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

As evidenced by the fact that we are down to a handful of people on boards, with only really one repeatedly posting. Which consists entirely of a ping-pong game of "convince me, I'll never accept it".

The passage of time part is telling also. The longer something vast is kept under wraps the more likely over time that it will be revealed.

The Nal

Due to the passage of time, people are slowly realising that there was no conspiracy, the appetite is dwindling, the movement is running out of steam thankfully. Not a jot of evidence in 19 years to suggest it was a controlled demolition so the truth movement (lol) is dying out.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

On 9/11 was the first time in history, a high rise of steel structure collapsed due to fire.

It was the first time in history that skyscrapers were deliberately rammed with airliners

Something happening for the first time in history is not an argument that it couldn't have happened.

This has been explained to you countless times. This might come as a shock to you, but the history of event itself is entirely separate from your (mis)understanding of it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

No constructions of similar type to the Twin Towers and WTC7 has ever fallen down due to fire in Europe or America, and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You ignore buildings come down from controlled demolition. We can spot some of the features you expect to see if a building has been rigged for controlled demoition example freefall.

Cool.
Please point to the many examples of these demolitions that:
1. Had "constructions of similar type to the Twin Towers and WTC7"
2. Were done in secret.
3. Involved any type of thermite.
4. Occured after the building was hit by airliners/ had large skyscrapers collapses next to them.

Links and videos would be great.

Also, freefall is not a feature of controlled demolition. This is a lie that has been explained to you before.

King Mob wrote: »

One, not true.
Secondly, it's also the first time in history any structure collapsed due to secret demolition using secret fictional nanothermite.

Why do you keep bringing this silly factoid up when it would also disprove your conspiracy theory?

If it was incorrect, Dohnjoe would be posting links to examples nonstop. He noticed one example in Iran after 9/11 that was a concrete and steel building a composite. No constructions of similar type to the Twin Towers and WTC7 has ever fallen down due to fire in Europe or America, and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

You ignore buildings come down from controlled demolition. We can spot some of the features you expect to see if a building has been rigged for controlled demoition example freefall.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

On 9/11 was the first time in history, a high rise of steel structure collapsed due to fire.
Many high rises composed of structural steel have caught fire and survived. All of them stood up and never collapsed- 9/11 this changed. Truthers question why?
Since fire is the cause of the collapse according to NIST and others, we have to figure out why did engineering history change on 9/11?

Also, a new thought occurs.
If this held and was true and that it's not possible for a steel framed building to collapse due to fire, why did they use all that fireproofing in the buildings? Seems like that would be a bit pointless.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

On 9/11 was the first time in history a steel structure of steel collapsed due to fire.

One, not true.
Secondly, it's also the first time in history any structure collapsed due to secret demolition using secret fictional nanothermite.

Why do you keep bringing this silly factoid up when it would also disprove your conspiracy theory?

banie01 wrote: »

Belief system?

You think that your clinging to a discredited and debunked conspiracy theory, is worthy of some sort of "protection" as a belief system?

From your posts on this site, a large number of in the main discredited and debunked theories that are thrown together with an amalgam of factoid, disinformation and imagined nonsense, are what you believe.

You think that you can post nonsense on a social public forum and not be called out as a fantasist?

You may want to find yourself a safe space, one where you can post and not feel so threatened in your "beliefs" by the application of logic or skeptical thinking.

What can't you understand?
Fire records and engineering does not side with the community of Skeptics.
On 9/11 was the first time in history, a high rise of steel structure collapsed due to fire.
Many high rises composed of structural steel have caught fire and survived. All of them stood up and never collapsed- 9/11 this changed. Truthers question why?
Since fire is the cause of the collapse according to NIST and others, we have to figure out why did engineering history change on 9/11?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Wrong, when you tune in to NIST words, what I have mentioned will become more clear.

It's not wrong, it's you. You are either deliberately or inadvertently misunderstanding the situation. Doing so helps bolster the conspiracy for you. So I am leaning toward deliberate.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why would i listen to someone who doesn't watch videos with NIST speaking?
I know my claim not false- David Chandler question was read out during the NIST/ draft of the report conference and NIST answered the chandler question.
I can hear NIST answer. So i know you guys are clueless about what took place.

Watch it.

Again, this is a misrepresentation of what was said.
This has been explained to you many times.

They ruled out free fall based on their own calculations, estimates and judgements, and there was structural resistance underneath stopping freefall.

A few posts ago, this was exactly what you were claiming happened.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112260881&postcount=1105

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are misrepresenting the information, and taking it out of context.

