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

Cheerful Spring2

Kingmob

You did not even correct me when i said you never watched this video.

You claim then I misrepresented NIST statements. 

Click the start button it is a ten-minute video and then show all why i was wrong. You just post long posts that don't debate the topic. Maybe its your style of writing and personality, but if you going to change my mind, I expect some genuine feedback about the videos I post.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

Flat earth: The science is disputed. 
Can you name anyone in the field of earth sciences who agrees with them?They are Youtube personalties, who disagree with the science, the earth is a sphere. 
Not the same thing.

Regards 9/11: FBI agents, Architects, engineers, people there on 9/11, some mainstream news channels, politicians don't all agree the official story is correct.  
You claim 9/11 is solved, thats a false statement. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You claim then I misrepresented NIST statements. 

This is truther crap.

Multiple investigations found the buildings fell due to fire. Just because there is a "mistake" in one of the reports or an erroneous figure or an interviewer says something wrong (to an audience of nuts) that doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong, ergo it's all some fantastic conspiracy

I read reports daily in my field with dozens of mistakes, misrepresented figures, it doesn't mean the final conclusions are wrong.

This is such basic stuff, but you seem to have such difficulty comprehend it. You literally reject basic logic because it interferes with your belief in 911 being some sort of conspiracy

Cheerful Spring2

I don't find AE911 believe to be outrageous when even NIST agrees on 9/11 this was the first time in history a high rise made of steel collapsed due to fire.
On one day we got three events. NIST theory about the collapse, is even disputed by their associates in the mainstream. There no consensus to how it began, only they think fire somewhat caused the buildings to fall down.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Regards 9/11: FBI agents, Architects, engineers, people there on 9/11, some mainstream news channels, politicians don't all agree the official story is correct.  
You claim 9/11 is solved, thats a false statement. 

Exaggerated and dishonest.

You do exactly the same thing with the Holocaust. You pretend there is all this doubt about it. There isn't.

40% of American adults believe in ghosts, there are TV documentaries, news stories, historical stories - I could be dishonest like you and scrape that all together to present some image of it containing truth. But it doesn't.

You constantly twist and manipulate information to support a conspiracy you can't detail. This is your outlet for that. No one here can stop you spewing out all this stuff.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't find AE911 believe to be outrageous when even NIST agrees on 9/11 this was the first time in history a high rise made of steel collapsed due to fire.

lol

According to you it's the first time in history skyscrapers were secretly blown up - but that's complete plausible

You contradict yourself so much

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is truther crap.

Multiple investigations found the buildings fell due to fire. Just because there is a "mistake" in one of the reports or an erroneous figure or an interviewer says something wrong (to an audience of nuts) that doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong, ergo it's all some fantastic conspiracy

I read reports daily in my field with dozens of mistakes, misrepresented figures, it doesn't mean the final conclusions are wrong.

This is such basic stuff, but you seem to have such difficulty comprehend it. You literally reject basic logic because it interferes with your belief in 911 being some sort of conspiracy

The melted steel is actual tangible physical evidence of a conspiracy.
Despite what you read temps inside WTC7 would only reach temps about 600c.
The fact FEMA found this occurred, make the truthers theories even more plausible. 

There only a few photographs left of the WTC7 steel condition after the collapse, this one large beam or girder, melting occurred.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The melted steel is actual tangible physical evidence of a conspiracy.

It doesn't matter how many times you explain to someone who believes the world is flat.

They will never accept your explanation. They aren't using reason.

You are precisely the same. It doesn't matter how much consensus, evidence, anything that is produced. You reject and attack it all. Repeatedly. You don't operate with normal logic, normal reason on this subject.

None of these replies are for you, they are for other people who get sucked into this (or similar) false flag craporama's. It's all the same.

Cheerful Spring2

There is clear demonstrate evidence, some steel members, started melting.

Even FEMA described a hot liquid formed during this hot corrosion attack. They claim corrosion because they're not sure if developed outside or inside building seven.

If they're a hot liquid of Iron- during the hot phase of the attack, then NIST statement there is no evidence of molten steel is a false account of the event!

Thermal images appear to show hot spikes of 500c to 600c a few days after 9/11. So how can the steel be rusting in the rubble for weeks when the melting point of steel is 1500c?

So FEMA claimed the sulfur, was associated with this event, in reducing the melting point of A36. There complication with this theory, FEMA does not give the portion of sulfur, where it appeared from , and they said further research is called for.  Can sulfur reduce the melting point of steel by 500c?

Cheerful Spring2

The fact NIST ignored FEMA statement about this ridiculous. There should be further studies to show conclusively what happened.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There is clear demonstrate evidence, some steel members, started melting.

Broken record. We've been over that, repeatedly.

