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

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The first video supports the truther case. The guy states the building was designed to withstand a jet airliner impact? Yep true Then shows the jet breaking apart before it reached the steel central core in the middle (43 seconds) why they do not show the full simulation? Then the guy outright states NIST never studied the physics of the final collapse ( i told you this in the thread) There is a reason why NIST is avoiding this discussion about the final collapse. Dr Frank Greening is ignoring the top floors exploded and formed a giant mushroom cloud. There was nothing left to crush the bottom floors underneath.

No thats wrong it prove it was a collapse by fire

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

No thats wrong it prove it was a collapse by fire

Dr Greening claim floors collapsed on each other on way down. How the top floors exploded in mid-air and then the floors came down one by one at freefall speeds.

The Nal

Heres a debunker making total fools of conspiracy nuts, proving the towers fell due to fires from Al Qaeda piloted planes.

The Nal

Heres more proof that Building 7 fell due to fire.

This guy is an explosives expert. He knows.

We know there were no bombs in the buildings. We know for certain Al Qaeda planned it and carried it out.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Right, so you agree you have no example to show?

Reminds me of the Inquisition.

Its a forum for honest debate.

The irony of you posting that :pac:

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Heres more proof that Building 7 fell due to fire.

This guy is an explosives expert. He knows.

We know there were no bombs in the buildings. We know for certain Al Qaeda planned it and carried it out.

I watching the first video. The first three myths.

The explosive expert wrongly stated conspiracy theorists believe thermite brought the towers down. The truthers found a completely new substance in the dust called nano-thermite or nanometal explosive. Thermite is not even debated.

The explosive expert also had not seen the picture I posted here of a yellow liquid pool near the steel columns. It matches the New York firefighters description of finding molten steel in the rubble. They described it as flowing like lava like a foundry.

There was nobody inside WTC7 when it collapsed. There was no injuries or deaths. He does not understand the day. So the blast injury theory is just a strawman. The people who died in towers were killed instantly and the remains were burned and too degraded.

Myth 4 is bull****. The dust clouds went far outside the collapse zone. You even saw steel flying in all directions and landing 100s of feet away. Claiming it was just wallboard its nonsense. The concrete flooring was also pulverised

Myth 5 is also bull****. The first reported fires on the east side were just after 1pm. Fires don't burn all day (where they find this fool) fires burn till they run out of fuel and combustibles. If you look at the photos you see fires extinguishing on different floors at different times during the day.

Myth 6 also bull****. Partial collapse is not the same thing.

I can't be bothered with the rest when he's wrong about 6 myths.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Heres a debunker making total fools of conspiracy nuts, proving the towers fell due to fires from Al Qaeda piloted planes.

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours. The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1. This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the buckled column that initiated the collapse. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001. The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.


It very strange how 9/11 debunkers keep claiming the damage to the building from the towers collapse had a significant impact. NIST debunked this.

What else do you think the debunkers are right about?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You claim I am dishonest. Care to elaborate where and when I posted false info about 9/11?

Be specific no waffle.

Only need to look at this thread

By the way I not ruling out a 757 crashed at the Pentagon.

The damage at the front of the Pentagon also is proof no 757 crashed there.

A commercial aircraft plane low to the ground at 530mph ( which is not possible by the way the max speed of 757 in 2001 was 493mph an hour? at that altitude the plane would break up on approach to hit the Pentagon.

Their newer models of the aircraft go that fast. Years ago I researched this and found the exact model of Flight 77 and it's maxed speed. I found the specifications and plane manual. I debated years ago on another forum but I haven't since. I should be able to find the information on there again just a pain to go through all those posts again.

A commercial airliner is not designed to travel at that speed low to the ground, it is at high altitudes. I did calculations on this in that other forum from the fuselage to the ground it crazy anyone could have done this, the way the government describes. Remember the plane hit the first floor, low to the ground almost touching the grass. I look at those calculations again and talk about them on here!

