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

Overheal wrote: »

So you’re phasing between two beliefs here and I want to pin you down:

Was it a controlled demolition? If so, steel building implosion case examples apply.

Was it a fire? If so, there is no conspiracy and you accept it was due to the fire and are just cranking because the NIST computer simulation wasn’t a work of art.

I was sticking to the subject we are discussing. You want to talk about controlled demolition now.

You don't think World trade seven collapse resembles a controlled demoition?

You think fires on a few floors can magically remove all the construction inside the building in seconds. Video actually disproves NIST theory. Put yourself inside the buillding and imagine all 47 floors collapsing- what do you think would happen to the face of the building?

Overheal wrote: »

Ok so you think it was a controlled demolition. Cool. Then other case studies apply of steel building implosions. As detailed, they are extremely laborious simulations to set up, taking weeks if not months even with much more perfect information about the collapse triggers and conditions and with computer hardware that was generations more advanced than what NIST could access.

Yes i do. NIST could not test for explosives' steel from wtc7 site was gone, nobody then can claim explosives were not used. The testing of the steel would have ruled out explosives, but again this work was never done by anyone.

NIST did say, they never tested for explosives regards twin towers. They had a preconcieved idea and did not rule out other scenarios with evidence.

NIST engineers even claimed freefall was an impossibility due to fire. Caught and realising they can't away with this and was discovered building seven experienced freefall, they changed their study and claimed freefall had occurred and was part of their study all along. Bull**** the NIST video is more proof for me their fire hypothesis is totally made up and it not fact based. You can't change a six year study workings in three months.

Overheal wrote: »

We’ve covered this before, with you, at painstaking length: it is not free fall.

NIST admitted the building experienced freefall in Dec 2008. In their final report in Dec 2008. In August 2008 they claimed their analysis showed freefall had not occurred.

Take the time to listen to NIST chief engineer. He replied to a question from David Chandler on video. Since then NIST has never debated anyone with a dissenting voice.

NIST Aug 2008 conference

Overheal wrote: »

Not what they admitted. And again, there was a 3,000+ thread about this, and you still weren’t getting it. So no, not gonna re-hash it here.

Why don't you watch the 10 minutes video. Its NIST speaking and you guys support them. If you not going to bother with evidence just say it? I providing evidence for my claims and you guys refuse to look at it.

King Mob wrote: »

Because you've shown that you don't understand what freefall means among other technical terms.
You simply don't understand what the NIST mean when they are talking about freefall in this instance and every attempt to explain it to you in simple child like terms has failed to get past your inability and unwillingness to understand or to consider that you are wrong.

You can keep bleating on about what you think the NIST have said, but we all know why you are wrong and why it's pointless to explain it to you again.

Watch the video then, you can spare ten minutes of your precious time.. You can give us your take on it and discuss. Right now this just an example of ignorance. I know you never watched it, but that will not stop you, posting uninformed information continuously.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, but I remind myself that this thread demonstrates the absurdity of 911 conspiracy positions

Absurdity is people like you keep denying obvious evidence. She faced the same bull****. Margulis brilliant woman noticed the truthers are right to question the events on 9/11. She is also a believer the buildings were controlled demolitioned. She said NIST study is not science, it's pseudoscience. You would be one of those people dismissing her research back then.

Throughout her career, Margulis' work could arouse intense objection (one grant application elicited the response, "Your research is crap, do not bother to apply again",[5]) and her formative paper, "On the Origin of Mitosing Cells", appeared in 1967 after being rejected by about fifteen journals.[7] Still a junior faculty member at Boston University at the time, her theory that cell organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts were once independent bacteria was largely ignored for another decade, becoming widely accepted only after it was powerfully substantiated through genetic evidence. Margulis was elected a member of the US National Academy of Sciences in 1983. President Bill Clinton presented her the National Medal of Science in 1999. The Linnean Society of London awarded her the Darwin-Wallace Medal in 2008.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

1. There are dozens of pages of posts explaining the free-fall to you. It's a game to you, you entice someone into explaining something that you will reject, over and over. Anything to avoid the glaring fact you can't support your own bananas theory.

2. Chandler is a 911 truther who hijacked at QandA to extrapolate his own irrelevant conclusions - all based on misinterpretations, denial and planting doubt. He's a crank. It's been debunked to death.



Yes it does

The supporting evidence, investigations and academic consensus support A (WTC 7 fire, thermal expansion)

No supporting evidence, no investigations, no academic consensus support B (controlled demo)

You explained nothing. There not single piece of evidence you provided.

NIST has never revealed how 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns can disappear in seconds. The building had full support then the next few seconds it had zero supoort. The only logical explanation for that is controlled demolition. Thats why the building seven perimeter walls came down intact and did not crumble on live TV. Of course the NIST model showed what must happen if fires caused a buckling of columns across the width of the building over a period of time' the walls and face of the building would fold in on itself!

He hijacked the Qand A;) Chandler highlighted the errors to them because they said this

NIST quote
Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”


NIST failed to understand their calculations were wrong in Aug 2008 however they went away and fixed it and then claimed the building experienced 2.25 seconds of freefall. Yet never commented on the implications this now posed. They also ignored the onset of collapse.

Chandler is only a crack because he believes the towers collapsed. Thats your complaint really.