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

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read your own charter. So many rules broken by people you click likes to.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057423767

Hey you’re right: I need to update that.

This is indeed not the science forum but a basic understanding of physics is assumed. I frankly would expect everyone in this discussion would at least be fluent with the high school level stuff we are discussing here.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Hey you’re right: I need to update that.

This is indeed not the science forum but a basic understanding of physics is assumed. I frankly would expect everyone in this discussion would at least be fluent with the high school level stuff we are discussing here.

There more then that all you guys are guilty of.

Do not demand proof for someone else's theories. Gulity all of you, though i try my best to discuss it.

Address the topic, not the poster. About 50 percent of the posts are personel attacks

Respect the opinions of others. Does not happen

You guys act the opposite
There should be a reasonable give-and-take in terms of how strongly someone expresses a belief in the truth (or falsity) of something, and how others react to it. The goal here is open-minded, open-ended conversation, not derision and ridicule of contributors for asking questions or questioning information.

please remember that there are many forms of evidence. As well as cold hard facts, there is anecdotal evidence, circumstantial evidence, and any number of other things. Some people value these differently to others. Just because you don't find something to be convincing as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence, nor that someone else can't find it convincing.

You guys ignore every bit of evidence provided.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There more then that all you guys are guilty of.

Do not demand proof for someone else's theories. Gulity all of you, though i try my best to discuss it.

Address the topic, not the poster. About 50 percent of the posts are personel attacks

Respect the opinions of others. Does not happen

You guys act the opposite
There should be a reasonable give-and-take in terms of how strongly someone expresses a belief in the truth (or falsity) of something, and how others react to it. The goal here is open-minded, open-ended conversation, not derision and ridicule of contributors for asking questions or questioning information.

please remember that there are many forms of evidence. As well as cold hard facts, there is anecdotal evidence, circumstantial evidence, and any number of other things. Some people value these differently to others. Just because you don't find something to be convincing as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence, nor that someone else can't find it convincing.

You guys ignore every bit of evidence provided.

You haven't provided any evidence. Just a muddled pile of doubts.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You haven't provided any evidence. Just a muddled pile of doubts.

I have actually, but know counter evidence is good enough for you guys.

Overheal

And - your arguments are not very open ended whatsoever: they’re circular, which as a shape last I checked has no open ends.

Your angle is to constantly phrase things you believe about the conspiracy as definitive, proven, whatever.

Nobody is attacking you personally, they are engaging your posts and your months, years of cyclical arguments that you have presented to the forum. “You can’t even explain physics” isn’t a personal attack, it’s a self-demonstrated criticism of your post history in the forum. Now if I call King Mob a meth-addled assclown, that’s personal abuse. Sorry Mob but I used you as an example.

Overheal

As for low quality evidence: I haven’t restricted any of that. You can present all the anecdotes you want, in turn the forum is free to tear it to pieces for being low quality evidence. The only thing I prohibit is garbage dumps.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have actually, but know counter evidence is good enough for you guys.

It's not good enough for anyone but truthers who dogmatically believe a thousand different, contradictory things happened on 911 but all support each other because any conspiracy is better than a truth they can't face

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

And - your arguments are not very open ended whatsoever: they’re circular, which as a shape last I checked has no open ends.

Your angle is to constantly phrase things you believe about the conspiracy as definitive, proven, whatever.

Nobody is attacking you personally, they are engaging your posts and your months, years of cyclical arguments that you have presented to the forum. “You can’t even explain physics” isn’t a personal attack, it’s a self-demonstrated criticism of your post history in the forum. Now if I call King Mob a meth-addled assclown, that’s personal abuse. Sorry Mob but I used you as an example.

This post is funny. Do you guys even read the posts you make?

Given how you react, i think you are close minded. Nobody making personel attacks, ok if you say so?

Nobody engaging my posts. I have not yet had a serious discussion about the evidence.

Go ahead and provide me just one post where you guys discussed the information contained within 29 pages of the 9/11 commission report

Just an example. A counter-argument post, i will wait.

.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not good enough for anyone but truthers who dogmatically believe a thousand different, contradictory things happened on 911 but all support each other because any conspiracy is better than a truth they can't face

You don't provide a counter-argument.
You post links and when i counter it, you disappear.
Only two days ago, you posted a report and claimed an engineering firm report agreed with NIST and their conclusions.
Did you post i made a mistake, no, you ignored it.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have not yet had a serious discussion about the evidence.

.

You've never provided anything of substance. To date there has never been any consensus on what alternatively happened, and in 15+ years of AE911 they've never ever put forward a credible theory, no one has (unless you want to count Judy Wood)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Only two days ago, you posted a report and claimed an engineering firm report agreed with NIST and their conclusions.
Did you post i made a mistake, no, you ignored it.