No matter how many times this is explained to you - you ignore it. So why should anyone bother?

Wrong, when you tune in to NIST words, what I have mentioned will become more clear. They ruled out free fall based on their own calculations, estimates and judgements, and there was structural resistance underneath stopping freefall.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I know my claim not false- David Chandler question was read out during the NIST/ draft of the report conference and NIST answered the chandler question.
I can hear NIST answer. So i know you guys are clueless about what took place.

You are misrepresenting the information, and taking it out of context.

No matter how many times this is explained to you - you ignore it. So why should anyone bother?

King Mob wrote: »

But cheerful you are again misrepresenting things and using terms you don't understand.
I don't think it's because you're dishonest, but because you don't actually understand what you're claiming any more.

Why would i listen to someone who doesn't watch videos with NIST speaking?
I know my claim not false- David Chandler question was read out during the NIST/ draft of the report conference and NIST answered the chandler question.
I can hear NIST answer. So i know you guys are clueless about what took place.

Watch it.

banie01 wrote: »

Belief system?

You think that your clinging to a discredited and debunked conspiracy theory, is worthy of some sort of "protection" as a belief system?

From your posts on this site, a large number of in the main discredited and debunked theories that are thrown together with an amalgam of factoid, disinformation and imagined nonsense, are what you believe.

It also bares pointing out the comments made about conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists he doesn't agree with.

Words like "crazy" and "stupid" came up.

banie01 wrote: »

You may want to find yourself a safe space, one where you can post and not feel so threatened in your "beliefs" by the application of logic or skeptical thinking.

Typically they band together on conspiracy forums with conspiracy mods so they can block out normal scrutiny and skepticism

It wasn't so many years back that the conspiracy forum on this site had a rule that conspiracy theorists didn't have to present any evidence of their claims, it didn't last too long if I remember

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes, it is a social public forum, nevertheless doesn't give you the right to mock someone else belief system.

Belief system?

You think that your clinging to a discredited and debunked conspiracy theory, is worthy of some sort of "protection" as a belief system?

From your posts on this site, a large number of in the main discredited and debunked theories that are thrown together with an amalgam of factoid, disinformation and imagined nonsense, are what you believe.

You think that you can post nonsense on a social public forum and not be called out as a fantasist?

You may want to find yourself a safe space, one where you can post and not feel so threatened in your "beliefs" by the application of logic or skeptical thinking.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yes, it is a social public forum, nevertheless doesn't give you the right to mock someone else belief system.

It's not belief or faith-based, which you seem to confuse it as. You are attempting to revise and deny history.

If you prefaced your views as opinion, then you are entitled to it as opinion. But you aren't, you keep trying to assert your opinions as fact

A french school textbook was recently discovered with one sentence alluding to 9/11 as a conspiracy, it's been quickly addressed. The fact that it made world news should give some clue as to the difference between accepted fact and baseless opinion

In a statement to the BBC it said opinions could "of course be freely expressed in our books but under no circumstances can an inaccurate or unfounded fact be presented as an objective truth".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51187970

On a side note, you are abusing this public "safe space" to peddle your personal brand of disinformation and imaginings, so don't act surprised when others call you out on it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

When NIST engineers fail to notice; the building experienced free fall after six years you have to wonder how capable are they at doing their job? David Chandler should have to tell them things, that should already know?

But cheerful you are again misrepresenting things and using terms you don't understand.
I don't think it's because you're dishonest, but because you don't actually understand what you're claiming any more.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

Yes, it is a social public forum, nevertheless doesn't give you the right to mock someone else belief system. I don't think the position the buildings were demolished by controlled demolition, is that crazy, when even the mainstream engineers also express this was first time in history a high rise steel structure construction collapsed to just fire. Twin Towers least has some chance of occurrence maybe with the jet fuel and plane impacting the front and the kinectic blast?

What facts are you talking about?
We know now FBI agents were ordered to stop the Saudi 9/11 investigation by their supervisors. How do you learn the facts, when there powerless to talk to the people or arrest those people who were involved in facilitating the attack? Root cause cannot be determined when investigations are not allowed to continue..Maybe you see the world differently to me, but for this just commonsense.

Building seven though still the biggest mystery as the claim is it came down by just a local zone fire. Building seven is a business building, all that will burn is wood and paper, and the fires don't burn continually all day, they burn and go out and move to the next location When NIST engineers fail to notice; the building experienced free fall after six years you have to wonder how capable are they at doing their job? David Chandler should have to tell them things, that should already know?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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 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.

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.

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.