I was asked what do I think crashed at the Pentagon. My view what crashed at the Pentagon was A3-Skywarrior . This plane had the manoeuvrability to carry out the mission. This plane would look to an untrained eye to be a commercial airliner.

It was outfitted with missile and remotely piloted to the Pentagon.

But I have looked up the parts found in the Pentagon to see if they match up with this plane they do

This matches perfectly with Praxair Fanhub. Above part, the blades are broken off. The fanhub when I researched this was larger in 757

to..

While a 757 commercial airliner crashed at the Pentagon, it looks highly likely now the 5 Lightpoles was a staged event!

Whenever your bull**** is called out, you just "change tack" into another level of it. It's clearly your hobby. When you get really stuck you just make up a conspiracy to explain the conspiracy

Construction was happening in this area of the Pentagon (West side) The light poles were likely taken down the night before or taken down just before the event when nobody noticed. AMEC the construction company has ties to well-known Neocon politicians and does a lot of its work in Saudi Arabia.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Only need to look at this thread












to..



Whenever your bull**** is called out, you just "change tack" into another level of it. It's clearly your hobby. When you get really stuck you just make up a conspiracy to explain the conspiracy

Not dishonest at all. I posted facts and speculation.

Fact
So you believe flight 77 was travelling 400mph and 500mph an hour low to the ground? Pilots decelerate the plane when they drop altitude. At this speed, windows would shatter in peoples homes. Car windows would break. Heard no reports of windows breaking in Washington when the plane flew pass residential areas. Never mind the air has a very different density when you travelling along the ground. You never heard of wind shear or ground effect? Look it up google it. If the plane was travelling low to the ground it was not travelling at 400mph or 500mph an hour. If you believe prove it?

Fact
Yes, I found the exact plane specs for flight 77. I found the exact plane model number. The max speed of the plane was 493mph an hour. This was 2001.

Fact
There is no evidence of a commercial airliner crash at the front of the Pentagon. There nothing but a piece of metal on the front lawn. DOD and FBI released photographs years later of planes parts found inside the Pentagon.

Speculation
Skywarrior was just me theorising I believe there was a second event that occurred at the Pentagon. You don't believe this Dohnjoe I do.

Fact
Multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane on the north side before it hit the Pentagon. Official account (9/11 commission) placed the plane on the Southside. Lloyd England said the incident with the light pole happened on the Northside at the Cemetery. His taxi is on the bridge on the southside in photographs later. Lloyd was adamant on video this not where the incident happened. Is he lying?

Fact
Why is the government refusing to release security tapes we know they have? There cameras on the roof of the Pentagon. A camera on the wall of the fire station. Cameras located on poles near the freeway beside the Pentagon.

Fact
The plane did not hit the Pentagon coming in from a southside direction. The damage to the west wall does not match up. I explained already why in other thread. If flight 77 hit the Pentagon it came in slow from the north side and hit straight on.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not dishonest at all. I posted facts and speculation.

I don't think you know what speculation is. Which is not a shock.
You should look up what big words mean before using them.

The damage at the front of the Pentagon also is proof no 757 crashed there.

This is not speculation, this was a statement of fact.
One that was as every bit as wrong as everything else you've claimed.

But I have looked up the parts found in the Pentagon to see if they match up with this plane they do

This matches perfectly with Praxair Fanhub. Above part, the blades are broken off. The fanhub when I researched this was larger in 757

You claimed to do research that proved your original claim.

Was your research wrong? Why was it wrong?
Did you in reality just not do it?

The Nal

More proof the plane brought the building down. South tower collapses and breaks at the point of plane impact. ie the top of the building falls sideways. Cheerful Spring of course ignore this.



"Truthers" also ignore Noam Chomskys approach to it.

People of course ignore this proof.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not dishonest at all. I posted facts and speculation.

