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

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

It’s a big leap to go from one failure point - to it HAD TO BE BOMBS.

Well NIST and the AE911 engineers, are in agreement, the collapse initiated inside the building at the eastside.

The Eastside Penthouse structure ( was on the roof) This is the only visual clue, from outside, a collapse was beginning.

Around 5 seconds later movement, then the entire perimeter wall left to right collapsed. It took about 6+ seconds for the outside to collapse.

NIST best explantation for all this- the focal point.
A girder on floor 13, thermally expanded by fire, slipping it off its holding seat, resulted in floors below and above to collapse and then the collapse made it way around the entire building inside. What was left, a hollow empty shell , then NIST claimed the perimeter gave way and collapsed to the ground.

NIST even on video, we have developed a brand new theory to explain what happened..
Ok know past examples to show the engineering world. So they invented one. Anything else will do, and avoid an explanation, that will get us in trouble ie controlled demolition.

I don't think its giant leap, if you look over the history around this study.

NISTs claim, some of them debunked.
:They got the Column 79 girder seat size wrong and they claimed it was 11 inches, when it was actually 12 inches
:They claimed the steel beams on floor 13, had no shear studs. False claim.
Ae911 truth in 2013, after the NIST final WTC7 study was completed in 2008, recieved the Frankel Steel Limited (1985). Erection Drawing and the Frankel Steel Limited (1985a). Fabrication Shop Drawings for building seven
The drawings actually showed the girder on floor 13 had 30+ plus shear studs. NIST claimed in their study the could not locate any drawing for this floor

:They also modelled the girder failure with no webplate
:The girder they claim was held with only bolts, false.
:They also ignore photographs there was no heavy fire on floor 12th and 13th floor, by 5pm it was gone out
They failed to recognise a key feature of the collapse ie freefall. In August 2008 NIST presented the final draft of their study and when asked about "freefall" NIST claimed our anyalsis showed this was not possible and was not a feature of the collapse we noticed. Three month laters after disputing it they changed their mind.
: Freefall is not consistent with a progressive collapse scenario. Freefall is something that happens all the time when buildings are controlled demolitioned
:They claimed nobody heard explosive noise, bangs in the area ( false again)
: They released graphs and charts that don't match the actual collapse.
: There timing errors compared to the real collapse times.
: Ignored 47 floors collapsing pre perimetter collapse, would cause dust plumes and broken windows across the width of the building.


Hopefully Hulsey will knock it out of the park with his study. NIST had not done a good job.

Ipso

Knock it out of the park! Last I checked he hasn’t even left to go to the park.

Overheal

Implying that AE911 has done any of its own engineering is an insult to engineers.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Implying that AE911 has done any of its own engineering is an insult to engineers.

Maybe so.Yet i think this easily debunkable.

NIST progressive collapse.




If the buillding perimeter walls and external facade came down like that, it be shown on video. That not the case at all. The physical evidence actually disproves their theory. There floor collapses pulled in the outside walls and they could not hide that fact when running their finite element anyalsis.

If Hulsey finite element analysis and simulations match the collapse on video, NIST theory will be less likely. People who not interested in real science will of course ignore Hulsey findings. .

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Maybe so.Yet i think this easily debunkable.

NIST progressive collapse.




If the buillding perimeter walls and external facade came down like that, it be shown on video. That not the case at all. The physical evidence actually disproves their theory. There floor collapses pulled in the outside walls and they could not hide that fact when running their finite element anyalsis.

If Hulsey finite element analysis and simulations match the collapse on video, NIST theory will be less likely. People who not interested in real science will of course ignore Hulsey findings. .

It has been repeatedly and painstakingly explained to you at quite detailed length.
That the model developed by NIST, and the visualisation of the external walls and facade presented in their simulation are an illustrative tool.

It is not meant to precisely and irrevocably display the same external behaviour as the actual collapse.

As for your last comment, there are people commenting on this thread who have accumulated many years of engineering experience (not me ) and years of legislative and investigative experience(me ).

You have displayed a total lack of any scientific understanding, even the basics.
Your maths are poor, and again your constant rush to take words and quotes entirely out of context is indicative of your poor understanding of the importance of an holistic view to this matter.

