Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

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

18990919294

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,364 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    mikekerry wrote: »
    The clue is in the forum name - conspiracy theories - it's a forum for people to put forward - theories ( whether they agree or not agree with the theory is a different point).

    Theres a difference between theories and fantasy though. A line that should be adhered to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »



    Thakfully, a tiny amount of people. Conspiracy "theorists" with no theories.

    Still a false take about details and facts. AE911 truth has over 3000 representatives the majority are Architects, Builders, and Engineers. Dohnjoe says 200 people worked on the NIST building seven study and even if his view true, the 3000 people involved in the same profession disagree with the NIST verdict..

    Other official studies there was just a handful of people working to find a solution for the failure inside building seven.

    I bet if you did a world poll, you find a lot of people disagree with the official story about 9/11. People just don’t care enough to spend their time debating their views on social media forums like the one. Still do hold personal views the official 9/11 narrative false.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    Hilarious.

    You can say this when answering someone else, but not accept it from me when I say exactly the same thing about responding to your vacuous taunts based on your own personal belief bias.

    You posted several photos of a damaged Pentagon, and I asked questions which you haven't addressed. To repeat:

    If you maintain the flight 77 flew over the Pentagon, then what caused the damage to the Pentagon in the photos you posted? (which were taken by witnesses)

    Also outstanding is the original question: How many witnesses saw the plane fly over the Pentagon?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    AE911 truth has over 3000 representatives the majority are Architects, Builders, and Engineers. Dohnjoe says 200 people worked on the NIST building seven study and even if his view true, the 3000 people involved in the same profession disagree with the NIST verdict..

    AE911 is not a recognised group, its an internet conspiracy group.

    The American Institute of Architects is a recognised group, it's 90,000 members, professional architects, they have firmly distanced themselves from AE911's conspiracy views and Gage is barred from holding his conspiracy meetings in their buildings. And every year he tries to raise a vote to "re-investigate 9/11" it's heavily downvoted by them.

    90,000 recognised architects is more expertise and higher numbers than 3,000 internet experts

    Likewise, the American Society of Civil Engineers is over 150,000 members, they fully back the findings of the NIST

    This has been repeatedly explained to you, you repeatedly regurgitate the same faulty reasoning every few months. Rinse, repeat :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    Thanks for the heads-up!
    No worries, I do recognise the syndrome they are suffering from.

    So you can question 9/11

    But other posters can't question this alternative theory?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    AE911 is not a recognised group, its an internet conspiracy group.

    The American Institute of Architects is a recognised group, it's 90,000 members, professional architects, they have firmly distanced themselves from AE911's conspiracy views and Gage is barred from holding his conspiracy meetings in their buildings. And every year he tries to raise a vote to "re-investigate 9/11" it's heavily downvoted by them.

    90,000 recognised architects is more expertise and higher numbers than 3,000 internet experts

    Likewise, the American Society of Civil Engineers is over 150,000 members, they fully back the findings of the NIST

    This has been repeatedly explained to you, you repeatedly regurgitate the same faulty reasoning every few months. Rinse, repeat :)

    You trying to express an argument, 90,000 members agree with this study even though the official study was only downloaded a few hundred times on the ASCE website?

    Your logic has a disconnect with reality. Management may have signed onto the official narrative, but there zero evidence affirming the membership agree.
    90,000 become members for work reasons its a choice of life, has nothing to do with the 9/11 conspiracy and its discussion.

    Debunkers will pretend it does, to strength their argument their 90,000 people in the profession who saw the evidence and disagree with Ae911 truth. I saw this nonsense used by Mick West too, and DohnJoe pushing that narrative on here too..


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You trying to express an argument, 90,000 members agree with this study even though the official study was only downloaded a few hundred times on the ASCE website?

    Yes they do and the NIST reports have been available online for years.
    Management may have signed onto the official narrative, but there zero evidence affirming the membership agree.

    You aren't speaking for their members, they are. And for multiple years they've held votes with their member to re-investigate 9/11. It gets thousands of votes from AIA members.
    Debunkers will pretend it does, to strength their argument their 90,000 people in the profession who saw the evidence and disagree with Ae911 truth.

