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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, you can provide a single sensible reason for why the BBC would be told anything by the conspirators.

Otherwise, the only explanation is my one.

Be honest and admit this, then maybe we can move on.
But given your track record...

Jesus gives it a rest, will you? Do you want to discuss anything else I posted today?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Jesus gives it a rest, will you? Do you want to discuss anything else I posted today?

What would be the point when if we get into the nitty gritty you'll just dodge and avoid points and questions when it's shown your conspiracy theory is silly.

Here your back is to the wall, it obvious you don't have a leg to stand on, yet you are not honest enough to admit you can't provide an explanation.

Why would I want to just repeat the process for a different point?
Or indeed for any point you'd ducked and dodged in this thread and others.

So again, this incident cannot be used to show a conspiracy as the conspiracy theory makes no sense of it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

What would be the point when if we get into the nitty gritty you'll just dodge and avoid points and questions when it's shown your conspiracy theory is silly.

Here your back is to the wall, it obvious you don't have a leg to stand on, yet you are not honest enough to admit you can't provide an explanation.

Why would I want to just repeat the process for a different point?
Or indeed for any point you'd ducked and dodged in this thread and others.

So again, this incident cannot be used to show a conspiracy as the conspiracy theory makes no sense of it.

My experience with you has never been like what you described. Answering questions you seriously

King Mob

And again, questions dodged.

This incident does not support the conspiracy, it only highlights how silly it is and how willing you and your conspiracy theorist friends are willing to swallow anything without question even when you know it doesn't make sense.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

And again, questions dodged.

This incident does not support the conspiracy, it only highlights how silly it is and how willing you and your conspiracy theorist friends are willing to swallow anything without question even when you know it doesn't make sense.

Again needs to be said, if someone didn't reason themselves into a position, it's unlikely they can be reasoned out of it

It's purely for others reading this thread

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And again, questions dodged.

This incident does not support the conspiracy, it only highlights how silly it is and how willing you and your conspiracy theorist friends are willing to swallow anything without question even when you know it doesn't make sense.

Nothing dodged it only in your head this happened. I can only speculate what happened since we don't who the source was behind the claim.

Conspiracy people are ones doing the real research on 9/11. Skeptics just sit on forums trying to debunk things they have no clue about.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can only speculate what happened since we don't who the source was behind the claim.

Except you can't, because you can't even suggest a single possible explanation that's consistent with conspiracy and reality.
This is because it's not possible and because the conspiracy theory is silly.

Again, watching youtube videos is not research.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Except you can't, because you can't even suggest a single possible explanation that's consistent with conspiracy and reality.
This is because it's not possible and because the conspiracy theory is silly.

Again, watching youtube videos is not research.

There nothing wrong with using video as long the content is well researched and backed up with evidence.

The explanation can only come when we know who the source was. Speculation doesn't achieve anything.

It only silly to people like you have not researched the collapse of WTC7

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There nothing wrong with using video as long the content is well researched and backed up with evidence.

Spoiler: they aren't. You just don't know cause you never critically examine them beyond what you're told.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The explanation can only come when we know who the source was. Speculation doesn't achieve anything.

You're only saying that because you can't provide a sane explaination.
You've been speculating lots when it suits you.

However, as I've explained, if you have no explanation for why this incident fits into the conspiracy (and it's clear you can't provide one) then the incident cannot be used to support the conspiracy theory.
You tried to use it to support the conspiracy theory, even though you can't explain it.

This is the case for pretty much every single claim you've made all the way from your very first one on this thread.
Which you have also not explained.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Spoiler: they aren't. You just don't know cause you never critically examine them beyond what you're told.

You're only saying that because you can't provide a sane explaination.
You've been speculating lots when it suits you.

However, as I've explained, if you have no explanation for why this incident fits into the conspiracy (and it's clear you can't provide one) then the incident cannot be used to support the conspiracy theory.
You tried to use it to support the conspiracy theory, even though you can't explain it.