Nah you post random nonsensical conspiracy stuff. Not to mention the pathological dishonesty and endless twisting and distorting of information

Fact
So you believe flight 77 was travelling 400mph and 500mph an hour low to the ground? Pilots decelerate the plane when they drop altitude. At this speed, windows would shatter in peoples homes. Car windows would break. Heard no reports of windows breaking in Washington when the plane flew pass residential areas. Never mind the air has a very different density when you travelling along the ground. You never heard of wind shear or ground effect? Look it up google it. If the plane was travelling low to the ground it was not travelling at 400mph or 500mph an hour. If you believe prove it?

It was doing 530 when it hit the Pentagon

Fact
Yes, I found the exact plane specs for flight 77. I found the exact plane model number. The max speed of the plane was 493mph an hour. This was 2001.

Dishonest. Even when I pointed out that you could be confused for the 493 knots you ignored and persisted with the above

Even when multiple links were posted literally showing the speeds and tolerances, you ignored - despite being direct links showing the plane specs

Fact
There is no evidence of a commercial airliner crash at the front of the Pentagon. There nothing but a piece of metal on the front lawn. DOD and FBI released photographs years later of planes parts found inside the Pentagon.

Another lie. 5 seconds in google images will reveal multiple photos showing flight 77 wreckage.

Speculation
Skywarrior was just me theorising I believe there was a second event that occurred at the Pentagon. You don't believe this Dohnjoe I do.

You asserted that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then it did. That there is no wreckage, that there was, and now that there is no wreckage

Again, borderline insanity stuff

Fact
Multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane on the north side before it hit the Pentagon. Official account (9/11 commission) placed the plane on the Southside. Lloyd England said the incident with the light pole happened on the Northside at the Cemetery. His taxi is on the bridge on the southside in photographs later. Lloyd was adamant on video this not where the incident happened. Is he lying?

Eye witnesses saw the plane hitting the Pentagon. You're desparately trying to find some sort of "conspiracy" angle, so you've literally invented this "it came in at a slightly different angle" conspiracy

Even though it makes no sense

Fact
Why is the government refusing to release security tapes we know they have? There cameras on the roof of the Pentagon. A camera on the wall of the fire station. Cameras located on poles near the freeway beside the Pentagon.

We don't know they have it, you don't know if those cameras were on. Maybe there were, maybe they weren't

Complete speculation

Fact
The plane did not hit the Pentagon coming in from a southside direction. The damage to the west wall does not match up. I explained already why in other thread. If flight 77 hit the Pentagon it came in slow from the north side and hit straight on.

Another invention by you

The damage matches with the plane strike which matches with all the other data (except several seconds of erroneous FDR data)

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

More proof the plane brought the building down. South tower collapses and breaks at the point of plane impact. ie the top of the building falls sideways. Cheerful Spring of course ignore this.



"Truthers" also ignore Noam Chomskys approach to it.

People of course ignore this proof.

It was the fires that brought the south tower down (official version). The plane crash just started the fires. Nobody claims the actual plane brought down the south tower down.

The truthers claim is the fires were not hot enough to destroy the steel or melt it. This is true.

The debate is how hot were the fires? Debunkers claim the steel just lost strength and it buckled and collapsed. They avoid talking about the steel melted found in the rubble and observations made by firefighters and clean-up crews of fighting molten steel in the rubble. How can low combustible fires melt steel? Their scientific principles ignored and well-known steel does not melt till around 1500c..

I like Noam Chomsky his a smart guy. This is an old video.

Truthers are now doing legitimate work to prove it WTC7 collapsed by controlled demolition. Dr Hulsey study cost the truthers 300,000 dollars and is due to be released in a couple of weeks. Chomsky was right then when he spoke, but not today. New scientific papers about WTC7 collapse are going to be released for peer review.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The debate is how hot were the fires? Debunker claim the steel just lost strength and it buckled and collapsed. They avoid talking about the steel melted found in the rubble and observations made by firefighters and clean-up crews of fighting molten steel in the rubble. How can low combustible fires melt steel? Their scientific principles ignored and well-known steel does not melt till around 1500c..

