, architects and scientists, very few members who speak for them are unqualified.

It is amazing that so many people who are qualified about the subject get ignored by the mainstream media. 

All of the people who work for the NIST and other organisations who don't believe the conspiracy theories are also all qualified.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

AE911 truth members are engineers, architects and scientists, very few members who speak for them are unqualified.

As mentioned so many times before, they are a collection of internet people in self-professed related fields. In 18 years they haven't produced a credible theory between them.

They and their pseudo-science have been disowned by proper groups representing 10's of thousands and 100's of thousands of experts

You keep rehashing the same truther talking points again and again. Almost like you believe claiming 2 + 2 = 5 enough times will eventually make it true.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

All of the people who work for the NIST and other organisations who don't believe the conspiracy theories are also all qualified.

NIST has never released their finite element data for any of the buildings collapses on 9/11. 
NIST has never debated their findings with anyone.
It just here is what we assume happened, and then they disappeared

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST has never released their finite element data for any of the buildings collapses on 9/11. 
NIST has never debated their findings with anyone.
It just here is what we assume happened, and then they disappeared

Lol.
This is getting a bit silly now.

You are dismissing thousands of qualified people based on nothing.
That's very hypocritical and it's another case of your own arguments debunking themselves.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As mentioned so many times before, they are a collection of internet people in self-professed related fields. In 18 years they haven't produced a credible theory between them.

They and their pseudo-science have been disowned by proper groups representing 10's of thousands and 100's of thousands of experts

You keep rehashing the same truther talking points again and again. Almost like you believe claiming 2 + 2 = 5 enough times will eventually make it true.

They're concerned professionals who gathered together to oppose the findings of NIST.
This what science it supposed to be all about. Unfortunately, one side refuses to give up their work for critical analysis and inspection.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They're concerned professionals who gathered together to oppose the findings of NIST.
This what science it supposed to be all about. Unfortunately, one side refuses to give up their work for critical analysis and inspection.

But cheerful, we've been over this.

The NIST's work has been peer reviewed.
You don't understand what peer review means or how any part of science works.

Why are you just spewing out the same old points again and again?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
This is getting a bit silly now.

You are dismissing thousands of qualified people based on nothing.
That's very hypocritical and it's another case of your own arguments debunking themselves.

You think it's unimportant. This was first structural failure of steel building in history because of fire it alleged.
NIST has decided to not release any of their work, for professionals engineers and architects around the world to check and verify. 

You think i am silly?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST has never released their finite element data for any of the buildings collapses on 9/11. 
NIST has never debated their findings with anyone.
It just here is what we assume happened, and then they disappeared

lol, the investigation concluded that the buildings fell due to fire after terrorist attacks. The insurance investigations concluded the same. And all that was in line with the previous investigation AND the FBI investigation. Which is backed by the forensic investigation into the Pentagon crash. Most of what happened was pieced together within days of the event. The perpetrators within weeks/months. It wasn't some mystery.

Yet you keep trying to turn the whole thing into a "mystery", to discredit history, so you can insert your vapid fantasy "controlled demolition" narratives that you can never detail

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You think i am silly?

I think your points and theory are very silly.
I think your arguments are poorly constructed and based more on you misunderstanding science and repeating points you learned from youtube and conspiracy sites.

I also think it's both silly and funny that your own arguments can be turned around to debunk themselves.
I don't know if this is because you are a massive unabashed hypocrite or because you don't understand it.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But cheerful, we've been over this.

The NIST's work has been peer reviewed.
You don't understand what peer review means or how any part of science works.

Why are you just spewing out the same old points again and again?

It was peer reviewed study by ASCE journal.
ASCE was involved in the official study of 9/11.
NIST released no data for any of the work to be checked.
Anyone can write a scientific paper, but if data can't be checked, it is worthless.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST has decided to not release any of their work, for professionals engineers and architects around the world to check and verify. 

You think i am silly?

It's been peer-reviewed. It's conclusions have been corroborated by other independent investigations. This has been explained to you multiple times on this forum.

Yet here you are again, bringing up the same broken arguments. In the third or fourth reincarnation of your nickname.

Of course this is a 9/11 conspiracy debate. They are all like this.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It was peer reviewed study by ASCE journal.
ASCE was involved in the official study of 9/11.
NIST released no data for any of the work to be checked.
Anyone can write a scientific paper, but if data can't be checked, it is worthless.

