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

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

The FBI examined the hijackings, they were not provided a task to find out of the buildings were demolition. The evidence now shows Saudi Arabia facilitated the plane operation on 9/11, and was not organised in some back side-edge of cave in Afghanistan.  Agents who actually did the work on the ground, have sworn in court, they had plenty of evidence agents and officials of Saudi defence ministry helped the 9/11 hijackers when they entered the United States. It was Bush and friends who shut down that ongoing FBI investigation and to claim we have all facts it just not true.  FBI agents are very upset about this and its the reason they are actively helping the 9/11 families sue Saudi Arabia since 2017

This is recent info (sep 2019) the trump administration handed over a Saudi official name to the 9/11 families, but would not release it to the public.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-to-release-name-of-saudi-official-who-allegedly-helped-9-11-hijackers-11568317330

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-admin-decision-expected-disclosing-key-name-9-11-suit-n1053201

I know who it is and why they are protecting him. It is Prince Bandar when after 9/11 was announced as Chief of Saudi Intelligence.

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.

Debunkers' arguments are all over the place.

NIST position is no steel members softened and melted and there no evidence of molten steel, yet FEMA does claim they found pieces of steel that showed signs of intergranular melting. You have two agencies of the US government disputing each other. 

For A36 steel ( most used type of steel in the construction of building seven) for this to soften and melt- the heat in the area would have to be high as 1400c to 1500c.

FEMA found traces of sulfur, so they think it may have played a part, in reducing the melting point of steel!

Debunkers on Skeptic sites ( FEMA gave as one explanation) the steel corroded in the rubble over many weeks, and that's why the steel has holes.

Problem
USGS- Thermal images
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

taken days after 9/11 only showed temps of 500c, on the surface of the wtc7 site., and slightly underneath the rubble.

FEMA says for this intergranular melting to have occurred the temp in the debris area needed to be 1000c at least, and the sulfur, helped reduce the melting point down from 1500c to 1000c.  

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The letter says they're not going to make the data available. Giving data to their friends is not good enough.

Again, please explain what I twisted and what I made up.

And please point out where in the letter it shows that they did not provide the data to the peer review board.
Do you now believe they provided the data to the peer reviewers?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Again, please explain what I twisted and what I made up.

And please point out where in the letter it shows that they did not provide the data to the peer review board.
Do you now believe they provided the data to the peer reviewers?

The peer review is by ASCE. An engineering group that was also involved in the 9/11 official study.

Know independent engineering group has ever got access to the data and written a report. I found nothing online, if you think otherwise, please post- so I can update my thinking about this!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The peer review is by ASCE. An engineering group that was also involved in the 9/11 official study.

Know independent engineering group has ever got access to the data and written a report. I found nothing online, if you think otherwise, please post- so I can update my thinking about this!

The ASCE is an independent engineering group.
However, the NIST report was not peer reviewed by the ASCE. You are again showing your ignorance of what peer review is.

Again, how do you know that the peer reviewers did not have access to the data they needed?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The FBI examined the hijackings, they were not provided a task to find out of the buildings were demolition.

They didn't discover a demolition plot. No other investigations did. No one did.

This "demolition plot" of yours lives in your head, much like Dr Judy Wood's plot lives in hers. You make this plot come alive by relentlessly attacking every detail about the event and "not getting it"

The more you post here, no matter how nonsensical it is, just helps you live out that fantasy

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They didn't discover a demolition plot. No other investigations did. No one did.

This "demolition plot" of yours lives in your head, much like Dr Judy Wood's plot lives in hers. You make this plot come alive by relentlessly attacking every detail about the event and "not getting it"

The more you post here, no matter how nonsensical it is, just helps you live out that fantasy

Not in my head.

FEMA study discovered anomalies that NIST denied..

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf

Debunkers of course, only like the corrosion explanation, and ignore FEMA suggested it may have happened inside the building.







FEMA believes a liquid of Iron formed during the attack, is that not molten steel?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

The ASCE is an independent engineering group.
However, the NIST report was not peer reviewed by the ASCE. You are again showing your ignorance of what peer review is.

Again, how do you know that the peer reviewers did not have access to the data they needed?

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

They published it in ASCE engineering journal

Cheerful Spring2

A36 steel melting point
Impossible to have occurred outside or inside WTC7 by just fire alone.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debunkers' arguments are all over the place. 

