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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

This is outright lies.
Provide these pictures, show your measurments and your references.

Otherwise, you're just making stuff up at this stage.

You said that there was no damage on the second floor, now you are saying there is, cause your lie has been called out.

And why exactly are your measurements wavering now? Eariler you stated as a fact that the height was 14 ft, now you say 12-14ft.
Which is it?
You're the one who's theory is rather dependent on these numbers, but it looks like you've never bothered to actually them look up or check them.
So how tall is one floor in the pentagon? Please provide a reference cause you've lost any credibility or benefit of the doubt.

Some articles online claim Pentagon 5 floors is 77 feet in height, some other people say 70 feet. Either way, it going to be only 12 or 14 feet on each floor. Even it is 14 feet that still too small a hole in height for a plane to fit through.

I try to explain what I mean.

This a diagram is taken from Pentagon Performance report.

Two windows hanging down to the left, further to the left of that, there is a gap underneath columns are gone and missing. This is column 11 and Column 10


Column 14 is the where the impact zone is marked in blue. Column 11 and 10 are marked in blue.


Now, this is a problem.

Where I marked a red kind of box (photo) is where column 10 and 11 should be missing and broken and gone. Even the windows don't seem to be smashed. Where did wings go if Column 10 and 11 is still standing? Where the back tail of the wing impact at?

Cheerful Spring

This is the exit C hole photographed you can see smoke still coming out.

The landing gear metal would likely have melted and deformed before it reaches the C ring and this hole does make any sense.



Landing gear on 757 plane. Realistically how would this survive the impact?

TheChizler

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is the exit C hole photographed you can see smoke still coming out.

The landing gear metal would likely have melted and deformed before it reaches the C ring and this hole does make any sense.

I'm sorry, your argument depends on nearly a ton of metal melting in milliseconds. What evidence do you have that this happened?

Cheerful Spring

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm sorry, your argument depends on nearly a ton of metal melting in milliseconds. What evidence do you have that this happened?

The official narrative is the plane vapourised when it entered the building at Ring E (plane turned to liquid more than a solid form) It's the only way the could explain why the two engines made of titanium were not recovered. I have not read about this awhile but it's what remember off the top of my head. You can look into this if I am wrong on that.

Cheerful Spring

The timing of the attack on the Pentagon varies. For days it was reported as having happened just after 9.30am.Clocks recovered from the Pentagon all stopped just after 9.30am (just as the hand of the clock was only a few seconds changing to 9.31am) Eyewitnesses accounts stated a 9.31 to 9.32 blast.

The timeline changed to 9.37am later. This discrepancy in the timeline would not be a problem if the government released the Pentagon security tape with the original timestamp and date on it. The choose not to, only adds to the speculation they are covering up the real blast time. Missing security tapes another problem.

Then there is the evidence against Hani Hanjour. He was the alleged pilot so without him there no plane attacking the Pentagon on 9/11. Yet only 28 days previously an instructor refused to rent him a plane because of his inability to handle and control a light aircraft at high altitudes. Yet on 9/11, he seems to be a far better pilot than the instructor said he is?

And why did he do a 360 U-turn of the Pentagon, and attack the Pentagon where construction was ongoing and it had the fewer people working that day? Why did he not nosedive the plane on top of the Pentagon? The U-turn seems preplanned to avoid killing more people?

Then we have to question the leadership that day. If they knew a plane was coming in and was going to hit a target in Washington why was nobody alerted to this and told to get out? No alarm bell telling people to evacuate to safety. Then there is Rumsfield disappearing and acting suspiciously. People don't realise this he was in charge of the military on 9/11, not Cheney, once the President and Vice President can't perform their duty. Rumsfield organises the response to the attack and we know he did nothing on that day to stop the attack. Rumsfield is known Neocon. Even the 9/11 commission thought there was deception about the response to the attacks.

Plane disappearing for 42 minutes is another problem. Where did it go? 57 passengers not ringing nobody to tell them their goodbyes or talk about what is happening onboard the plane. Pilots not sending a distress signal to the FAA.