I am done talking about this BBC report it can't be solved so there no point going on about endlessly. I have already given you an explanation what I think could have happened but I also left the door open it was a mistake an error.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I am done talking about this BBC report it can't be solved so there no point going on about endlessly.

It can be solved.
It doesn't fit in the conspiracy narrative. There is no explanation for it in the context of a conspiracy and it would not have happened if the conspiracy were true.
There is a viable explanation that doesn't involve a massive, silly, non nonsensical conspiracy.
Therefore, the incident doesn't indicate a conspiracy, contrary to your claims.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have already given you an explanation what I think could have happened but I also left the door open it was a mistake an error.

You have not given any explanation.
You stated that the conspirators would just tell the BBC beforehand, but this is silly and makes no sense.
There's no reason why they would tell anyone before.
Just stating this but not being able to provide a single sane reason is not an explanation.
It's just more silliness.

And again, it's illustrative of your conspiracy theory.
It stops making any sense if you hold the claims to any level of scrutiny.

It's the reason why after 17 years, none of you guys have been able to provide a coherent conspiracy narrative that doesn't rely on holographic planes and space lasers.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

It can be solved.
It doesn't fit in the conspiracy narrative. There is no explanation for it in the context of a conspiracy and it would not have happened if the conspiracy were true.
There is a viable explanation that doesn't involve a massive, silly, non nonsensical conspiracy.
Therefore, the incident doesn't indicate a conspiracy, contrary to your claims.


You have not given any explanation.
You stated that the conspirators would just tell the BBC beforehand, but this is silly and makes no sense.
There's no reason why they would tell anyone before.
Just stating this but not being able to provide a single sane reason is not an explanation.
It's just more silliness.

And again, it's illustrative of your conspiracy theory.
It stops making any sense if you hold the claims to any level of scrutiny.

It's the reason why after 17 years, none of you guys have been able to provide a coherent conspiracy narrative that doesn't rely on holographic planes and space lasers.

NIST report on WTC7 is flawed that's the issue always was. The BBC report is not that important at all it just another weird thing that never got explained.

What Holographic planes and space lasers got to do with anything? Do you think everyone believes in these theories? Truthers can't stop everyone false claims on the internet, their not gods.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The BBC report is not that important at all it just another weird thing that never got explained.

So ignoring the fact you've been given a viable explanation... let's live in your fantasy land.
How then does this weird thing that never got explained point towards a conspiracy?
It can't point towards a conspiracy, because it makes no sense in the context of a conspiracy.

Why do you and your conspiracy theory buddies bring it up?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What Holographic planes and space lasers got to do with anything? Do you think everyone believes in these theories? Truthers can't stop everyone false claims on the internet, their not gods.

It's just as silly as your suggestions that the conspirators would tell news agencies when they would be collapsing the building at a specific time, then getting the time wrong.
It's just as silly as your suggestion that they would hire a random taxi driver to make up testimony for no reason.
It's just as silly as your suggestion that they would fly a totally different plane into the pentagon.
It's just as silly as your suggestion that they used magic nano "thermites" to make the fires hotter so it would melt the steel and that they somehow planted these things in less that 24 hours. And also this is magic thermite that explodes. And also they go off randomly during the day. And also, somehow it still looks like a normal controlled demolition.

Why not holographic planes and space lasers?
They aren't any more silly than your claims.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

They aren't any more silly than your claims.

Read this thread in full and see a guy destroy people like you with ease. A truther who knows what he's talking about. The Skeptics couldn't cope when a guy came in and knew his stuff about engineering. Jassy guy reminds me of you! A Skeptic who just tries to derail the conversation when he didn't like what he was hearing and he got owned big time.

https://www.metabunk.org/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.t2332/

mickdw

Can I ask why you guys are so eager to keep responding. You appear to always without fail get a quick response in to cheerful springs posts.
Do you actually have jobs or is this your job?
You continually seek cast iron proof which is the easy way out because in my opinion, if something could be proven one way or another, it wouldn't be a topic on a conspiracy board.
I'm not big into this stuff but it seems there can be no discussion here just people who believe all they are told barking at others who are simply asking questions.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Read this thread in full and see a guy destroy people like you with ease. A truther who knows what he's talking about. The Skeptics couldn't cope when a guy came in and knew his stuff about engineering. Jassy guy reminds me of you! A Skeptic who just tries to derail the conversation when he didn't like what he was hearing and he got owned big time.