Again, as I said, you don't understand how science, scientific papers or peer review work.

You are again dismissing thousands of people all much much more qualified than you.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

I think your points and theory are very silly.
I think your arguments are poorly constructed and based more on you misunderstanding science and repeating points you learned from youtube and conspiracy sites.

I also think it's both silly and funny that your own arguments can be turned around to debunk themselves.
I don't know if this is because you are a massive unabashed hypocrite or because you don't understand it.

You don't seem to understand how science truly works. Nobody should accept a new paradigm shift when they're no data accessible. NIST claim is fire contributed to the building coming down first time in history. Declining to release the data, then it's obvious they not confident their claims are true and they're likely flaws to be found with the work.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You don't seem to understand how science truly works. .

No, I do. I also have a pretty good grasp of basic math and physics.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST claim is fire contributed to the building coming down first time in history.

And your claim is that it's the first time any building has been destroyed by a secret nanothermite demolition.
Therefore your theory is impossible.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Declining to release the data, then it's obvious they not confident their claims are true and they're likely flaws to be found with the work.

But that's not true. It's been peer reviewed. If there were flaws in the work, the peer review would have caught it.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

No, I do. I also have a pretty good grasp of basic math and physics.


And your claim is that it's the first time any building has been destroyed by a secret nanothermite demolition.
Therefore your theory is impossible.


But that's not true. It's been peer reviewed. If there were flaws in the work, the peer review would have caught it.

There perhaps hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects around the world. Not one of them can go online now and connect and access the work NIST did here over six years.  That's unscientific.   It's NIST saying trust us, we did everything by the book, but if you want to see our work, you can **** off. 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There perhaps hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects around the world. Not one of them can go online now and connect and access the work NIST did here over six years.  That's unscientific.   It's NIST saying trust us, we did everything by the book, but if you want to see our work, you can **** off. 

But that's not an accurate account of the real situation.

This is your rather silly interpretation of the situation based off what you have read on the internet and never questioned.
It is also based on your lack of understanding of science and peer review.
It is also partly based on your poor reading ability that lead you to misinterpret various statements made.
On top of this, you have continued to change and twist your interpretation over time to become more extreme and less connected to reality.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not an accurate account of the real situation.

This is your rather silly interpretation of the situation based off what you have read on the internet and never questioned.
It is also based on your lack of understanding of science and peer review.
It is also partly based on your poor reading ability that lead you to misinterpret various statements made.
On top of this, you have continued to change and twist your interpretation over time to become more extreme and less connected to reality.

Accurate- NIST letter. They declined to release about 85 per cent of the data, all the important stuff. Continue to believe whatever you like.

NIST letter you find click the link
https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/nist070709.pdf

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There perhaps hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects around the world.

There are millions. And out of them only 3,000 have signed up to an internet petition over 18 years. I wonder how many have simply forgotten to take their names off that.

9/11 a bunch of terrorists flew planes into buildings

You can't refute it and you can't explain otherwise in any plausible way. The only thing you have power over in the debate is endless denial.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Accurate- NIST letter. They declined to release about 85 per cent of the data, all the important stuff. Continue to believe whatever you like.

You are being disingenuous again.
Again, this is because you don't understand science, peer review and also have trouble with reading comprehension.
For example, no where in that letter does it say that the NIST did not provide the data to the peer review participants.

This has been explained to you many times before.

You are again just spewing out the same tired old factoids like a bot with little or no actual engagement.
Maybe you should consider a blog where you can post all of this as you like without people to question you.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

You are being disingenuous again.
Again, this is because you don't understand science, peer review and also have trouble with reading comprehension.

This has been explained to you many times before.

You are again just spewing out the same tired old factoids like a bot with little or no actual engagement.
Maybe you should consider a blog where you can post all of this as you like without people to question you.

You just twist and make up stuff.

This is the letter from NIST. I let others make up their own minds, was i right or wrong about NIST not releasing data.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You just twist and make up stuff.]

What did I twist?
What did I make up?
Where in that letter does it say that they didn't or wouldn't provide the data to the people doing the peer review?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

What did I twist?
What did I make up?
Where in that letter does it say that they didn't or wouldn't provide the data to the people doing the peer review?

The letter says they're not going to make the data available. Giving data to their friends is not good enough.
Hulsey released a draft of report + 600 gigs of data files, calculations, and the modelling he did.