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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

ASCE is fearful AE911 truth

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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.

The Nal wrote: »

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

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.”

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

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

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.

Ruby gray wrote: »

As you cannot be bothered

Ruby gray wrote: »

FIREFIGHTER ALAN WALLACE, AT HELIPORT, NORTHSIDE EYEWITNESS

Ruby gray wrote: »

Only in a very perverse and twisted parallel universe is EVIDENCE considered to be "SPAM" when it is posted in the appropriate forum.

Ruby gray wrote: »

Only in a very perverse and twisted parallel universe is EVIDENCE considered to be "SPAM" when it is posted in the appropriate forum.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes it's complete nonsense, but that's what they want to drag you into. A granular subjective debate where they invent the rules.

When you don't play that absurd game, the toys come out of the pram as we've seen

Ruby gray wrote: »

Still waiting for you to counter with EVEN JUST ONE IMAGE OF A CONFIRMED EYEWITNESS WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.

Ruby gray wrote: »

I have reiterated many times.

I am not presenting "my theory" and nor do i need to invent a personal theory to cater to your whims.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS INVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 PENTAGON.

Everything you have written over the past 2 years here is therefore OFF-TOPIC, and a transparent attempt to derail the discussion, to slight anyone who does want to discuss it, and to libel an honest man who is a most significant, credible eyewitness in possession of the famous cab which is a testimony to the fact that the government version of 9/11 is a damnable lie.

It is clear that it is YOU who are avoiding all questions, that YOU are easily fooled by incomplete, vague, third-person poetic-licenced journalistic excerpts, rather than in pinning down eyewitness identifications and locations and first-person quotes which tell such a different story.

I have so far provided many scores of individual pieces of evidence which all contradict the government version, which you are afraid to address.

Yet YOU CANNOT PRODUCE THE NAME, LOCATION AND TESTIMONY OF ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.

Ruby gray wrote: »

The synapses are clearly misfiring.
You have absolutely everything backwards.

Ruby gray wrote: »

Time is finite, and you are attempting to derail the discussion of this TOPIC with endless time-wasting hypothetica.


Posting responses on a tablet at home is more difficult than using a real computer which is only available when I get to town.


I do not have to answer every single point in every reply.


So far you have not entered into the discussion of the TOPIC, which is not encouraging me to answer you at all.

Ruby gray wrote: »

OH AREN'T YOU FUNNY.
You are the one running away from facts and cold hard evidence.


NAME SOMEBODY WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.


PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Ruby gray wrote: »

No, you are quite wrong. CIT strongly disputed the theory of a missile hitting the Pentagon.

Wrong again about the holographic planes. They spent years seeking out and personally interviewing scores of eyewitnesses who saw the plane, many of them never previously recorded. Unanimously, these eyewitnesses saw the plane flying on a trajectory that is 100% inconsistent with the official flightpath.

They simply could not find anyone who witnessed the plane flying across the bridge. And nor could anyone else.