No thanks. Not worth my time. You've shown that you have trouble with reading and interpretation. Links you provide rarely say what you say they say.

Also you are dodging the question again because you don't like it and don't want to hear the answer. If this is what you consider a valid, honest tactic, then your interpretation is suspect.

You cannot explain the BBC report in the context of a conspiracy, therefore it does not indicate a conspiracy.
This is the same for every claim you've made, then abandoned in this thread.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Read this thread in full and see a guy destroy people like you with ease. A truther who knows what he's talking about. The Skeptics couldn't cope when a guy came in and knew his stuff about engineering. Jassy guy reminds me of you! A Skeptic who just tries to derail the conversation when he didn't like what he was hearing and he got owned big time.

https://www.metabunk.org/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.t2332/

What's his theory with supporting evidence?

They never have one. Why? because it's quite simple to tangle people up in knots over tiny details, it's like a kid asking "why, why, why, why" repeatedly to a parent

The key point is they don't have a theory as to what really happened - it's almost as if they are not interested in that part. Which is bizarre when you think about it.

It's almost as if they don't care and just want to.. tie people up in knots

Like this thread.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What's his theory with supporting evidence?

They never have one. Why? because it's quite simple to tangle people up in knots over tiny details, it's like a kid asking "why, why, why, why" repeatedly to a parent

The key point is they don't have a theory as to what really happened - it's almost as if they are not interested in that part. Which is bizarre when you think about it.

It's almost as if they don't care and just want to.. tie people up in knots

Like this thread.

He went through every point meticulously and carefully and explained the flaws in the NIST report. Mike West even at one stage admitted NIST made mistakes in their analysis.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

You continually seek cast iron proof which is the easy way out because in my opinion, if something could be proven one way or another, it wouldn't be a topic on a conspiracy board.

Where have you been asked for cast iron proof?
So far the only thing I've been asking for is simple direct explanations for things in the context of a conspiracy.

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not big into this stuff but it seems there can be no discussion here just people who believe all they are told barking at others who are simply asking questions.

Are there any points in particular you think have merit, or do you have any questions you think that the conspiracy theory opens up?
I'd be willing to walk through various, set points with someone with an actual open mind who is willing to answer questions and points directly and honestly.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No thanks. Not worth my time. You've shown that you have trouble with reading and interpretation. Links you provide rarely say what you say they say.

Also you are dodging the question again because you don't like it and don't want to hear the answer. If this is what you consider a valid, honest tactic, then your interpretation is suspect.

You cannot explain the BBC report in the context of a conspiracy, therefore it does not indicate a conspiracy.
This is the same for every claim you've made, then abandoned in this thread.

You have plenty of time to write nonsensical posts on here.

So you have no interest in debates with a truther on a Skeptic forum?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have plenty of time to write nonsensical posts on here.

So you have no interest in debates with a truther on a Skeptic forum?

Not when it's a particularly pathetic attempt to deflect for a question you can't answer honestly and directly.

Can you explain the BBC report in the context of a conspiracy?
Yes or no?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Not when it's a particularly pathetic attempt to deflect for a question you can't answer honestly and directly.

Can you explain the BBC report in the context of a conspiracy?
Yes or no?

I have answered this numerous times but no answer is good enough for you.

Even if the BBC report was an honest mistake an error what does that prove? You still got WTC7 collapsing from office fires, end of the day. Truthers have claimed the NIST report is flawed therefore we need to investigate other possibilities what brought down the building on 9/11

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

if something could be proven one way or another, it wouldn't be a topic on a conspiracy board.