    AE911 is a crank and pseudo-scientific conspiracy group that makes money from people like you. The AIA and ASCE are proper, recognised groups of professionals that distance themselves from AE911's moonbat stuff


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Debunkers

    If someone walks into a psychologists office and they say they believe 911 was an inside job and that they believe in UFOs - they are already being classified

    I've dealt with Sandy Hook truthers, Boston marathon bombing truthers, moon landing hoaxers, 9/11 truthers - they often react in the same way, that's because they have a lot in common.

    This thread is another classic example of people who become emotional and irrational because they have extreme beliefs about an event.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yes they do and the NIST reports have been available online for years.



    You aren't speaking for their members, they are. And for multiple years they've held votes with their member to re-investigate 9/11. It gets thousands of votes from AIA members.



    AE911 is a crank and pseudo-scientific conspiracy group that makes money from people like you. The AIA and ASCE are proper, recognised groups of professionals that distance themselves from AE911's moonbat stuff

    Stop lying you have no evidence 90,000 members of AIA and 150,000 members of ASCE agree fully with the NIST study for building seven

    NIST released one Peer discussion paper about the study on the ASCE site. Only a few hundred people downloaded it to their computer. We have a good idea from that how many are looking at the NIST material.

    Dohnjoe pretending the 90,000 memberS here clicked yes on a checkbox they agreed with the official building seven study.

    Ae911 truth 3,000 members are affiliated with these groups AIA and ASCE and other mainstream organisations. They are people working in the profession everyday., Dohnjoe thinks they are out of work people who have no experience here, its laughable logic to believe.

    Management is sending out notices to stop their members joining AE911 truth. AE911 has learned from current members, ASCE upper management told them if you talk to AE911 Truth at our conferences you will be kicked out. Desperation and bullying to protect the narrative is there. Representatives are not allowed to express what they really believe is pathetic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Stop lying you have no evidence 90,000 members of AIA and 150,000 members of ASCE agree fully with the NIST study for building seven

    Yes I do, they support the findings and have openly distanced themselves from conspiracy theories. ASCE took part in the original FEMA study and the NIST itself.

    In fact there is no recognised group of engineers, architects or related professionals in the world which maintain 9/11 was an inside job

    The only group, an urecognised group, is a group of literal internet 9/11 conspiracy theorists, fancy that


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yes I do, they support the findings and have openly distanced themselves from conspiracy theories. ASCE took part in the original FEMA study and the NIST itself.

    In fact there is no recognised group of engineers, architects or related professionals in the world which maintain 9/11 was an inside job

    The only group, an urecognised group, is a group of literal internet 9/11 conspiracy theorists, fancy that

    Why is upper ASCE management threatening their representatives with expulsion then? ASCE is fearful AE911 truth will show its members the truth and show them how awful the study is. They not allow an alternative point of view to be expressed here at the conference?

    ASCE yes you right played their own little part in the executive cover up, so they are fearful there members will side with the conspiracy people about the collapse. Bully their representatives to stay in line option they went with.

    Debunkers seem to think that way of doing things is ok to avoid debate. Debunkers are still unable to work it out why the engineering community fearful, when you see this carry on happening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ASCE is fearful AE911 truth

    Endless denial and making stuff up in your head

    Here's the vote at the AIA in 2015
    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ... succeeded in getting a commitment from the largest association of architects in the U.S. to debate and vote on a resolution supporting an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

    The vote will take place at the annual convention of the American Institute of Architects, May 14-16, in Atlanta, GA.
    ...
    For any resolution to be considered by convention delegates, it must be sponsored by the AIA’s board of directors or strategic council; a regional, state or local AIA chapter; or 50 AIA members. In this case, the sponsor was AE board member Dan Barnum, who holds the prestigious title of Fellow of the American Institute of Architects. Another 54 AIA members are listed as co-sponsors – all of whom are signatories of the AE9/11Truth petition.

    Here is the text of the resolution that was just approved by the AIA resolution committee:
    [snip]
    ...
    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and Position Statements, stating:
    The AIA’s belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes;
    The AIA’s recognition that many members of the architecture profession believe the NIST investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed;
    The AIA’s belief that this perspective merits further study; and
    The AIA’s support for a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is advised that this Position Statement be incorporated as Position Statement #3 under the Construction Industry Regulation Public Policy. The recommended language of this Position Statement is as follows:

    World Trade Center 7

    The AIA believes that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes. In adherence to the scientific method, investigations should:
    Consider all available data;
    Consider hypotheses that most readily explain the available data;
    Test those hypotheses and analyze the results without bias; and
    Provide for external review and replication by making all data available.
    The AIA recognizes that many members of the architecture profession believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to these principles and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed. The AIA believes this perspective merits further study and supports a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.