Says the person who makes up imaginary conspiracy theories in their head about a historical event

Psychologists have definitions for people who think like that., they literally refer to 9/11 conspiracy theorists as an example. One key point psychologists make is that arguing reason with these types of unreasonable people just cements their fringe beliefs even more

I guess we're all guilty

TheChizler

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A36 steel melting point
Impossible to have occurred outside or inside WTC7 by just fire alone.

Ah fire, as we all know it always burns at a single temperature. Call me convinced.

And of course steel retains its full structural strength up at the point at which it forms a puddle, that's just obvious.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They published it in ASCE engineering journal

Yes. And they weren't the ones doing the peer reviewing. Again your ignorance shows.

Thr fact remains that they are independant.
The fact remains that other journals also published stuff frim the NISTs report.
The fact remains that othwr peer rwviewed papers used the report and papers as sources.

So again, where is your evidence the peer reviewers didnt have access to the data they needed?
I think its clear you have none aside from your baseless lies and slander.

Cheerful Spring2

TheChizler wrote: »

Ah fire, as we all know it always burns at a single temperature. Call me convinced.

And of course steel retains its full structural strength up at the point at which it forms a puddle, that's just obvious.

Debunkers position is the steel corroded in the rubble pile for weeks.

FEMA assessed the temp had to be at 1000c for this to occur and believed sulfur started attacking the steel and reducing its melting point.

The thermal/ hot spikes for WTC7 site a few days after 9/11.



Nowhere near 1000c.


Debunkers ignore FEMA was not even sure if this phenomenon started outside the building or inside the building.
Debunkers will keep telling people there only one answer.
NIST said the temps inside WTC7 were at 600c (not 1000c)

FEMA clearly said this was unusual event, they don't see this occurring elsewhere after an office fire.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debunkers position is the steel corroded in the rubble pile for weeks.

FEMA assessed the temp had to be at 1000c for this to occur and believed sulfur started attacking the steel and reducing its melting point.

The thermal/ hot spikes for WTC7 site a few days after 9/11.



Nowhere near 1000c.


Debunkers ignore FEMA was not even sure if this phenomenon started outside the building or inside the building.
Debunkers will keep telling people there only one answer.
NIST said the temps inside WTC7 were at 600c (not 1000c)

FEMA clearly said this was unusual event, they don't see this occurring elsewhere after an office fire.

Pseudo-scientific claptrap intensifies

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Pseudo-scientific claptrap intensifies

:cool:

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Pseudo-scientific claptrap intensifies

But he has some graphs he stole from somewhere.
Graphs are super sciencey!

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Says the person who makes up imaginary conspiracy theories in their head about a historical event

Psychologists have definitions for people who think like that., they literally refer to 9/11 conspiracy theorists as an example. One key point psychologists make is that arguing reason with these types of unreasonable people just cements their fringe beliefs even more

I guess we're all guilty

Study shows were normal, and just ask questions.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-wacky-conspiracy-theorists.html

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Study shows were normal, and just ask questions.

Yeah

There's been a lot of recent work in psychology attempting to figure out why some people are particularly drawn to conspiracy theories. For example, research has found that people who believe in conspiracy theories tend to have a greater need for cognitive closure1 (the desire to find an explanation when explanations are lacking) and to be unique.2 They're more likely to have a cognitive bias called hypersensitive agency detection3 or teleologic thinking4 (whereby events are overattributed to hidden forces, purposes, and motives). Some research has also found that conspiracy beliefs are associated with lower levels of education3 and analytic thinking.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201904/what-makes-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

The Psychology Behind Conspiracy Theories
Researchers have been hard at work examining why a small minority of the population believe, and even thrive, on conspiracy theories.

Lantian et al. (2017) summarize the characteristics associated with a person who is likely to believe in conspiracy theories:

… personality traits such as openness to experience, distrust, low agreeability, and Machiavellianism are associated with conspiracy belief.

“Low agreeability” refers to a trait of “agreeableness,” which psychologists define as how much an individual is dependable, kind, and cooperative. Someone with low agreeability is an individual who is usually not very dependable, kind, or cooperative. Machiavellianism refers to a personality trait where a person is so “focused on their own interests they will manipulate, deceive, and exploit others to achieve their goals.”

Lantian et al. (2017) continue:

In terms of cognitive processes, people with stronger conspiracy beliefs are more likely to overestimate the likelihood of co-occurring events, to attribute intentionality where it is unlikely to exist, and to have lower levels of analytic thinking.