Very little can be "proven" to someone who doesn't want to accept it. For example, there are people who believe the world is flat, there are forums for it. Go there, try it out, they will tie you up with tiny details and verbal gymnastics so fast you won't believe it

They porn scorn on the "skeptics" who according to them believe everything they are told and require evidence from them that the world is flat

You might look at those types of people and dismiss them as morons or think they are without reason/ration. It's no different to how people look at this thread. It's the same ridiculous type of thinking, it's just spruced up with more bells and whistles

You may think, meh, so what if people want to think 911 was an inside job, or that every attack on Western soil is a false flag or that vaccines cause autism or that the Holocaust didn't happen. Most of it is harmless. The problem is that some of it isn't. This nonsense shouldn't be let lie, it should be exposed for what it is

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have answered this numerous times but no answer is good enough for you.

No you haven't. You stated once that you thought that the conspirators told the BBC early. You did not explain why they would do this or how this makes a lick of sense.

Can you explain why they would do this?
Yes or no?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Even if the BBC report was an honest mistake an error what does that prove? You still got WTC7 collapsing from office fires, end of the day. Truthers have claimed the NIST report is flawed therefore we need to investigate other possibilities what brought down the building on 9/11

It proves that you guys swallow and spread any crap even when it doesn't make sense in the conspiracy and even when there is a real explanation.

It's the same with the NIST report. You've got no alternative explanation there that's any better than space lasers and the conspirators telling the BBC their evil plot for no reason.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Very little can be "proven" to someone who doesn't want to accept it. For example, there are people who believe the world is flat, there are forums for it. Go there, try it out, they will tie you up with tiny details and verbal gymnastics so fast you won't believe it

They porn scorn on the "skeptics" who according to them believe everything they are told and require evidence from them that the world is flat

You might look at those types of people and dismiss them as morons or think they are without reason/ration. It's no different to how people look at this thread. It's the same ridiculous type of thinking, it's just spruced up with more bells and whistles

You may think, meh, so what if people want to think 911 was an inside job, or that every attack on Western soil is a false flag or that vaccines cause autism or that the Holocaust didn't happen. Most of it is harmless. The problem is that some of it isn't. This nonsense shouldn't be let lie, it should be exposed for what it is

I just posted a link where someone who has the real facts debates the Skeptics and clearly wins the debate. Skeptics were backtracking all over the place in that thread to protect their opinion. Even some of them ended up name calling the guy, the evidence was just too much for them. The Skeptics remind me of you and Kingmob that's what I think everyone should read that thread in full and see who wins the argument.

Cheerful Spring

The guy even has videos showing the flaws with the NIST report. This is real research and well thought out.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just posted a link where someone who has the real facts debates the Skeptics and clearly wins the debate.

This isn't about "winning debates" its about finding out what really happened.

So what was their theory?

If nothing, then all they are doing is running people around in circles with subjective mental whataboutery. Anyone can do that. Your posts in this thread are a clear demonstration of that.

There is no theory after 17 years that would last 2 minutes in a court. There are literally millions of pages and material on the internet by a determined group of people who "don't get it", but there's no alternative credible theory

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So what was their theory?

Magic silent exploding nano thermites that can be set up in secret in a full building in less than 24 hours!

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This isn't about "winning debates" its about finding out what really happened.

So what was their theory?

If nothing, then all they are doing is running people around in circles with subjective mental whataboutery. Anyone can do that. Your posts in this thread are a clear demonstration of that.

There is no theory after 17 years that would last 2 minutes in a court. There are literally millions of pages and material on the internet by a determined group of people who "don't get it", but there's no alternative credible theory

His videos talk about the engineering part of the collapse. He shows omissions by NIST left out to make their theory work. If you watch and the videos are not that long you see how deeply flawed the NIST report is.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

His videos talk about the engineering part of the collapse. He shows omissions by NIST left out to make their theory work. If you watch and the videos are not that long you see how deeply flawed the NIST report is.

So what alternative does he provide?
If it wasn't fires, what does he suggest it was?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Magic silent exploding nano thermites that can be set up in secret in a full building in less than 24 hours!