Should Hulsey ever present, ever!
His findings will be investigated, reviewed and if he somehow manages to present an interpretation of the evidence that changes the consensus view.
You will find very little objection to that from anyone who is rebutting your repeated nonsense.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

An investigation into any event uses supporting evidence to build up a concise picture of what happened from the ground up

You don't do that, instead you use this bizarre method of relentlessly casting doubt on the event in order to suggest some vague alternative happened that you have no supporting evidence for

It's precisely the same method that people like Alex Jones use to "prove" their conspiracies

You have never provided supporting evidence for your theory of WTC 7 being blown up

I'll demonstrate

1. Who planted the explosives on WTC 7? (names, dates, etc)
2. Who exactly ordered them to do this?
3. Who saw them doing this?
4. Why did they do it?

Once you answer those, with supporting evidence, then we can start to build the case

Not my job like i told you before. I don't have the resources and backing to go looking for the men or women who ordered this.

First you have to prove world trade seven building was taken down deliberately. Personally, i believe this happened, just my opinion. You guys have different world view.

Yet i not naive, truthers claims are not accepted outside there community of people. It up the community i am involved with and support, to provide evidence to the world they are right!

Finally, we getting somewhere. Trutherism will die if Hulsey study fails to deliver and the grand jury gets us nowhere. This is final chance now.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

People who not interested in real science will of course ignore Hulsey findings. .

But Hulsey isn't doing real science.
His study is trying to prove a negative.
His study has a stated predetermined outcome.
His study isn't transparent like he originally claimed.
His study isn't going to be published in a recognised legitimate journal.
His study isn't going to be peer reviewed before publication like real studies. (If it gets peer reviewed at all.)

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Finally, we getting somewhere. Trutherism will die if Hulsey study fails to deliver and the grand jury gets us nowhere. This is final chance now.

Lol.
You are not going to stick to these words.

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

It has been repeatedly and painstakingly explained to you at quite detailed length.
That the model developed by NIST, and the visualisation of the external walls and facade presented in their simulation are an illustrative tool.

It is not meant to precisely and irrevocably display the same external behaviour as the actual collapse.

As for your last comment, there are people commenting on this thread who have accumulated many years of engineering experience (not me ) and years of legislative and investigative experience(me ).

You have displayed a total lack of any scientific understanding, even the basics.
Your maths are poor, and again your constant rush to take words and quotes entirely out of context is indicative of your poor understanding of the importance of an holistic view to this matter.

Should Hulsey ever present, ever!
His findings will be investigated, reviewed and if he somehow manages to present an interpretation of the evidence that changes the consensus view.
You will find very little objection to that from anyone who is rebutting your repeated nonsense.

It not, it a model of internal connections failures and the result afterwards. You claim a lot and provide zero evidence. Why would they not just hide it and just match their collapse with the videos? See you just saying things and hope it sticks. Go ahead and find a passage a footnote where NIST said it just meant to be a illustration. You missed also their global computer simulation is the same as their illustrations. Science has to be precise.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Maybe so.Yet i think this easily debunkable.

NIST progressive collapse.




If the buillding perimeter walls and external facade came down like that, it be shown on video. That not the case at all. The physical evidence actually disproves their theory. There floor collapses pulled in the outside walls and they could not hide that fact when running their finite element anyalsis.

If Hulsey finite element analysis and simulations match the collapse on video, NIST theory will be less likely. People who not interested in real science will of course ignore Hulsey findings. .

I refer you to my other thread where I discussed at length a paper where an actual bonafide controlled demolition was analyzed, and simulated via computer - even with far more perfect information about the demolition and collapse, the model and the actual collapse are not in parity.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

I refer you to my other thread where I discussed at length a paper where an actual bonafide controlled demolition was analyzed, and simulated via computer - even with far more perfect information about the demolition and collapse, the model and the actual collapse are not in parity.

Missed this. Can you provide the paper to read, is there video of the demolition provided?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

First you have to prove world trade seven building was taken down deliberately. Personally, i believe this happened, just my opinion. You guys have different world view.

I believe penguins are aliens, I have no evidence of it. But if you believe penguins are mammals, that's just like your world view man.

Oh wait, the first view is backed by no supporting evidence, the second view is backed by overwhelming evidence.

The first view is baseless.