They did agree with the NIST - that the building fell due to fire

You can't refute that, so what you did was try to find any difference from the NIST report, like a child would do, and then claim they disagreed - which is broken logic

So

a) you are on a level where you don't understand what broken logic is
or
b) you do understand but you are so deep in your "belief" you keep going dishonestly

No one has to refute anything or explain anything to you. You're the one with the extraordinary claim. It's up to you to support that claim with credible evidence. So far you haven't provided any.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They did agree with the NIST - that the building fell due to fire

You can't refute that, so what you did was try to find any difference from the NIST report, like a child would do, and then claim they disagreed - which is broken logic

So

a) you are on a level where you don't understand what broken logic is
or
b) you do understand but you are so deep in your "belief" you keep going dishonestly

No one has to refute anything or explain anything to you. You're the one with the extraordinary claim. It's up to you to support that claim with credible evidence. So far you haven't provided any.

They do not believe NIST is right.
Their initiation failure began on the 9th floor. NIST failure began on the 13th floor. A very different and unique fire collapse scenario.

I provided evidence NIST was dishonest They claim fire brought it down and you believe their study is correct.

I can show you where NIST went wrong.
You have yet to show me exactly the reasons AE911 truth are mistaken!
There can only be one group who right about this
Does it not matter, the shear studs, web plate, and stiffeners are not modelled by NIST?
Do you not care they failed to spot freefall for six years?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They do not believe NIST is right.

Yes they do. The building fell due to fire.

I provided evidence NIST was dishonest They claim fire brought it down and you believe their study is correct.

Nah you didn't, just debunked evidence and never ending personal misunderstandings that come with such intensity they can only be deliberate

You have yet to show me exactly the reasons AE911 truth are mistaken!

It's a crank pseudo-scientific outfit made up of conspiracy theorists, who between them have never produced a credible explanation.

There can only be one group who right about this
Does it not matter, the shear studs, web plate, and stiffeners are not modelled by NIST?
Do you not care they failed to spot freefall for six years?

Clearly nothing matters to you but the conspiracy. You haven't the vaguest interest in anything that doesn't point toward it. AE911 caters for that type of irrational mindset and that market

Let's put this in perspective. You are openly a holocaust denier who believes they know more than the collective consensus of the experts on that subject. The average historian on the subject has a thousand times more knowledge in their little finger than you, but you have some trait which makes you believe that by casually reading some unfiltered info, you not only know more than them, but you know more than 70 years of combined knowledge on the subject

No one can argue with someone who has such an extreme mentality

As proved by this thread

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This post is funny. Do you guys even read the posts you make?

Given how you react, i think you are close minded. Nobody making personel attacks, ok if you say so?

Nobody engaging my posts. I have not yet had a serious discussion about the evidence.

Go ahead and provide me just one post where you guys discussed the information contained within 29 pages of the 9/11 commission report

Just an example. A counter-argument post, i will wait.

.

Go ahead and make a thread about it, instead of just derailing some other thread, such as this one about Lloyd England where he hasn't been mentioned in... (how long?) - I am pretty sure we talked about it, as we talk about all things ad inifinitum, but that will ensure a dedicated thread to address your complaint.

At this point I am strongly inclined to 9/11-megathread this and drive users to create new threads to discuss individual evidence/focii: we won't have to repeat ourselves and theorists have the benefit of more easily seeing what we've explained in great length already.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes they do. The building fell due to fire.



Nah you didn't, just debunked evidence and never ending personal misunderstandings that come with such intensity they can only be deliberate




It's a crank pseudo-scientific outfit made up of conspiracy theorists, who between them have never produced a credible explanation.



Clearly nothing matters to you but the conspiracy. You haven't the vaguest interest in anything that doesn't point toward it. AE911 caters for that type of irrational mindset and that market

Let's put this in perspective. You are openly a holocaust denier who believes they know more than the collective consensus of the experts on that subject. The average historian on the subject has a thousand times more knowledge in their little finger than you, but you have some trait which makes you believe that by casually reading some unfiltered info, you not only know more than them, but you know more than 70 years of combined knowledge on the subject

No one can argue with someone who has such an extreme mentality

As proved by this thread

Mike West told Tony Szamboti during this interview, they did a great job highlighting the NIST errors and they are all valid complaints.

You guys told me it was all nonsense!

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Go ahead and make a thread about it, instead of just derailing some other thread, such as this one about Lloyd England where he hasn't been mentioned in... (how long?) - I am pretty sure we talked about it, as we talk about all things ad inifinitum, but that will ensure a dedicated thread to address your complaint.