The buildings fell down due to fire, you have never demonstrated otherwise. The event is completely independent from your rationalisations and imaginings about it.

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Broken record. We've been over that, repeatedly.

The buildings fell down due to fire, you have never demonstrated otherwise. The event is completely independent from your rationalisations and imaginings about it.

The repetition, the parroting and outright Gish galloping are actually tiresome.

What does any of the oft repeated and rebutted nonsense CS has spewed again all over this thread, have to do with Lloyd England?

Why is CS back to spamming threads with BS unrelated to thread topic?

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

The repetition, the parroting and outright Gish galloping are actually tiresome.

What does any of the oft repeated and rebutted nonsense CS has spewed again all over this thread, have to do with Lloyd England?

Why is CS back to spamming threads with BS unrelated to thread topic?

It's a conspiracy forum- if you don't like the debate, head to international skeptics forum and debate over there, they are like minded people have fun.

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

The repetition, the parroting and outright Gish galloping are actually tiresome.

What does any of the oft repeated and rebutted nonsense CS has spewed again all over this thread, have to do with Lloyd England?

Why is CS back to spamming threads with BS unrelated to thread topic?

Yup, it's a new attempt at pure stamina. Filling the thread full of as much truther gish gallop as possible in order to dilute debate.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's a conspiracy forum- if you don't like the debate, head to international skeptics forum and debate over there, they are like minded people have fun.

It is.
And the topic at hand in this particular thread is your theory regarding Lloyd England.

Do you remember that?
The missile? The A3? The utter drivel you spouted regarding compass bearings and flight data?

You started this thread, yet you can't keep to the actual topic.
You constantly go on multiple ranty posts of topics and mis-information completely unrelated to your original point.

You are a prime example of the archetypal conspiracy theorist who keeps forgetting their conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, it's a new attempt at pure stamina. Filling the thread full of as much truther gish gallop as possible in order to dilute debate.

9/11 forum about the conspiracy. I hoping for some good replies from new people, it's just the same boring responses from you and your friends. You don't believe, ok spend your time elsewhere, use your time wisely!

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

9/11 forum about the conspiracy. I hoping for some good replies from new people, it's just the same boring responses from you and your friends. You don't believe, ok spend your time elsewhere, use your time wisely!

The inverse of that thinking, is that you could also feel free to fúck off to pastures new and regale like minded people with your musings?

Is that not just as valid a resolution?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

9/11 forum about the conspiracy. I hoping for some good replies from new people, it's just the same boring responses from you and your friends. You don't believe, ok spend your time elsewhere, use your time wisely!

Cmon, don't tell me you don't see the irony, this forum literally dies when you stop posting

That should give you some clues

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

The inverse of that thinking, is that you could also feel free to fúck off to pastures new and regale like minded people with your musings?

Is that not just as valid a resolution?

I know I Am right place to discuss conspiracies. There plenty of forums online where debunkers post their feelings about 9/11, so why you here?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Cmon, don't tell me you don't see the irony, this forum literally dies when you stop posting

That should give you some clues

Maybe if you guys left they post. Lot of people don't want to be attacked for their beliefs and questioned about everything they write.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I know I Am right place to discuss conspiracies. There plenty of forums online where debunkers post their feelings about 9/11, so why you here?

Because I am curious as to what drives belief in unproven and indeed often unprovable beliefs.

How someone can reconcile rational belief with an unfounded belief in their own interpretation of evidence and information.
In particular when their practical understanding of science and scientific method is shown to be lacking.

I find the cognitive dissonance between on the one hand refuting actual scientific evidence and consensus, whilst on the other relying on fringe theory and pseudo-science to be quite fascinating.

The best place to see those behaviours on boards are the Christianity forums, where at least the irrational behaviour can be attributed to "Faith".
And here, where you single handedly persist in taking the contrary position not just in 9/11 but with Kennedy, UFO and every theory that takes your fancy.

It is from afar, like documentary evidence of a descent to madness.
Really interesting.

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

It is.
And the topic at hand in this particular thread is your theory regarding Lloyd England.

Do you remember that?
The missile? The A3? The utter drivel you spouted regarding compass bearings and flight data?

You started this thread, yet you can't keep to the actual topic.
You constantly go on multiple ranty posts of topics and mis-information completely unrelated to your original point.

You are a prime example of the archetypal conspiracy theorist who keeps forgetting their conspiracy.

You guys have made no new posts- so why you asking me to keep a dead thread going about the Pentagon attack?
I was responding to Gonad post about building seven, in this thread. I know you guys, forget day to day replies in this thread and probably don't even read new posters postings.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Kingmob

You did not even correct me when i said you never watched this video.

You claim then I misrepresented NIST statements. 