Does any of this sink in?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It not, it a model of internal connections failures and the result afterwards. You claim a lot and provide zero evidence.

Admit it, you literally think the representation "looks different" from the video of the collapse, so it can't be right..

That's the level we are dealing with here. Look at all that twisty stuff! that didn't happen in the video! pfff gotta be explosives!

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Missed this. Can you provide the paper to read, is there video of the demolition provided?

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057965850/1/#post109720513

ltd440

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

First you have to prove world trade seven building was taken down deliberately. Personally, i believe this happened, just my opinion. You guys have different world view.

I believe penguins are aliens, I have no evidence of it. But if you believe penguins are mammals, that's just like your world view man.

Oh wait, the first view is backed by no supporting evidence, the second view is backed by overwhelming evidence.

The first view is baseless.

Does any of this sink in?

I always thought penguins were birds but I find out today they're mammals
CONSPIRACY

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I believe penguins are aliens, I have no evidence of it. But if you believe penguins are mammals, that's just like your world view man.

Oh wait, the first view is backed by no supporting evidence,the second view is backed by overwhelming evidence.

The first view is baseless.

Does any of this sink in?

Wait, What???
OMG typo has uncovered the avian conspiracy!

Dohnjoe

ltd440 wrote: »

I always thought penguins were birds but I find out today they're mammals
CONSPIRACY

For ****sake, the one example I use is wrong

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057965850/1/#post109720513

That post is about steel building implosions., a different arena of research!

The disagreement is does the NIST computer simulation of world trade seven collapse have to match closely and resemble the actual collapse for to be considered legit? You guys claim it does not.

You added I provided a study that shows a demolition model and the real collapse are not in parity

Ok, I looked over your evidence. My observation is the the computer LS- DYNA simulation provided ie the real collapse and model, actually does match.

I can not post the entire simulation as it claims it may be copyrighted and best not to post it. The key features are all there, they only obscured part is the bottom face of the building. In real photographs, it blocked by dust. The shape of the building when falling matches the model. There only minor, miniscule differences internally some splitting, irrelevent as the demolition model and the actual collapse are the same.

Can you point out the differences, you see, if you think i am wrong?

NIST model is completely different to the actual collapse on 9/11. The entire face of the building changes shape and deforms.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Admit it, you literally think the representation "looks different" from the video of the collapse, so it can't be right..

That's the level we are dealing with here. Look at all that twisty stuff! that didn't happen in the video! pfff gotta be explosives!

I disagree because an internal collapse of floors over time would pull on the walls around the perimeter and deform it out of shape. NIST model shows it. The problem is, never happened it fantasy and we have video to prove it. NIST study is out of touch with reality.

This how building seven actually fell down, video, perimeter walls are intact and not breaking apart and bowing in. Take out 84 columns in a quick succession, it come down like it shown on video. Literally just took seconds to move from still position to full on collapse. Legend is the building was engulfed in fire, not a fire anyone can see.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I disagree because an internal collapse of floors over time would pull on the walls around the perimeter and deform it out of shape. NIST model shows it. The problem is, never happened it fantasy and we have video to prove it. NIST study is out of touch with reality.

LOL it's physics representation to show internal forces and mechanisms leading to the collapse

It's like in your mind you believe some structural engineer is eating a sandwich, leaves the computer model running, comes back on the phone with his friend, sipping a coffee, hits the "publish" button without looking at it

Then an intrepid conspiracy theorist like you comes along and thinks "Oh my god, they don't physically look the same, one's all bendy but in the video it comes straight down, holy ****!"

That's it isn't it

Dohnjoe

And note how you've once again steered the thread into - "convince me this building fell due to fire, I'll never accept it", which is a bizarre tactic that every 911 conspiracy theorist uses

"You can't convince me of something that I'll never be convinced of, therefore conspiracy"

A conspiracy you never go into detail on, that you have no supporting evidence of, and have no interest in whatsoever

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

That post is about steel building implosions., a different arena of research!

The disagreement is does the NIST computer simulation of world trade seven collapse have to match closely and resemble the actual collapse for to be considered legit? You guys claim it does not.

You added I provided a study that shows a demolition model and the real collapse are not in parity

Ok, I looked over your evidence. My observation is the the computer LS- DYNA simulation provided ie the real collapse and model, actually does match.