At this point I am strongly inclined to 9/11-megathread this and drive users to create new threads to discuss individual evidence/focii: we won't have to repeat ourselves and theorists have the benefit of more easily seeing what we've explained in great length already.

Maybe some other time. I just wait for Hulsey Study and discuss this when its out.

I remember if you had.

Mike West who Dohnjoe supports admits on video AE911 truth make valid complaints about NIST probable theory for collapse. He can see the errors, but for some reason you guys could not.

He should watch it, just like rest of you.

For people who are not familiar with the name. He is owner of the debunker website Metabunk.
https://www.metabunk.org/

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mike West who Dohnjoe supports admits on video AE911 truth make valid complaints about NIST probable theory for collapse. He can see the errors, but for some reason you guys could not.

So now he believe the conspiracy theory?

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

So now he believe the conspiracy theory?

He opinion is there was structural failures elsewhere in the building.
He agreed with Tony the NIST analysis about column 79- girder failure is flawed.
He said the AE911 truth complaints are valid.
The problem is NIST never done an true analysis of different failures.
Mike jumping ship as he knows the NIST theory rubbish, but now trying to move the goalposts and believes, the initation failure occurred at a different column.
Tony called him on it, show me where in the report NIST talks about a different failure. Mike did say much just showed an image.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

He opinion is there was structural failures elsewhere in the building.
He agreed with Tony the NIST analysis about column 79- girder failure is flawed.
He said the AE911 truth complaints are valid.
The problem is NIST never done an true analysis of different failures.
Mike jumping ship as he knows the NIST theory rubbish, but now trying to move the goalposts and believes, the initation failure occurred at a different column.
Tony called him on it, show me where in the report NIST talks about a different failure. Mike did say much just showed an image.

So now he believes the conspiracy theory? Yes or no?

Tbh, I don't believe your interpretation of any of that at all.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

So now he believes the conspiracy theory? Yes or no?

Tbh, I don't believe your interpretation of any of that at all.

You don't believe me, no need for me to respond.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You don't believe me, no need for me to respond.

So thats a no then.
He doesnt believe the conspiracy theories.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mike West told Tony Szamboti during this interview, they did a great job highlighting the NIST errors and they are all valid complaints.

You guys told me it was all nonsense!

Again this concept you can't seem to or don't want to wrap your head around. A report, any report into any incident, especially a highly complex issue is going to contain debatable parts - no matter how correct the final hypothesis is

Some individuals incorrectly think that if they discover something that is difficult to explain (the passport on the street) then "the whole case has fallen apart", likewise if there is an investigation, whether it's into Adam Lamza, the Tsarnaev bros, 911, whatever, truthers believe if they discover one debatable issue then the whole investigation magically falls apart

This is why they are obsessed with planting doubt, findings discrepancies - it's relatively simple to do, a child can do it (Alex Jones does it for a living)

This is really basic stuff, but I find there is a severe lack of basic understanding of any of these concepts, either through complete ignorance or deliberate ignorance

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some individuals incorrectly think that if they discover something that is difficult to explain (the passport on the street) then "the whole case has fallen apart", likewise if there is an investigation, whether it's into Adam Lamza, the Tsarnaev bros, 911, whatever, truthers believe if they discover one debatable issue then the whole investigation magically falls apart

Not quite true.
They believe their own theories are immune to this.

No matter how many contradictions, flaws and outright silly thinks are pointed out in the conspiracy theory, they are still valid.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Again this concept you can't seem to or don't want to wrap your head around. A report, any report into any incident, especially a highly complex issue is going to contain debatable parts - no matter how correct the final hypothesis is

Some individuals incorrectly think that if they discover something that is difficult to explain (the passport on the street) then "the whole case has fallen apart", likewise if there is an investigation, whether it's into Adam Lamza, the Tsarnaev bros, 911, whatever, truthers believe if they discover one debatable issue then the whole investigation magically falls apart

This is why they are obsessed with planting doubt, findings discrepancies - it's relatively simple to do, a child can do it (Alex Jones does it for a living)

This is really basic stuff, but I find there is a severe lack of basic understanding of any of these concepts, either through complete ignorance or deliberate ignorance

Those views are not at all accurate. You have never understand the issues, and its partly the reason the threads never come to an end..Your opinion is 9/11, explained, there no reason people should doubt the official story, and doubts they have are unimportant (sum up what you believe?)

How come Mike West Understand the complex issues? I understood right way years ago this was an issue. You guy continuously push back when I revealed all this. Is Mike an idiot? Does he not understand the NIST probable collapse scenario, like you guys do?