Sold! I'll take it, don't need to ask any questions about it, no evidence needed, it has to be true

But please wait while I inexplicably and endlessly question and try to find "cracks" in the theory that is backed by expert consensus and mountain of evidence

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

His videos talk about the engineering part

Why doesn't he provide a theory as to what alternatively happened then?

Don't make the answer up. Think about it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So what alternative does he provide?
If it wasn't fires, what does he suggest it was?

It, not his role to provide an alternative that requires another investigation. He did excellent work exposing the flaws in the NIST WTC7 report. The collapse could not have happened the way NIST claims it did. He uses proper engineering drawings and diagrams of WTC7 to highlight this. NIST even omitted things to make their theory work.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why doesn't he provide a theory as to what alternatively happened then?

Don't make the answer up. Think about it.

Watch the videos I provided it takes 8 minutes of your time. Least then you have a better understanding what the flaws are.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It, not his role to provide an alternative that requires another investigation.

Why don't you just write - yeah, it's been 17 years, if all these people are supposedly analysing 911, why isn't there any consensus on what really happened? why is no one interested in that? real questions

Instead, you resort to inventing an answer to "protect" this person

It's an example of how people use extreme mental gymnastics to protect their beliefs, no matter how faulty, at any cost

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Watch the videos I provided it takes 8 minutes of your time. Least then you have a better understanding what the flaws are.

Why? some structural engineer could come in and dissect every detail of the video, how would you respond? you'd just reject it and post another from the dozens/hundreds on youtube

Just like some people can endlessly reject the NIST, you can endlessly reject explanation of it and go round in circles forever. Look at this thread.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why don't you just write - yeah, it's been 17 years, if all these people are supposedly analysing 911, why isn't there any consensus on what really happened? why is no one interested in that? real questions

Instead, you resort to inventing an answer to "protect" this person

It's an example of how people use extreme mental gymnastics to protect their beliefs, no matter how faulty, at any cost

Only a new government paid for independent study will solve this. We know the NIST study is flawed and worthless. We have the evidence the collapse could not have happened the way NIST claims it did.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why? some structural engineer could come in and dissect every detail of the video, how would you respond? you'd just reject it and post another from the dozens/hundreds on youtube

Just like some people can endlessly reject the NIST, you can endlessly reject explanation of it and go round in circles forever. Look at this thread.

Not really because NIST is leaving out things to fit their theory.

What troubling NIST removed shear studs from the girders and concrete on column 79 and 44.

We now know this was fraudulent as the diagrams have emerged showing there were shear studs on a girder 79 and 44.. NIST claims their drawings show no shear studs? When requested to release copies of their drawings for review they refused.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We know the NIST study is flawed

We don't. That's a personal assertion by you.

This is the equivalent of a flat-earther stating as fact "we know that the world is flat". No. We don't.

I have to keep pointing this fallacy out because you keep doing it repeatedly throughout this thread

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

So what alternative does he provide?
If it wasn't fires, what does he suggest it was?

It, not his role to provide an alternative that requires another investigation. He did excellent work exposing the flaws in the NIST WTC7 report. The collapse could not have happened the way NIST claims it did. He uses proper engineering drawings and diagrams of WTC7 to highlight this. NIST even omitted things to make their theory work.

So there is no alternative explanation for this either.

If it wasn't fires, what was it?

BorneTobyWilde

So he lied about the size of his pole. Hardly a conspiracy

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

We don't. That's a personal assertion by you.

This is the equivalent of a flat-earther stating as fact "we know that the world is flat". No. We don't.

I have to keep pointing this fallacy out because you keep doing it repeatedly throughout this thread

Again mixing conspiracies doesn't help your case. What flat earth have to do with 9/11?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So there is no alternative explanation for this either.

If it wasn't fires, what was it?

What left is the collapse initiated somewhere else in the building and NIST missed it. Or Explosives were used to bring the building down.