I can not post the entire simulation as it claims it may be copyrighted and best not to post it. The key features are all there, they only obscured part is the bottom face of the building. In real photographs, it blocked by dust. The shape of the building when falling matches the model. There only minor, miniscule differences internally some splitting, irrelevent as the demolition model and the actual collapse are the same.

Can you point out the differences, you see, if you think i am wrong?

NIST model is completely different to the actual collapse on 9/11. The entire face of the building changes shape and deforms.

I’m glad to see you admit it’s not an implosion finally.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I can not post the entire simulation as it claims it may be copyrighted and best not to post it.

I am at a loss, just when I think no more nonsense can be spouted, the master of copy/paste raises the bar.

If Irony was a drug this is the equivalent of Renton taking that hit from the suppository!

Overheal wrote: »

I’m glad to see you admit it’s not an implosion finally.

You see I honestly don't think he realizes at all thats exactly what he has done

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

I’m glad to see you admit it’s not an implosion finally.

I don't agree. The post you wrote is about steel building implosions. That a different subject.

You disputed my claim the model and collapses have to resemble each other and banie said the same.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And note how you've once again steered the thread into - "convince me this building fell due to fire, I'll never accept it", which is a bizarre tactic that every 911 conspiracy theorist uses

"You can't convince me of something that I'll never be convinced of, therefore conspiracy"

A conspiracy you never go into detail on, that you have no supporting evidence of, and have no interest in whatsoever

You can believe a building, with hundreds tons of steel, can collapse in a few seconds, by way of fire and buckling if you want. That takes long time to happen and does occur naturally. Reason it nevered happened in fire history before. I use facts unlike you. You have know past evidence to show NIST theory is even achieveable in seconds. The NIST theory is bizarre- 47 floors disppearing would cause the building to shake, broken windows would appear on all floors and large dust plumes would be noticed outside the building before the perimeter face even moved.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

LOL it's physics representation to show internal forces and mechanisms leading to the collapse

It's like in your mind you believe some structural engineer is eating a sandwich, leaves the computer model running, comes back on the phone with his friend, sipping a coffee, hits the "publish" button without looking at it

Then an intrepid conspiracy theorist like you comes along and thinks "Oh my god, they don't physically look the same, one's all bendy but in the video it comes straight down, holy ****!"

That's it isn't it

My mind can see the building was motionless. The first sign something wrong is the Penthouse collapsed and literally only took seconds for the building to come down when the Penthouse was gone. There is just no way that can occur naturally. Steel and floors take time to buckle and give way. It does not happen in seconds and with 47 floors of structural components, forget it.. Only way to achieve a uniform collapse take out 82 columns at the same time, and will take a few seconds to kick in, and will come down.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

My mind can see the building was motionless. The first sign something wrong is the Penthouse collapsed and literally only took seconds for the building to come down with the Pentahouse was gone. There just no way that can occur naturally. Steel and floors take time to buckle and give way. It does not happen in seconds, when there 47 floors of structural components. Only way to get a uniform collapse like that, by taking out 82 columns at same time, and take a few seconds to kick in and will come down.

Argument from incredulity. When someone argues against something because they cannot believe it's true. They can't wrap their head around something so they decide it didn't happen.

You clearly have some cartoon image in your head of how you think the building should have fallen, it didn't follow your imagined path, therefore you created a deep-rooted religious type belief that the only explanation is it was blown up

You reject all explanations, so there's no point taking that route. You won't take world engineering consensus on the issue because you have some narcissistic psychological trait where you literally think you know more than the world's scientists or historians

So you've deliberately stuck yourself in this endless loop, by choice

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Argument from incredulity. When someone argues against something because they cannot believe it's true. They can't wrap their head around something so they decide it didn't happen.

You clearly have some cartoon image in your head of how you think the building should have fallen, it didn't follow your imagined path, therefore you created a deep-rooted religious type belief that the only explanation is it was blown up

You reject all explanations, so there's no point taking that route. You won't take world engineering consensus on the issue because you have some narcissistic psychological trait where you literally think you know more than the world's scientists or historians

So you've deliberately stuck yourself in this endless loop, by choice

Smart people believe what i do.

Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist, former wife of Carl Sagan and Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science. She literally one of smartest people on the planet.