Again more of your random speculation and mixed up views

After debris from the collapsing WTC tower caused significant damage to WTC 7, fires burnt unchecked for hours on multiple stories, fire (including office fires) can significantly weaken steel - which is why steel in buildings is cladded with fireproof materials. A combination of debris damage, fires weakening steel, thermal expansion and the design of the building itself resulted in it's total collapse later in the day

This doesn't need to be proved to an unreasonable conspiracy theorist any more than the world being round needs to be "proved" to a flat-earther

Truthers are now doing legitimate work to prove it WTC7 collapsed by controlled demolition. Dr Hulsey study cost the truthers 300,000 dollars and is due to be released in a couple of weeks. Chomsky was right then when he spoke, but not today. New scientific papers about WTC7 collapse are going to be released for peer review.

Truthers haven't done anything to show WTC 1, 2 and 7 were "blown up". Any "studies" they've conducted have been unscientific. Their arguments have been thoroughly debunked over the years

Likewise, Dr Hulsey's study has nothing to do with a so-called "controlled demolition". It's a conspiracy group funded study to prove a negative (that the building couldn't have collapsed due to fire), it's years overdue and preliminary findings are highly questionable

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I watching the first video. The first three myths.

Just to address the below silliness for anyone else reading the thread

The explosive expert wrongly stated conspiracy theorists believe thermite brought the towers down. The truthers found a completely new substance in the dust called nano-thermite or nanometal explosive. Thermite is not even debated.

The "thermite" or "nano-thermite" theories have been debunked. Truthers, using unscientific studies, believed they "found" traces of thermite/nano-thermite. They were just common compounds found in any building (e.g. iron oxide (rust) and aluminium)

The explosive expert also had not seen the picture I posted here of a yellow liquid pool near the steel columns. It matches the New York firefighters description of finding molten steel in the rubble. They described it as flowing like lava like a foundry.

People saw molten and glowing metal (e.g. iron slag, melted aluminium mixed with impurities)

There was nobody inside WTC7 when it collapsed. There was no injuries or deaths. He does not understand the day. So the blast injury theory is just a strawman. The people who died in towers were killed instantly and the remains were burned and too degraded.

You maintain that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were blown up. No bodies with blast injuries were found. He's correct

Myth 4 is bull****. The dust clouds went far outside the collapse zone. You even saw steel flying in all directions and landing 100s of feet away. Claiming it was just wallboard its nonsense. The concrete flooring was also pulverised

Truthers claim the dust came from explosives. The man is stating that it came from the tons of drywall in the buildings, some of it up to 5 inches thick

Myth 5 is also bull****. The first reported fires on the east side were just after 1pm. Fires don't burn all day (where they find this fool) fires burn till they run out of fuel and combustibles. If you look at the photos you see fires extinguishing on different floors at different times during the day.

The fires in WTC 7 were triggered by debris hitting the building caused by the collapse of WTC 1, which fell at around 10:30 am in the morning

I can't be bothered with the rest when he's wrong about 6 myths.

He's correct according to all the investigators, FEMA, the ASCE and basically every recognised engineering and architectural body in the world

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nah you post random nonsensical conspiracy stuff. Not to mention the pathological dishonesty and endless twisting and distorting of information



It was doing 530 when it hit the Pentagon



Dishonest. Even when I pointed out that you could be confused for the 493 knots you ignored and persisted with the above

Even when multiple links were posted literally showing the speeds and tolerances, you ignored - despite being direct links showing the plane specs



Another lie. 5 seconds in google images will reveal multiple photos showing flight 77 wreckage.



You asserted that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then it did. That there is no wreckage, that there was, and now that there is no wreckage

Again, borderline insanity stuff



Eye witnesses saw the plane hitting the Pentagon. You're desparately trying to find some sort of "conspiracy" angle, so you've literally invented this "it came in at a slightly different angle" conspiracy

Even though it makes no sense



We don't know they have it, you don't know if those cameras were on. Maybe there were, maybe they weren't

Complete speculation



Another invention by you

The damage matches with the plane strike which matches with all the other data (except several seconds of erroneous FDR data)

493 knots is 567 miles an hour? Please show your proof the plane was travelling at this speed low to the ground? I posted the spec of the actual plane and provided testimony of pilots who actually flew the same plane and they laughed and they said it was impossible for flight 77 to be flying at this speed low to the ground.