The collapse could not have started where NIST claims it started. Ask yourself why did they remove shear studs from column 79 and 44 to make their theory work? Diagrams have emerged since their study showing there were shear studs connected to the concrete floor slabs and girders on column 79 and 44. So a new investigation is required.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What left is the collapse initiated somewhere else in the building and NIST missed it. Or Explosives were used to bring the building down.

Ok, where was the collapsed initiated?
Where were these explosives placed? How? When? By who? Why is there no evidence of any explosions before the collapse?
Are you now saying it's not magic thermite?

And again: why would someone plant explosives in the first place?

If you can't answer these questions, then say so.
If you ignore these questions, we'll take it as read that you can't answer them.

And if you can't answer them, your conspiracy theory is worthless hot air.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, where was the collapsed initiated?
Where were these explosives placed? How? When? By who?
Are you now saying it's not magic thermite?

I, not an engineer I leave that conclusion to people who know better than I.

NIST claims this how it happened (below). With no shear studs, this thermal expansion is possible. With Shear studs it can't happen it can handle the pressure and load. That's why NIST removed the Shear Studs. We now have the diagrams and drawings for WTC7 that show shears stud connections at column 79 and 44. NIST theory is broken and flawed. Watch the first video I presented it shows the original construction drawings for WTC7

Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

Nano Thermites particles were discovered in the Dust of the debris of WTC7.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I, not an engineer I leave that conclusion to people who know better than I.

Questions dodged because you can't answer them.
Your conspiracy theory is empty nonsense that can't explain the most basic things.
It's just as valid as suggesting it was space lasers and holographic planes.
There's no difference.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nano Thermites particles were discovered in the Dust of the debris of WTC7.

No, they weren't. This is a lie spread by frauds and conspiracy theorists.

Also, the fact you keep calling it "thermites" makes it very clear that you don't actually know what thermite is.

So if you are insisting it's thermite, do you now reject that is was explosives?
Thermite is not an explosive and it can't be both. So which is it?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Questions dodged because you can't answer them.
Your conspiracy theory is empty nonsense that can't explain the most basic things.
It's just as valid as suggesting it was space lasers and holographic planes.
There's no difference.


No, they weren't. This is a lie spread by frauds and conspiracy theorists.

Also, the fact you keep calling it "thermites" makes it very clear that you don't actually know what thermite is.

So if you are insisting it's thermite, do you now reject that is was explosives?

The only people who can't handle the truth is skeptics you got lied to accept it and move on. The construction drawings exist the NIST theory is broken. If you don't want to accept maybe best spend your time on a skeptic forum and not this forum?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The only people who can't handle the truth is skeptics you got lied to accept it and move on. The construction drawings exist the NIST theory is broken. If you don't want to accept maybe best spend your time on a skeptic forum and not this forum?

Again, not the one who's been constantly lying and dodging up and down this thread.

The conspiracy doesn't explain anything.
You and your buddies have had 17 years. How come you can't show where the explosives were? Or that there were explosives? Or why there were explosives in the first place?

Why is the best you have space lasers?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, not the one who's been constantly lying and dodging up and down this thread.

The conspiracy doesn't explain anything.
You and your buddies have had 17 years. How come you can't show where the explosives were? Or that there were explosives? Or why there were explosives in the first place?

Why is the best you have space lasers?

What 17 years got to do with anything? The truthers have proven the NIST study is flawed that's why lawyers filed a new petition in court again to kickstart a new investigation. The US government doesn't want people to know the truth.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What 17 years got to do with anything? The truthers have proven the NIST study is flawed that's why lawyers filed a new petition in court again to kickstart a new investigation. The US government doesn't want people to know the truth.

Because they have all these "experts" and all this desire to prove what really happened.
Yet, they haven't even gotten past square one with their theory.
You can't even do the most basic thing and suggest why they would take down WTC7 in the first place.

It's the most fundamental question, yet you can't answer it.
You have to dodge and evade and be utterly dishonest.
You can't even admit you can't answer this question.

Bit weird, no?