    What to know the result?

    "Here are the results of the vote: In Favor - 160, Opposed - 3800"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Endless denial and making stuff up in your head

    Here's the vote at the AIA in 2015



    What to know the result?

    "Here are the results of the vote: In Favor - 160, Opposed - 3800"

    90,0000 members and less than 4,000 only voted? AIA hand pick the members who will side with them?

    Did people watch to see if the vote was fair and not corrupt? Where the evidence ASCE can be trusted when their bullying members to stop talking to AE911 truth:rolleyes: Management seem to be bullies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,364 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    90,0000 members and less than 4,000 only voted? ASCE hand pick the members who will side with them?

    Did people watch to see if the vote was fair and not corrupt? Where the evidence ASCE can be trusted when their bullying members to stop talking to AE911 truth:rolleyes: Management seem to be bullies.

    They probably paid them off like they did with the security staff in the towers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    90,0000 members and less than 4,000 only voted? ASCE hand pick the members who will side with them?

    Only approx 4,000 people took part in the vote. Complete majority :)
    Did people watch to see if the vote was fair and not corrupt?

    You really don't like any information which contradicts your beliefs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The Nal wrote: »
    They probably paid them off like they did with the security staff in the towers.

    I like how almost every single response to everything suggests a made-up-on-the-spot conspiracy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Only approx 4,000 people took part in the vote. Complete majority :)



    You really don't like any information which contradicts your beliefs.

    Skewed vote when there 90,000 members in AIA :) you have just proven one of your claims incorrect well done :DStop claiming 90,000 members believe NIST,


    The don't reveal here how the voting process occurred. Did people put yes/no on piece of paper and place in a hat? How reliable was the vote? Who counted? What their opinion of the collapse on 9/11 are they bias for the official narrative.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    From the Architects Institute of America magazine
    https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/architects-shy-from-trutherism_o
    The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.
    All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.
    What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization.
    Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation....
    During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially.
    “I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”
    Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.
    “It is somewhat troubling that he sort of portrays the notion that we have a relationship when we certainly do not,” Frank [Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA] said.
    Gage should not expect those invitations [to speak at future AIA conventions] any time soon, according to Frank: “There is absolutely zero relationship … [between our groups], nor will there ever be in the future.”


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    From the Architects Institute of America magazine
    https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/architects-shy-from-trutherism_o

    You keep proving my point. The quotes are from AIA management. They have their own agenda.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You keep proving my point. The quotes are from AIA management. They have their own agenda.

    I'm not proving any of your points. Yes the quotes are from AIA management, they are the managers, they speak on behalf of the organisation they manage - that's how management works.

    What is their agenda? again, another conspiracy or narrative you've just made up on the spot


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I'm not proving any of your points. Yes the quotes are from AIA management, they are the managers, they speak on behalf of the organisation they manage - that's how management works.

    What is their agenda? again, another conspiracy or narrative you've just made up on the spot

    This statement make so sense. Gage was a member of AIA so he was good enough for them at one point in time. I don't think Gage ever said AIA and Ae911 truth had a relationship, a partnership, so the quote is just mindless waffle.
    The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.

    I not bothered with rest of the exercises here trying to distance themselves from Gage views.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    This statement make so sense. Gage was a member of AIA so he was good enough for them at one point in time.

    He's an architect, so he's a member. People with qualifications can believe in mental things. Dr Judy Wood (hint: Doctor) is a materials scientist, with a PhD, she thinks magic energy weapons were used.
    I not bothered with rest of the exercises here trying to distance themselves from Gage views.

    You can't handle facts that dispute your faulty beliefs and random conspiracies

    It's crystal clear The American Institute of Architects want little or nothing to do with Gage's extra-curricular conspiracy group, which they have no hesitations in openly slamming in their own magazine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    Snip image spam

    As predicted, rather than address the points I made directly to one of your claims, you ignored them entirely and just spammed yet more images.

    Typical behavior for conspiracy theorists.

    Each of your pictures can be easily addressed and explained and shown not to support the idea of conspiracy. However if someone takes the time and effort to do that, that will be ignored. And then you guys will just spam out more of the same crap, or deflect to a new topic.