You claim people involved in truth movements don't understand science. She believes the buildings were demolished on 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Smart people believe what i do.

No the vast overwhelming majority don't.

If 1,000 structural and civil engineers state it fell due to fire, you will ignore all of them to find the one isolated expert who claims otherwise

None of these alternative experts you cite ever explain how it really fell

I've given you this simple logic test in the past and you've ignored it

1. If 99 scientists claim X, and 1 scientist claims Y, is it 50/50?

2. If X has supporting evidence, and Y has no supporting evidence, is it 50/50?

You don't apply any logic, reasoning or critical thinking to this either deliberately.. actually it's deliberate by this stage.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Smart people believe what i do.

Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist, former wife of Carl Sagan and Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science. She literally one of smartest people on the planet.

You claim people involved in truth movements don't understand science. She believes the buildings were demolished on 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

By that standard, Dr Judy Woods thesis of Space Lasers is just as credible.
None of this however has anything whatsoever to do with Mr England does it?

I do seem to recall that you had put the Twin Towers and WTC7 on hold until Dr Hulsey has published.
Why do you keep regurgitating the same tired BS across every thread that is 9/11 related?

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

By that standard, Dr Judy Woods thesis of Space Lasers is just as credible.
None of this however has anything whatsoever to do with Mr England does it?

I do seem to recall that you had put the Twin Towers and WTC7 on hold until Dr Hulsey has published.
Why do you keep regurgitating the same tired BS across every thread that is 9/11 related?

Judy wood is an unknown figure in the truther community. I can't even find a paper she wrote in scientific journal. AE911 truth movement does not support her. She is a lone maverick. And unfortunately she has a fanbase.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No the vast overwhelming majority don't.

If 1,000 structural and civil engineers state it fell due to fire, you will ignore all of them to find the one isolated expert who claims otherwise

None of these alternative experts you cite ever explain how it really fell

I've given you this simple logic test in the past and you've ignored it

1. If 99 scientists claim X, and 1 scientist claims Y, is it 50/50?

2. If X has supporting evidence, and Y has no supporting evidence, is it 50/50?

You don't apply any logic, reasoning or critical thinking to this either deliberately.. actually it's deliberate by this stage.

Do you speak for every scientist and engineer in the world? Most engineers are clueless a third tower fell on 9/11. NIST 9/11 research paper on ASCE was only downloaded 500 times, that shows very few have actually read what they had to say.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Judy wood is an unknown figure in the truther community. I can't even find a paper she wrote in scientific journal. AE911 truth movement does not support her. She is a lone maverick. And unfortunately she has a fanbase.

I thought we had reached peak irony a few posts ago, but we'll done CS!
You really do just keeping raising the bar.

I have to ask, is this just parody for you?

You really can't be so self unaware as to post the above and not see how it directly relates to you?
Can you?

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do you speak for every scientist and engineer in the world? Most engineers are clueless a third tower fell on 9/11. NIST 9/11 research paper on ASCE was only downloaded 500 times, that shows very few have actually read what they had to say.

Again, where is the self awareness?
Do you speak for all these silent engineers?

If there is a silent majority beavering away to undermine and refute NIST?
Where is their work?
Is Hulsey the sum total?
Because he will be dead before anything gets published IMO.

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

I thought we had reached peak irony a few posts ago, but we'll done CS!
You really do just keeping raising the bar.

I have to ask, is this just parody for you?

You really can't be so self unaware as to post the above and not see how it directly relates to you?
Can you?

How did we get here, you always blame me, but you guys may have posted something i replied to it and this how we end up talking about the collapse. I have to go back and look and see. Actually Agreed lets wait till Sep 11th and stop talking till then:) No more posts.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do you speak for every scientist and engineer in the world?

Don't have to, there is consensus on the issue. The investigators weren't "split down the middle".

Most engineers are clueless a third tower fell on 9/11.

Go ask a qualified engineer yourself I can provide the link to a structural engineering forum or you can ask an engineer directly on r/askanengineer

What are you so terrified of?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Smart people believe what i do.

Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist, former wife of Carl Sagan and Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science. She literally one of smartest people on the planet.

You claim people involved in truth movements don't understand science. She believes the buildings were demolished on 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

Her field is evolutionary biology...

JJayoo

Probably woodworm

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

Her field is evolutionary biology...