None of this should be surprising, because once you start to analyze a situation with demonstrable facts, it usually — and quite thoroughly — will break down the conspiracy theory into its component parts, none of which make sense standing on their own. For example, with zero evidence, conspiracy theorists need to invent a reason for a second shooter in Las Vegas, to match what they see as “facts.” But once a person starts inventing a narrative out of thin air, you can see very little critical thinking occurring.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories-why-do-people-believe-them/

Note the bolded part.

The below is a study on 9/11 conspiracy theorists vs "conventionalists"

Discussion
The data were generally consistent with our predictions. Conspiracist comments expressed more favorable opinions about unrelated conspiracy theories than conventionalist comments did. This serves as a conceptual replication of previous findings indicating that beliefs in conspiracy theories tend to be correlated: if someone agrees with 9/11 conspiracy theories, they are also more likely to agree with other conspiracy theories (e.g., Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010, 2011; Wood et al., 2012). Further, in accordance with previous work on the role of trust in conspiracy theory beliefs (e.g., Wright and Arbuthnot, 1974; Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999; Simmons and Parsons, 2005), conspiracist comments were more likely to contain expressions of mistrust than were conventionalist comments. Despite the unexpected impossibility of testing the powerlessness hypothesis, this cluster of results should increase confidence in the validity of the remainder of the present study's conclusions. The well-established tendencies for conspiracists to be less trusting than average and for conspiracy theory beliefs to intercorrelate have manifested themselves in the persuasive communications examined, which suggests that other tendencies may do so as well.

Most notably, and in accordance with the idea that opposition to officialdom is a major component of the conspiracist belief system, conspiracy advocates showed a tendency to spend much more time arguing against the official explanation of 9/11 than advocating an alternative. Conspiracy opponents showed the opposite pattern, advocating their own explanation more than they argued against the opposing one. This pattern of results supports the idea that conspiracy theories have their basis more in opposition to officialdom than in beliefs in specific alternative theories (Dean, 2002; Wood et al., 2012). For the adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement examined here, the search for truth consists mostly of finding ways in which the official story cannot be true. There is much less of a focus on defending coherent explanations that can better account for the available evidence.

In general, conspiracy belief is not based around specific theories of how events transpire, though these may exist as well. Instead, conspiracism is rooted in several higher-order beliefs such as an abiding mistrust of authority, the conviction that nothing is quite as it seems, and the belief that most of what we are told is a lie. Apparent anomalies in official accounts seem to support this, even if they do not point to a specific, well-defined alternative. For many conspiracists, there are two worlds: one real and (mostly) unseen, the other a sinister illusion meant to cover up the truth; and evidence against the latter is evidence for the former.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201904/what-makes-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories


https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories-why-do-people-believe-them/

Note the bolded part.

The below is a study on 9/11 conspiracy theorists vs "conventionalists"



https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full

It not about finding new approaches to disbelieve the 9/11 official account. There is real evidence, the official story is wrong. 

John M. Grohol, Psy.D
Is one guy thoughts. What establish his opinion as credible if he knows nothing about what happened on 9/11?

You can't answer a simple question to why there Iron Microspheres on chips that burned at temp of 430c.

I recognize this links help you sleep at night, but they don't answer my questions about 9/11 

Since i don't accept there was a second shooter in the Las Vegas Shooting, what kind of conspiracy theorist am I?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It not about finding new approaches to disbelieve the 9/11 official account. There is real evidence, the official story is wrong. 

You think the same way as other conspiracy theorists. Whether it's Sandy hook conspiracy theorists, Boston bombing conspiracy theorists, Charlie Hebdo, Vegas shooting, it's all the same method.

• Incredulity
• Attack the facts
• Some shadowy nefarious entity behind it
• An obsession with finding anomalies
• Support other conspiracies (even contradictory)
• Avoid detailing the theory

Imagine an aircraft investigation team made up of conspiracy theorists..

"No way it was a flock of birds, that's too convenient! look at this, how do you explain this! why is this photo different from this one! too many anomalies, must be an inside job" Walks away, conclusion: some conspiracy

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You think the same way as other conspiracy theorists. Whether it's Sandy hook conspiracy theorists, Boston bombing conspiracy theorists, Charlie Hebdo, Vegas shooting, it's all the same method.