Have you not heard a plane when the engines are going at full throttle? The official account places the plane just above the roof of homes in Washington coming in to strike the Pentagon. A plane travelling over 400mph + would crack windows in homes and cars. Never mind the plane would start breaking apart if you going at a max speed close to the ground.

Yes, I said Flight 77 did not crash at the Pentagon. I later learned the plane was seen by a mutiple eyewitness coming in low from an entirely new direction to hit the Pentagon. I had to rethink and then looked at the damage again at a different angle.

The official account has the planes left wing and left engine out over the grass at the Pentagon. Part of the plane wing and engine was not found on the grass. The southside approach does not match the damage at the west wall of the Pentagon. A plane hitting the Pentagon from the northside does match the physical damage to the wall.

The official account has the plane coming in an angle from the southside. You don't know the characteristics of the plane crash at the Pentagon.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Again more of your random speculation and mixed up views

After debris from the collapsing WTC tower caused significant damage to WTC 7, fires burnt unchecked for hours on multiple stories, fire (including office fires) can significantly weaken steel - which is why steel in buildings is cladded with fireproof materials. A combination of debris damage, fires weakening steel, thermal expansion and the design of the building itself resulted in it's total collapse later in the day

This doesn't need to be proved to an unreasonable conspiracy theorist any more than the world being round needs to be "proved" to a flat-earther



Truthers haven't done anything to show WTC 1, 2 and 7 were "blown up". Any "studies" they've conducted have been unscientific. Their arguments have been thoroughly debunked over the years

Likewise, Dr Hulsey's study has nothing to do with a so-called "controlled demolition". It's a conspiracy group funded study to prove a negative (that the building couldn't have collapsed due to fire), it's years overdue and preliminary findings are highly questionable

Another post and not true.

I posted NIST statement only yesterday and they describe how the collapse started and reasons behind it. The falling debris from the north tower did not start the collapse or weaken the steel. More waffle from Dohnjoe.

Also your belief is not supported by the facts. WTC7 fell at freefall speeds undisputable fact. NIST exposed themselves on video in 2008..

They finished their report in 2008 it was the final draft. And they claimed freefall was an impossibility based on their analysis and models. They said freefall can only happen when steel supports are removed instantaneously and their analysis showed this can't happen because there needs to be a progression of failures first.

David Chandler proved in 2008 the building fell down by controlled demolition. NIST got caught out big time.

NIST collapse model worked because they removed construction fittings from the girder at column 79. This all provable today. By right, NIST should be taken to court and charges filed for fraud.

Cheerful Spring

David Chandler tore NIST work apart in 2008 and was an amazing watch. NIST denying freefall at their own press conference. Just listen to them if you don't believe what I am saying.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

David Chandler tore NIST work apart in 2008 and was an amazing watch. NIST denying freefall at their own press conference. Just listen to them if you don't believe what I am saying.

David Chandler completely debunked here. Hes an idiot

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-chandler.html

This video proves it was not a controlled demolition.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I posted the spec of the actual plane and provided testimony of pilots who actually flew the same plane and they laughed and they said it was impossible for flight 77 to be flying at this speed low to the ground.

The plane hit at 530 mph. I posted multiple links on the planes max speed and specs, all of which corroborate each other. Planes can fly beyond their max limits but risk over-stressing the components (e.g. flight 77's engine was smoking before it hit the Pentagon)

Have you not heard a plane when the engines are going at full throttle? The official account places the plane just above the roof of homes in Washington coming in to strike the Pentagon. A plane travelling over 400mph + would crack windows in homes and cars. Never mind the plane would start breaking apart if you going at a max speed close to the ground.