Mike understand the girder could not slip from its seat, by thermal expansion. He saw the plan drawing for girder A2001 ( Column 79) and he saw the accurate drawing for the girders on this floor. He understood NIST left off the bearing plate (webplate) it was missing in their finite element model analysis. He understood the model was missing 30+ shear studs, was missing the web stiffiners. NIST cheated Mike understood this, and there proposed collapse at column 79 could not have happened like they said it did. The girder would have only sagged from heat not collapsed. It would have got caught between the steel beam anyway even it moved somewhow.

Unfortunately its impossible. So we left with a goverrnment controlled engineering group lying about a building failure on 9/11.

Mike then was proposing a collapse initiation event at another column. What Mike needs to do then is release a paper on it and propose an accurate assessement how this happened? Column 79 failure collapse is bogus, so what causing the failure elsewhere? Separate pattern of damage needs to be looked at then for accuracy.

Least Mike is honest to admit Ae911 truth anyalsis about the connection at column 79 is very good. He said its comprehensive. Play at 24 minutes of the video you can hear him say this.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Those views are not at all accurate. You have never understand the issues, and its partly the reason the threads never come to an end..Your opinion is 9/11, explained, there no reason people should doubt the official story, and doubts they have are unimportant (sum up what you believe?)

How come Mike West Understand the complex issues? I understood right way years ago this was an issue. You guy continuously push back when I revealed all this. Is Mike an idiot? Does he not understand the NIST probable collapse scenario, like you guys do?

Mike understand the girder could not slip from its seat, by thermal expansion. He saw the plan drawing for girder A2001 ( Column 79) and he saw the accurate drawing for the girders on this floor. He understood NIST left off the bearing plate (webplate) it was missing in their finite element model analysis. He understood the model was missing 30+ shear studs, was missing the web stiffiners. NIST cheated Mike understood this, and there proposed collapse at column 79 could not have happened like they said it did. The girder would have only sagged from heat not collapsed. It would have got caught between the steel beam anyway even it moved somewhow.

Unfortunately its impossible. So we left with a goverrnment controlled engineering group lying about a building failure on 9/11.

Mike then was proposing a collapse initiation event at another column. What Mike needs to do then is release a paper on it and propose an accurate assessement how this happened? Column 79 failure collapse is bogus, so what causing the failure elsewhere? Separate pattern of damage needs to be looked at then for accuracy.

Least Mike is honest to admit Ae911 truth anyalsis about the connection at column 79 is very good. He said its comprehensive. Play at 24 minutes of the video you can hear him say this.

You continue to write and write without presenting a single shred of credible evidence for your claim

This is a safe space conspiracy theory forum, you wouldn't be able to do this on a proper historical or scientific forum

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You continue to write and write without presenting a single shred of credible evidence for your claim

This is a safe space conspiracy theory forum, you wouldn't be able to do this on a proper historical or scientific forum

You going running off again. You keep posting metabunk links to debunk 9/11.

Mike West accepts AE911 truth anyalsis about column 79 is comprehensive? Why can't you?

I provided video evidence, even gave you the accurate time to hear Mike saying this to Tony.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You going running off again. You keep posting metabunk links to debunk 9/11.

Debunk what exactly..

Give us your theory and explain what you think happened, and provide the supporting evidence for it

The more you try to deflect away from this the more it exposes the fact that you don't have a notion what your own theory even is

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Debunk what exactly..

Give us your theory and explain what you think happened, and provide the supporting evidence for it

The more you try to deflect away from this the more it exposes the fact that you don't have a notion what your own theory even is

If you understand the complaint you realise it.

NIST proposed a progressive collapse began at column 79. Their entire theory is based around a failure there, and this lead to a collapse across the entire width of the building.

The video is evidence, Mike even disagrees with the NIST theory.

So what caused WTC7 to come down at freefall speeds?
You have show an analysis how it started a root cause!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If you understand the complaint you realise it.

NIST proposed a progressive collapse began at column 79. Their entire theory is based around a failure there, and this lead to a collapse across the entire width of the building.

The video is evidence, Mike even disagrees with the NIST theory.

Mike backs the NIST conclusion.

Mike himself has certain issues with the NIST report.

You are unable to comprehend how the two sentences above are both true. In your mind, if there's any part of anything that's debated, then the whole thing falls apart and automatically some whacky conspiracy comes true

This will really blow your mind, there are multiple investigations into WTC that have differences, yet all reach the same conclusion

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The video is evidence, Mike even disagrees with the NIST theory.

So he agrees with your theory?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

So what caused WTC7 to come down at freefall speeds?
You have show an analysis how it started a root cause!

Again, you don't know what freefall means.
You can't even tell the difference between speed, velocity and acceleration.