Also an AIDS denialist.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Also an AIDS denialist.

She dead since 2011 and she made the claims before that. Wikipedia just hasn't updated new research since then.

Her claim is now true. 2015 research.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150827141911.htm

HIV particles do not cause AIDS, our own immune cells do

Scientists are now discovering links between Syphlis and Aids. She said they overlapped with each other.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

She dead since 2011 and she made the claims before that. Wikipedia just hasn't updated new research since then.

Her claim is now true. 2015 research.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150827141911.htm

HIV particles do not cause AIDS, our own immune cells do

Scientists are now discovering links between Syphlis and Aids. She said they overlapped with each other.

That's not her claim though.

It's weird how the experts you like are completely right.
Yet when there's experts you don't like you libel them and accuse them of fraud.

Also, I though you weren't going to respond to me anymore....

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

That's not her claim though.

It's weird how the experts you like are completely right.
Yet when there's experts you don't like you libel them and accuse them of fraud.

Discover Magazine interview Margulis said that "the set of symptoms, or syndrome, presented by syphilitics overlaps completely with another syndrome: AIDS," and also noted that Kary Mullis[a] said that "he went looking for a reference substantiating that HIV causes AIDS and discovered, 'There is no such document

Scientists are confirming it now 4 years after she died.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Her field is evolutionary biology...

True, but she is a scientist, and most of her complaints is about NIST shoddy research. She claimed their work is not science and i agree.

We talk about the engineering again on sep 11th.

Cheerful Spring2

This women no fool.She had to listen to people like you guys attacking her research. Of course this only an online forum and what she was doing is was hard science accepted by her worldwide peers eventually.

Throughout her career, Margulis' work could arouse intense objection (one grant application elicited the response, "Your research is crap, do not bother to apply again",[5]) and her formative paper, "On the Origin of Mitosing Cells", appeared in 1967 after being rejected by about fifteen journals.[7]

Still a junior faculty member at Boston University at the time, her theory that cell organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts were once independent bacteria was largely ignored for another decade, becoming widely accepted only after it was powerfully substantiated through genetic evidence.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Discover Magazine interview Margulis said that "the set of symptoms, or syndrome, presented by syphilitics overlaps completely with another syndrome: AIDS," and also noted that Kary Mullis[a] said that "he went looking for a reference substantiating that HIV causes AIDS and discovered, 'There is no such document

Scientists are confirming it now 4 years after she died.

But that's not what the paper you posted said.

The paper you posted didn't mention syphilis at all.
And it does say that HIV causes AIDS, just in a slightly different way from previously thought.
It does not support this persons claims.

It also doesn't explain why her qualifications in biology make her more of an expert or more valid than Judy Wood who's expertise is in engineering.

Also, Lol, again you talk about shoddy research, but ignore the facts that make your boy's work shoddy.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not what the paper you posted said.

The paper you posted didn't mention syphilis at all.
And it does say that HIV causes AIDS, just in a slightly different way from previously thought.
It does not support this persons claims.

It also doesn't explain why her qualifications in biology make her more of an expert or more valid than Judy Wood who's expertise is in engineering.

Also, Lol, again you talk about shoddy research, but ignore the facts that make your boy's work shoddy.

HIV particles do not cause AIDS, our own immune cells do. People were wrong when they attacked her. HIV people today can survive and not have Aids.

Slightly different way ok.:rolleyes:

Look it up use google, syphilis and Aids research is now showing they are overlapping. The doctors even warn people about it.

Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science. Kingmob thinks his opinion superior. .

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

HIV particles do not cause AIDS, our own immune cells do. People were wrong when they attacked her. HIV people today can survive and not have Aids.

Slightly different way ok.:rolleyes:


Look it up use google, syphilis and Aids research is now showing they are overlapping. The doctors even warn people about it.

But the paper you linked doesn't match up with her claims at all.
They don't reference anythign she says at all and does not say anything at all about a link between syphilis and aids.

I like now how you're adding AIDS denialism to your list of conspiracies now to avoid admitting a mistake.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science. Kingmob thinks his opinion superior. .

And?
Experts can be wrong, especially in fields not their speciality.
Dr Judy Woods is an expert in engineering.
There's thousands of engineers who agree with the real explanation for the events of 9/11.
You believe these people are all wrong.