Personal incredulity

Yes, I said Flight 77 did not crash at the Pentagon. I later learned the plane was seen by a mutiple eyewitness coming in low from an entirely new direction to hit the Pentagon. I had to rethink and then looked at the damage again at a different angle.

We know the flight path of flight 77 took

The official account has the planes left wing and left engine out over the grass at the Pentagon. Part of the plane wing and engine was not found on the grass. The southside approach does not match the damage at the west wall of the Pentagon. A plane hitting the Pentagon from the northside does match the physical damage to the wall.

The official account has the plane coming in an angle from the southside. You don't know the characteristics of the plane crash at the Pentagon.

It matches the flight path.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

David Chandler completely debunked here. Hes an idiot

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-chandler.html

This video proves it was not a controlled demolition.

Problem is NIST reworked their entire study after this press conference and added in freefall

You clearly don't know that. The debunked freefall at their own press conference. They went away and realised the jig is up, so they added in freefall to fool people.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring of course ignores David Chandler being completely exposed as a fraud.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The plane hit at 530 mph. I posted multiple links on the planes max speed and specs, all of which corroborate each other. Planes can fly beyond their max limits but risk over-stressing the components (e.g. flight 77's engine was smoking before it hit the Pentagon)



Personal incredulity



We know the flight path of flight 77 took



It matches the flight path.

You embarrassed yourself. You posted the specs of new planes build after 2001

I called you on it and you have forgotten this.

FDR data places the plane on the northside. FAA radar returns places the plane to the north also. We had a long thread about this.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The falling debris from the north tower did not start the collapse or weaken the steel. More waffle from Dohnjoe.

That's not what I wrote, and this is a direct example of how you misunderstand or deliberately misunderstand/misconstue what people write

This is what I wrote below

After debris from the collapsing WTC tower caused significant damage to WTC 7, fires burnt unchecked for hours on multiple stories, fire (including office fires) can significantly weaken steel - which is why steel in buildings is cladded with fireproof materials. A combination of debris damage, fires weakening steel, thermal expansion and the design of the building itself resulted in it's total collapse later in the day

At no point did I claim that the debris damage "started the collapse"

At no point did I claim that it "weakened the steel"

I have explained this dozens of times - you seem to struggle understanding basic sentence structure

Are you a native English speaker?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Cheerful Spring of course ignores David Chandler being completely exposed as a fraud.

David Chandler is not fraud. He is a physics teacher with excellent credentials.

We have the video of NIST denying freefall after six years of work. Their statements are not taken out of context. You can hear on video them denying freefall and they gave the reasons why.

Three months later after this conference, they changed their own report and added in freefall. They knew the jig was up but they added it in with no real explanation, to avoid awkward questions.

Cheerful Spring

Don't have to take my word for listen to the video. NIST spokesperson talks about freefall and why it could not have happened.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

David Chandler is not fraud. He is a physics teacher with excellent credentials.

Purely financially motivated. A very dishonest researcher with poor methods.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You embarrassed yourself. You posted the specs of new planes build after 2001

I called you on it and you have forgotten this.

It's right in this thread

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106764624&postcount=122

first link

"https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-boeing-757-200-ar91760.html"

"Year:1982"

Click on the second link
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

"First flight 1982"


http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/boeing-757-200/101
" First flight was on February 19 1982 and the 757 entered service in January the following year. "

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

David Chandler is not fraud. He is a physics teacher with excellent credentials.

He's a quack, like Dr Judy Wood

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Purely financially motivated. A very dishonest researcher with poor methods.

Really you got all this from reading a blog? David Chandler who exposed NIST at their own press conference. You even hear David Chandler question read out during the NIST conference and the answer they gave was revealing.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Don't have to take my word for listen to the video. NIST spokesperson talks about freefall and why it could not have happened.