• Incredulity
• Attack the facts
• Some shadowy nefarious entity behind it
• An obsession with finding anomalies
• Support other conspiracies (even contradictory)
• Avoid detailing the theory

Imagine an aircraft investigation team made up of conspiracy theorists..

"No way it was a flock of birds, that's too convenient! look at this, how do you explain this! why is this photo different from this one! too many anomalies, must be an inside job" Walks away, conclusion: some conspiracy

I have seen this post, more than once, have you anything else to say?
I showed you the evidence regarding the red/gray chips. 

Then you went off in a tangent about conspiracy theorists.
 
I still waiting for you answer?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have seen this post, more than once, have you anything else to say?

Yet here you are recycling the same stuff for the fourth or fifth or sixth time.

If this was any scientific or academic or historical forum you'd be kicked off, but it's not, it's a safe space for this silliness. Which is why it's turned into your own personal "can't explain this, therefore conspiracy" forum.

No one's going to convince you, of that we can be sure. They can only point out how illogical and faulty your arguments are. And you can just keep replying that you "don't get it". Which keeps your fantasy of the conspiracy alive.

Psychological study has people like you pinned. But this is your hobby, and that's cool

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yet here you are recycling the same stuff for the fourth or fifth or sixth time.

If this was any scientific or academic or historical forum you'd be kicked off, but it's not, it's a safe space for this silliness. Which is why it's turned into your own personal "can't explain this, therefore conspiracy" forum.

No one's going to convince you, of that we can be sure. They can only point out how illogical and faulty your arguments are. And you can just keep replying that you "don't get it". Which keeps your fantasy of the conspiracy alive.

Psychological study has people like you pinned. But this is your hobby, and that's cool

I recycle information because you still don't answer my questions. Harrit and his team identified material that should not be found in a building collapse.  They wrote a clear and concise science paper and outlined all experiments they did. We know conventional thermite behaves at very high temperature ignition, whereas the red/gray chips ignite at low very temp and a hot flame and gas is released, and they found Iron Microspheres on the chips they burned. That is clear evidence the buildings did not just come down to fire alone. You don't state what your issue is with the paper, you just claim it debunked and don't present evidence as to why.

You also ignore, not truther words, but FEMA found steel that had partly melted they saying in a hot environment. They even specified in the final paragraph, they don't know the length of time it took to melt, they had no idea where the sulfur came from. They also said they were not sure if this phenomenon occurred outside the building or inside. Then you attack 9/11 conspiracy people for questioning the official narrative when they too claimed this was very unusual event. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I recycle information because you still don't answer my questions

Your questions have been addressed.

You just refuse to accept answers and explanations. And even if someone explains something to the nth degree, you just "whack-a-mole" move onto your next truther talking point. Reject all explanations. Once you've exhausted your "list" of truther talking points, you just recycle the whole thing again. That's how this works.

This is a safe space where that technique is protected you can keep doing this forever, and it looks like you will. Cool.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your questions have been addressed.

You just refuse to accept answers and explanations. And even if someone explains something to the nth degree, you just "whack-a-mole" move onto your next truther talking point. Reject all explanations. Once you've exhausted your "list" of truther talking points, you just recycle the whole thing again. That's how this works.

This is a safe space where that technique is protected you can keep doing this forever, and it looks like you will. Cool.

It has never  got answered. I know the claim by Skeptics it's a primer paint called Laclede paint.
Debunkers ignore the ingredients of this primer is Aluminum silicate and Iron oxide. Two oxides igniting is there claim, its nonsense. 

There expert Dr Milette heated his paint chips, and turned to ash, and he found no Iron Molten spheres after burning.
They ignore Harrit showed the calorimeter pictures of the burned red/gray chips and there is molten Iron Microspheres on the chip. 

Problem is Harrit ran out of samples to keep testing, so he can't progress further with the study since 2008

The government will have to hand over more samples so we can check for the material, and even then the material may be degraded by now?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It has never  got answered.

But like all of your points, it has been answered before.
It's been explained in great detail to you in very simple terms.
However, you then started ranting and making silly demands and throwing out new tangents to deflect and distract.

We can explain it to you again, but you will do the exact same tactic.

At the same time, you have not been able to answer ANY questions on your claims about this subject (or any). And even when these questions are simply to get you to explain or clarify your points and position, you ignore and throw tantrums about them. And again, you quickly go off on tangents and new topics.

If you actually stuck to a single topic and interacted with people in a reasonable way, this conspiracy claim would crumble apart very quickly. All of them crumble apart under critical examination.
However, this takes focus and effort. Thus it's your tactic to distract with different topics before you can't avoid the issues cropping up.