Why are your experts so perfect and always right?

Dohnjoe

This study won an Engineering Excellence Award in 2015 (the "Oscars" for engineering)

By Najib N. Abboud, PhD, PE and associates at Weidlinger Inc

http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf

This report is in rebuttal to the reports [Bailey, 2010], [Nordenson, 2010a],
[Nordenson 2010b], [Colaco 2010] and [Torero 2010] offered by plaintiffs’
experts concerning the collapse of 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7) as a
result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
The plaintiffs’ experts’ central hypothesis is that design and construction
errors were the proximate cause of the collapse of WTC 7 and that WTC 7
would not have collapsed but for these errors. I, together with a team of
colleagues at Weidlinger Associates Inc., have undertaken a careful
review of the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts, and especially of the computer
analyses and data which are proffered as a basis for those opinions.
We have also conducted our own independent analyses to assess the
structural stability of WTC 7 and to determine the entire causal chain that
led to the building’s collapse. This study has involved thousands of hours
of analysis by my team over the course of five years.

We have reviewed
all of the available construction documents, shop drawings and review
documents from the construction of WTC 7. Using state-of-the-art
computational tools, specifically validated for fire effects on structures and
collapse analyses, we were able to use these documents and plans to
create a three-dimensional computer model of the WTC 7 building, which
accurately reflects the conditions and responses of the WTC 7 structural
system to the events of September 11. These computational tools and
Weidlinger’s analyses are routinely relied upon by the Department of
Defense and other federal agencies in the extreme loading assessment
and design of many critical structures, including U.S. embassies of recent
vintage for example. All of our analyses were conducted with the level of
care and requisite detail needed to address the specific issue being
examined.
In doing all of this work, I have drawn on my and Weidlinger’s cumulative
experience in the development of computational techniques and the
evaluation of the performance of structures undergoing extreme loading,
supported by several decades worth of large-scale experimental validation
for such phenomenology.
Based on our analyses and critical review of the analyses, data and
engineering judgment of plaintiffs’ experts, we find all of the design errors
asserted as a cause of collapse to be either unfounded or based on
erroneous, and even contrived, analyses. Our analyses clearly establish
that the attacks of September 11 set-off an unstoppable chain of events,
given the circumstances of the day, of such magnitude as to exhaust the
capacity of the building structural system over the course of seven hours
leading to the ultimate collapse of WTC 7. As discussed herein, the
claimed “defects” featured in plaintiffs’ experts’ reports are not defects at
all. And none of the changes advocated by plaintiffs’ experts would have
prevented the collapse.

Our analyses show that the initiation of structural failure occurred as a
result of high steel temperatures, which degraded the strength and
stiffness of the framing and connections, and resulted in very large
movements of the floor. These high temperatures occur, not as a result of
some defect in the thermal insulation provided by the fire protective
material on the steel, but rather by virtue of the long duration of the fires,
their extent and locations, and the absence of any fire suppression.

A 5 year independent study by a team at an engineering firm corroborating the findings of the FEMA report, and the NIST report

A firm of 300 employees that has won 150 engineering awards. Previously in 2004 they won a National Grand Conceptor Award from the American Consulting Engineers Council for their study in the WTC collapse
https://www.thorntontomasetti.com/projects/world_trade_center_structural_engineering_investigation/

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This study won an Engineering Excellence Award in 2015 (the "Oscars" for engineering)

By Najib N. Abboud, PhD, PE and associates at Weidlinger Inc

http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf





A 5 year independent study by a team at an engineering firm corroborating the findings of the FEMA report, and the NIST report

A firm of 300 employees that has won 150 engineering awards. Previously in 2004 they won a National Grand Conceptor Award from the American Consulting Engineers Council for their study in the WTC collapse
https://www.thorntontomasetti.com/projects/world_trade_center_structural_engineering_investigation/

So whats the bets?
"they're all fake experts"
"they're all bought off by the government"
Or
"prove they are experts"

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

So whats the bets?
"they're all fake experts"
"they're all bought off by the government"
Or
"prove they are experts"

Going all in on CS randomly picking one of the diagrams or representations in the study and claiming "lol that looks nothing like WTC 7, one half is missing, that didn't happen!"