More lies and quote mining. Embarrassing.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-nists-lack-of-explanation-for-wtc7-freefall-they-have-one-column-buckling.t9524/

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

More lies and quote mining. Embarrassing.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-nists-lack-of-explanation-for-wtc7-freefall-they-have-one-column-buckling.t9524/

lol, this is the change they made to their final report after the press conference. It's bull****. They denied freefall after 6 years of work, they exposed themselves nothing but liars and charlatans.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Really you got all this from reading a blog? David Chandler who exposed NIST at their own press conference. You even hear David Chandler question read out during the NIST conference and the answer they gave was revealing.

He manipulates evidence for financial gain. To charge for speeches to cretins, paid for blogs, DVDs etc.

There must be thousands of people in on this conspiracy. Tens of thousands maybe. Not one has come out in 18 years. Odd that.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's right in this thread

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106764624&postcount=122

first link

"https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-boeing-757-200-ar91760.html"

"Year:1982"

Click on the second link
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

"First flight 1982"


http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/boeing-757-200/101
" First flight was on February 19 1982 and the 757 entered service in January the following year. "

Flight 77 was Boeing 757-223. You have to locate the specific model and spec. I found the exact plane model, I even have produced the images with the correct tail number.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

He manipulates evidence for financial gain. To charge for speeches to cretins, paid for blogs, DVDs etc.

There must be thousands of people in on this conspiracy. Tens of thousands maybe. Not one has come out in 18 years. Odd that.

He is trustworthy, unlike NIST. You, of course, will never question their opinion.

For others, we have the video of NIST denying freefall at their own press conference. They even said it was impossibility could never happen in a natural collapse. By miracle in three months it was now possible and NIST knew it all the time

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's not what I wrote, and this is a direct example of how you misunderstand or deliberately misunderstand/misconstue what people write

This is what I wrote below



At no point did I claim that the debris damage "started the collapse"

At no point did I claim that it "weakened the steel"

I have explained this dozens of times - you seem to struggle understanding basic sentence structure

Are you a native English speaker?

You say this but then why you even adding in as a point then?

We trying to understand the collapse and how it happened. You posting info that you believe means something, surely?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He is trustworthy, unlike NIST. You, of course, will never question their opinion.

Hes been proven a joke, dishonest and a loon.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Flight 77 was Boeing 757-223.

One would be forgiven for assuming that in your obviously exhaustive research on the aircraft involved that you would know precisely what the -223 means?

And that rather than petulanty demanding an exact specification...
You would know that the -223 means it was a 200 series airframe ordered originally by American Airlines(Hence the customer Code 23)

Giving the aircraft in question a factory model identifier of 757-223.
When apart from cabin layouts, there is no difference in performance between any model of 757-223 and any other -200

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Really you got all this from reading a blog? .

You didn't read it. read it and then come back to me with anything you would refute.

Hes a fraud.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

One would be forgiven for assuming that in your obviously exhaustive research on the aircraft involved that you would know precisely what the -223 means?

And that rather than petulanty demanding an exact specification...
You would know that the -223 means it was a 200 series airframe ordered originally by American Airlines(Hence the customer Code 23)

Giving the aircraft in question a factory model identifier of 757-223.
When apart from cabin layouts, there is no difference in performance between any model of 757-223 and any other -200

https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-757_N674AN_american-airlines_495.html

Max Speed is 493mph like I said.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-757_N674AN_american-airlines_495.html

Max Speed is 493mph like I said.

The site you are relying on seems to be again mistaking Knots for MPH.
So where abouts are you actually from that English is such a struggle for you?
The difference between Admiralty, Imperial and metric can be extremely confusing and its doing your credibility zero good when you cant comprehend the differences!

https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-boeing-757-200-ar91760.html
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing757andboeing757specs/

But just so you can read it in an understandable fashion the top speed of a 757-200 series is @530mph/ 853kph/

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You say this but then why you even adding in as a point then?

Because you seem to have difficulty understand basic sentences and their meanings, is English your first language?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because you seem to have difficulty understand basic sentences and their meanings, is English your first language?