You can pick any topic you like, and if we focused on it and only it, it would fall apart. It would be very easy.

But you aren't capable of sticking to one topic. And I think you are unwilling to stick to one topic cause you know it will fall apart if you think too much about it.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe

Why you not curious about unusual event? 
FEMA still to this day, can not identify where the sulfur came from. Speculation was from the gysum wallboard, that now shown to be false,as the sulfur content is mixed with calcium and tests were carried out  by an engineer that show gypsum and diesel fire over 24 hours did not make holes in the steel.

So that's clear evidence this melting likely started inside the building, not outside over weeks.

We know to melt A36 steel the temp would be near 1400c to 1500c or higher. NIST outlines the temps inside WTC7 as 600c as the highest it likely got.

You also ignore NIST says on video there no evidence of molten steel and they know nobody who said so. That's a false statement both counts. We have numerous videos of firefighters, steel workers, dump crews, digger crews, experts there on site during the clean up claiming they saw a red/hot liquid of molten Iron in the rubble. You just throw away their statements and believe NIST who can't keep their story straight about what happened.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But like all of your points, it has been answered before.
It's been explained in great detail to you in very simple terms.
However, you then started ranting and making silly demands and throwing out new tangents to deflect and distract.

We can explain it to you again, but you will do the exact same tactic.

At the same time, you have not been able to answer ANY questions on your claims about this subject (or any). And even when these questions are simply to get you to explain or clarify your points and position, you ignore and throw tantrums about them. And again, you quickly go off on tangents and new topics.

If you actually stuck to a single topic and interacted with people in a reasonable way, this conspiracy claim would crumble apart very quickly. All of them crumble apart under critical examination.
However, this takes focus and effort. Thus it's your tactic to distract with different topics before you can't avoid the issues cropping up.

You can pick any topic you like, and if we focused on it and only it, it would fall apart. It would be very easy.

But you aren't capable of sticking to one topic. And I think you are unwilling to stick to one topic cause you know it will fall apart if you think too much about it.

If this was true.

Why am i still waiting for you guys to answer why there was Iron Microspheres on red/gray chips after burning at 430c.

You reply, by deflecting. 

Overheal was only one who gave a decent reply, but FEMA found no AI in their study though, that's true! Yes he was correct, but the ignition was happening from inside the chip, not on the steel. 

AI+ Iron oxide reacted- a very hot flame shot out plus a high temp gas. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dohnjoe

Why you not curious about unusual event? 

I watched it live. Basically didn't turn off the news for 2 weeks. Watched hundreds of people, witnesses, firemen, police, building experts, terrorist experts, you name it, interviewed on TV. News coverage was wall to wall for days, it was 24/7 on Sky news. It was easily one of the most extraordinary events I've ever seen.

The scrutiny of the entire world was on that one event, US flights were completely grounded, almost every country (including the Russians) were sympathetic, foreign intelligence agencies flocked to help, loads of international arrests took place, it was an incredible event, but it wasn't some giant mystery like Mh370, we knew what happened.

If you open any normal reference or history or academic or science book on 9/11, it's not a mystery, there isn't some key competing theory

Then, like any extreme event, all the loons and cranks and denialists came out of the woodwork. The internet and Youtube was on the rise, and they plastered it full of their disinfo and propaganda and "just asking questions". Some of that stuff is really potent. A lot of my friends were engineering students, two of them watched some 9/11 doc and became convinced it was an inside job, obviously they don't maintain that view, they know the conspiracies are hogwash, but it's testament to the power of manipulated info.

Just because an event is extraordinary, doesn't mean it was automatically an even more elaborate and extraordinary conspiracy.

Also, you aren't the slightest bit "curious" about the event, you are a denialist, you attack history to insert invented fantastical narratives that you can't be arsed detailing because a) they are horse**** and b) you have utterly no respect for the truth

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why am i still waiting for you guys to answer why there was Iron Microspheres on red/gray chips after burning at 430c.

You aren't rational. There's no point giving you an answer on anything. Go to the flat earth forum, try to debate with them. They aren't rational people. No answers you give them will ever satisfy them.

If you want to make the claim that 9/11 was some incredible conspiracy, go for it, explain what the conspiracy was, but you can't. Like Gage, Tony S, Alex Jones, etc, etc you can't detail or support your theory.