    To debunk something it takes time and effort to research and understand and explain. To make up bull**** it takes no time or effort at all.
    Hence conspiracy theorists have the advantage in that they can spew out factoids faster and easier than they can be countered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

    This is why you guys have to be so dishonest and evasive.
    If you are pinned down and made to address specific things and answer questions, the individual factoids crumble away. It happens with all of the points you're spamming.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    As predicted, rather than address the points I made directly to one of your claims, you ignored them entirely and just spammed yet more images.

    Typical behavior for conspiracy theorists.

    Each of your pictures can be easily addressed and explained and shown not to support the idea of conspiracy. However if someone takes the time and effort to do that, that will be ignored. And then you guys will just spam out more of the same crap, or deflect to a new topic.

    To debunk something it takes time and effort to research and understand and explain. To make up bull**** it takes no time or effort at all.
    Hence conspiracy theorists have the advantage in that they can spew out factoids faster and easier than they can be countered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

    This is why you guys have to be so dishonest and evasive.
    If you are pinned down and made to address specific things and answer questions, the individual factoids crumble away. It happens with all of the points you're spamming.

    You just described my exact experience with Sandy Hook truthers, Boston marathon bombing conspiracy theorists and Moon Landing hoaxers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    STEPHEN McHALE, NORTHSIDE EYEWITNESS


    https://hereisnewyorkv911.org/tag/pentagon-witness/



    525768.jpg



    525770.jpg

    You are just paste-dumping stuff and not answering any questions about it, or any other questions.

    In every one of these things you are pasting, these people are describing the plane hitting or the aftermath of the plane hitting. You claim flight 77 flew over the Pentagon, so according to you, what hit the Pentagon?


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Ruby gray


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You are just paste-dumping stuff and not answering any questions about it, or any other questions.

    In every one of these things you are pasting, these people are describing the plane hitting or the aftermath of the plane hitting. You claim flight 77 flew over the Pentagon, so according to you, what hit the Pentagon?


    As you cannot be bothered studying these eyewitness testimonies for yourself, much less attempt to provide A SINGLE ACCOUNT FROM A SOUTHSIDE WITNESS, and as I have spent YEARS and THOUSANDS OF HOURS researching, collating and composing this record of historical evidence, you should just listen up and learn something, instead of barrelling in with your kneejerk reaction attacks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    As you cannot be bothered studying these eyewitness testimonies for yourself, much less attempt to provide A SINGLE ACCOUNT FROM A SOUTHSIDE WITNESS

    I've read just about every witness statement, most describe an airliner crashing into the Pentagon. None describe the airliner flying over it.
    and as I have spent YEARS and THOUSANDS OF HOURS researching, collating and composing this record of historical evidence, you should just listen up and learn something, instead of barrelling in with your kneejerk reaction attacks.

    Right. Why can't you answer any questions about this theory? You seem to be trying to shove this extremely vague view down people's throats here and getting aggressive when asked to detail it in any way or when asked basic questions about it

    I'll ask again, for like the 5th or 6th time, if the flight 77 flew over the Pentagon as you describe, why are all these people describing it hitting the Pentagon? if flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?

    What's the basic timeline to this "false flag" you are suggesting?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    As you cannot be bothered
    Hi Ruby, I already responded to one of your witness images. You ignored that completely.

    Why did you do that?
    Why should anyone address any of your spam when if they did, you would just ignore it and post more?

    Will you please go back and address my post now?#
    Here it is for your convenience.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114515518&postcount=2794


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Ruby gray


    King Mob wrote: »
    Hi Ruby, I already responded to one of your witness images. You ignored that completely.

    Why did you do that?
    Why should anyone address any of your spam when if they did, you would just ignore it and post more?

    Will you please go back and address my post now?#
    Here it is for your convenience.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114515518&postcount=2794


    I already told you I am ignoring your baiting tyre-kicking questions.


    You have told me that it is easy to address each one of these eyewitness testimonies, and that there are possibly hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly over the bridge.


    So far you have not been able to address a single one of these illustrated pieces of evidence given by confirmed eyewtinesses, nor have you been able to find a single witness for your side.


    I wonder why.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    FIREFIGHTER ALAN WALLACE, AT HELIPORT, NORTHSIDE EYEWITNESS

    Sorry, you're just posting more spam.
    I've already addressed one of your previous images.
    Why are you ignoring that?

    If we stop to address one of these new images I think you'd ignore that too and just post yet more spam.


Advertisement