You are posting this info because you believed the falling debris had something to with the collapse. Why else would you bring it up? Debunkers always do this like you not the first one to try this. Even Nal videos the debunkers talk about it.

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

The site you are relying on seems to be again mistaking Knots for MPH.
So where abouts are you actually from that English is such a struggle for you?
The difference between Admiralty, Imperial and metric can be extremely confusing and its doing your credibility zero good when you cant comprehend the differences!

https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-boeing-757-200-ar91760.html
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing757andboeing757specs/

But just so you can read it in an understandable fashion the top speed of a 757-200 series is @530mph/ 853kph/

Just to further clarify, the information in the table below is confirmed via Boeing's own data sheet available at Boeing's website

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Flight 77 was Boeing 757-223. You have to locate the specific model and spec. I found the exact plane model, I even have produced the images with the correct tail number.

A 757-223 is a 757 200 series

The NTSB final report summary

Location: Arlington, VA Accident Number: DCA01MA064
Date & Time: 09/11/2001, Registration: N644AA
Aircraft: Boeing 757-200 Aircraft Damage: Destroyed

https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2001/20010911-3_B752_N644AA.pdf

Why is there always this constant effort by you to obfuscate things?

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A 757-223 is a 757 200 series

The NTSB final report summary

Location: Arlington, VA Accident Number: DCA01MA064
Date & Time: 09/11/2001, Registration: N644AA
Aircraft: Boeing 757-200 Aircraft Damage: Destroyed

https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2001/20010911-3_B752_N644AA.pdf

Why is there always this constant effort by you to obfuscate things?

I've explained to our VI what the -223 actually means.
He is still getting hung up on the wrong top speed however

Its not that he doesn't understand...
Its that the whole world is in on the conspiracy and avoiding the truth! :pac:

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

The site you are relying on seems to be again mistaking Knots for MPH.
So where abouts are you actually from that English is such a struggle for you?
The difference between Admiralty, Imperial and metric can be extremely confusing and its doing your credibility zero good when you cant comprehend the differences!

https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-boeing-757-200-ar91760.html
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing757andboeing757specs/

But just so you can read it in an understandable fashion the top speed of a 757-200 series is @530mph/ 853kph/

Rubbish. The plane performance was 493mph an hour.


The link has the specs for the 757-223 Boeing made in 1982. No evidence whatsoever this info is incorrect.
#
Your sites
Interesting the speed perfectly matches the 9/11 commission speed of 530mph. Right on the money ; We can't have people questioning the government version of events about 9/11

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Rubbish. The plane performance was 493mph an hour.


The link has the specs for the 757-223 Boeing made in 1982. No evidence whatsoever this info is incorrect.
#
Your sites
Interesting the speed perfectly matches the 9/11 commission speed of 530mph. Right on the money ; We can't have people questioning the government version of events about 9/11

You seem to be deliberately ignoring what I have previously explained to you what the -223 actually means.

You are ignoring the actual aircraft performance data provided by Boeing?
Aswell as the other alternative sites I have provided confirming you are wrong in my earlier posts....

So you are plainly determined to use incorrect information to further your ridiculous theory...

The Nal

banie01 wrote: »

You seem to be deliberately ignoring what I have previously explained to you what the -223 actually means.

You are ignoring the actual aircraft performance data provided by Boeing?
Aswell as the other alternative sites I have provided confirming you are wrong in my earlier posts....

So you are plainly determined to use incorrect information to further your ridiculous theory...

Its great stuff to read though. Totally delusional.

Boeing must be in on it too.

King Mob

banie01 wrote: »

You seem to be deliberately ignoring what I have previously explained to you what the -223 actually means.

You are ignoring the actual aircraft performance data provided by Boeing?
Aswell as the other alternative sites I have provided confirming you are wrong in my earlier posts....

So you are plainly determined to use incorrect information to further your ridiculous theory...

Wait for it, the next movie is to throw a tantrum, then try to change topic with a dump of random videos.