Click the start button it is a ten-minute video and then show all why i was wrong. You just post long posts that don't debate the topic. Maybe its your style of writing and personality, but if you going to change my mind, I expect some genuine feedback about the videos I post.

I did explain it to you several times in several ways. Yet here you are repeating the same thing again and jumping to the next topic already.

There's no point in explaining it to you again as you aren't capable of understanding it and you are unwilling to try.
If I attempted it, you would quickly try to go off on a tangent because you would start seeing the problems with your claims.

King Mob

A good example of the why conspiracy theorists stick to this tactic can be found here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056113431

It was a rare instance where a conspiracy theorist actually stuck to a point and dug into into (for the most part).

It started with them picking their number one best piece of evidence for the conspiracy.
They claimed a senator said one thing about the 9/11 commission.
It ended with them arguing that a quote from an Amazon customer review was as good as a quote from the senator who wrote the book (which the conspiracy theorist had never read).

They ended up completely ignoring and editing around a quote I'd found from that same senator that clearly and completely contradicted the original claim.

This can be done with ANY conspiracy claim.
That's why theorists have to go off on tangents.

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

Because I am curious as to what drives belief in unproven and indeed often unprovable beliefs.

How someone can reconcile rational belief with an unfounded belief in their own interpretation of evidence and information.
In particular when their practical understanding of science and scientific method is shown to be lacking.

I find the cognitive dissonance between on the one hand refuting actual scientific evidence and consensus, whilst on the other relying on fringe theory and pseudo-science to be quite fascinating.

The best place to see those behaviours on boards are the Christianity forums, where at least the irrational behaviour can be attributed to "Faith".
And here, where you single handedly persist in taking the contrary position not just in 9/11 but with Kennedy, UFO and every theory that takes your fancy.

It is from afar, like documentary evidence of a descent to madness.
Really interesting.

I'm old enough to look back when UFO believers and skeptics clashed online like this. The same stream of debunking language, that you and King mob, Dohnjoe write, is nothing original, I have observed it before.

Skeptics were just as horrible about UFO believe a decade ago, as you are now about 9/11. The mainstream consensus back then was UFO followers were all crazy people that needed locking up.

What passed since!

US Navy has now explained online different venues, US navy aviators are following objects in the sky that shatter all known sciences principles on earth.

The Skeptics are often wrong about the true realities of this world than they are right. The Skeptics were challenging men could never fly in man-made objects or get to the Moon in the past, but all that was thrust to the side when they got proven wrong.

Regards 9/11 and JFK.
They're nothing crazy about people conspiring to use an event for their own sinister purposes.  It has taken place in the past.  
I discuss things that are not solved. 

Dohnjoe years ago declared I was nuts to claim Saudi Arabia was involved in the 9/11 attack, yet recent years have shown i was correct. Even Fox News a republican mainstream news channel is declaring the Saudis supported the 9/11 hijackers. You just have not opened your eyes yet to the evidence, so try broadening your depth of research. 

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

I did explain it to you several times in several ways. Yet here you are repeating the same thing again and jumping to the next topic already.

There's no point in explaining it to you again as you aren't capable of understanding it and you are unwilling to try.
If I attempted it, you would quickly try to go off on a tangent because you would start seeing the problems with your claims.

Provide the quotes then, I know they don't exist only in your imagination!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Provide the quotes then, I know they don't exist only in your imagination!

What quotes? What are you talking about?

Again, we've already explained all of these points to you before, but you are not capable of listening.
There's no point in explaining again because when things start getting too hard for you, you go off on a random tangent.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

What quotes? What are you talking about?

Again, we've already explained all of these points to you before, but you are not capable of listening.
There's no point in explaining again because when things start getting too hard for you, you go off on a random tangent.

You just wrote you explained the video several times, in several ways!

I urged then, for you to quote the early posts or link to it where you discussed the video?

 I don't recall you ever explaining it

I don't see how you solved it, when you voluntarily admit you never watched the video, to even follow what happened?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You just wrote you explained the video several times, in several ways!

I urged then, for you to quote the early posts or link to it where you discussed the video?

 I don't recall you ever explaining it

I don't see how you solved it, when you voluntarily admit you never watched the video, to even follow what happened?

Again, why would I do this when you'd just run away and go down a new tangent when you started to get into trouble?
Why would I when you won't engage with the points and answer questions or stay coherent?

Again, I don't need to watch the video as it doesn't present anything you haven't claimed before and has the same problems.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Lot of people don't want to be attacked for their beliefs and questioned about everything they write.

It's a public forum. Some people think that's a ticket to write whatever they want, then get offended when others point out their bad logic

Honestly, if someone says it's just their opinion, I don't mind giving some leeway, but if they are coming in stating nonsense as fact, they get everything they deserve. The internet is full enough of disinfo as it.