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

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

Dohnjoe

cjmc wrote: »

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

WTC 6 (partial collapse) was weakened and pulled down by wires shortly after 9/11. Several other buildings were demolished in a similar fashion

King Mob

Welcome back Cheerful.
I thought you weren't going to post again while Overheal was mod...

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NO.

No what?

Do you mean: "No, there are no examples of a demolished building falling at free fall speed"?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I've found the NIST draft paper....

Again, you are misunderstanding what you read either deliberately or not.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Just noticed the NIST draft paper online and will clarify statements i make about the NIST/ AE911 presentation video. The draft paper backs up my view to what they said on video. You have the text/words now from their draft paper.

But it doesn't.
It doesn't contradict either their statement from the video or in any of the reports.

It contradicts your claims however.

Again, this stems from you misunderstanding what they are saying and latching onto to the fact it mentions "freefall" and nothing else.

And again, you are dodging questions.
If you "want to finish up a fight" you shouldn't do that.

I will repeat the question for you here:

No what?

Do you mean: "No, there are no examples of a demolished building falling at free fall speed"?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

free fall stuff

You seem to believe that world and historical events happen based around your personal understanding of them.

9/11, the Holocaust - you deny them because they don't conform to your view of the world or grasp of reality. It's an extraordinary form of arrogance.

King Mob

Again, you are misunderstanding things.
Perhaps deliberately or perhaps due to your poor reading ability.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST Draft paper outlines their theory.
18 floors collapsed at free fall it would have taken 3.9 seconds.

Yes. They state that this is the time it would take for the building's facade to fall at free fall for the entirety of the collapse.

There is nothing about that that excludes or denies that free fall occurred for a part of the collapse.
Again, I think you don't understand this as you don't have a firm grasp of what free fall actually means.

So if the collapse should have taken 3.9 seconds at free fall, why in your inexpert opinion did the collapse take longer?

And you have yet again ignored the question.
Your outburst wasn't a denial of anything.
You cannot provide an example of a building ever collapsing at freefall due to a controlled demolition. Therefore 9/11 is the first time in history that this occured, therefore the controlled demolition theory is invalid and impossible.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Again NO. You don't understand it.

This is the full NIST quote on Aug 2008.


The ruled out freefall in Aug 2008 and nothing you will say changes that fact.

Yes, and this has been explained to you before.
The facade of the building fell at free fall for part of the collapse.
Nothing the NIST has said contradicts that and that doesn't contradict anything they have said.
When they "ruled out" freefall, they are refering to the idea presented by conspiracy theorists that the building collapsed entirely at freefall.

You are incorrectly asserting that it is not possible for the collapse to have free fall for a part of this and that it either must be free fall or not. This stems from your misunderstanding of basic language and/or physics.

In fact, previously, you ended up agreeing with the NIST because you didn't realise what you were claiming.

But all this is moot, as it's been shown that 9/11 was the first time a building fell at freefall and therefore the controlled demolition theory is impossible.

Dohnjoe

Ipso wrote: »

See everyone in six months.

Barely made it a month. The renewed effort each time is hilarious.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Government agencies lie all the time and cover up facts for people in power

And government officials, investigators, entire bureau's, experts, forensic examiners, the military, insurers, Jews, Saudi's, the US president, all the president's men, every internal security agency, Republicans, Democrats

All work seamlessly together with no leaks.

That happens all the time.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Lets ignore a high profile prisoner died in a jail who spend his time hanging out with rich and famous and powerful people. Your outlook Dohnjoe is nothing out of place or suspicious happens. I remember you defending the theory not unusual happened on
another thread there too.

The only issue here is your personal extreme beliefs. This is your place for expressing those.

It's no coincidence you have other extreme beliefs.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Barely made it a month. The renewed effort each time is hilarious.

[/IMG]

I don't know what i was thinking returning to this thread again. My Posts are deleted so don't have to respond anymore to me!