This is, even before, we discuss the damage at the Pentagon.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

NIST is a government institution they had zero interest in solving this crime.

Claim to be "on the fence". Unreasonably reject any explanations. Present made-up assertions as fact. Demonstrate constant incredulity at facts (but accept far-fetched conspiracy notions with no questions required) Demand proof to the nth degree of everything. Explain using further conspiracy theories. Have no credible counter-theory.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Claim to be "on the fence". Unreasonably reject any explanations. Present made-up assertions as fact. Demonstrate constant incredulity at facts (but accept far-fetched conspiracy notions with no questions required) Demand proof to the nth degree of everything. Explain using further conspiracy theories. Have no credible counter-theory.

Instead of writing nonsense. Why don't you try to explain the pictures I provided (post 272) that show with a gaping hole at column 10 and 11 (diagram from the Pentagon performance report, the first picture) that does not match with the third photograph I provided. If you here to debunk can you start answering some questions? If you choose not to maybe you better off posting in a place where people will agree with you?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe i even mark the spot for you where column 10 and 11 are missing in the Pentagon performance report.



Look like at the black and white photograph now, provided!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why don't you try to explain the pictures I provided

No one has to explain. The facts are clearly independent of your subjective decision to reject all of them based on incredulity, mental gymnastics and faulty reasoning.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No one has to explain. The facts are clearly independent of your subjective decision to reject all of them based on incredulity, mental gymnastics and faulty reasoning.

Yet the evidence is there visually for you to look at You don't need to take my word for it, you have photographic evidence column 10 and 11 are not gone.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe I make it even easier for you.

This is ASCE diagram.

Gaping hole column 10 and 11 is gone.



This where the columns would be!


This a picture was taken when fires had subsided. Column 10 and 11 is still there.

Dohnjoe

Decent post here on metabunk (similar to the overview posted earlier in this thread)

The Radar data proves it was 77. Tracked from takeoff to impact, the Radar date proves it was 77. All the nations Radar is saved, and can be used to track planes after accidents and incidents, like 9/11. Radar, data you can't refute.

FDR from 77 found in the Pentagon, hard evidence it was 77. Over 24 hours of flight data was on 77's FDR. Once again, hard evidence never refuted, it was 77.

DNA from all on 77 found on the true course of impact inside the Pentagon. Hard evidence proof the passengers on 77 were found in the Pentagon. Evidence you can't refute. Only the small kid's DNA was not found.

Eyewitnesses saw 77 hit the Pentagon the exact time the Radar had 77 there.

77 hit the Pentagon, killed all on board at 483.5 knots (as I recall). The speed comes from the last reading in the FDR, data which I have had for years. The government can't keep it secret, we are the government, we elect our reps, they are forced to release data... thus, there is no doubt due to evidence, 77 hit the Pentagon.

You offer no evidence to the contrary.

You said something about pilots? I don't know any of the hundreds of pilots who I flew with in the USAF who agree with your claims. I flew KC-135s and other planes in the USAF since 1976. I flew the day after 9/11 while in the USAF. I don't know any rational pilots who agree with the claims you make. The pilots who claim 77 did not hit, or other fantastic claims, ignore Radar, FDR, DNA, which proves it was 77.

How do you dismiss DNA, Radar, FDR? Speculation does not count.

https://www.metabunk.org/does-this-photo-show-a-too-small-hole-in-the-pentagon-no.t8302/

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Decent post here on metabunk (similar to the overview posted earlier in this thread)



https://www.metabunk.org/does-this-photo-show-a-too-small-hole-in-the-pentagon-no.t8302/

It not a decent post. The flight was never recorded in real time on radar. The flight path is based on a reconstruction using FDR data. This FDR data that was only released in 2007 ( 6 years after 9/11) so the data could have got manipulated at that time or could be fake? We know the plane was only tracked in real time up till 8.50am (contact was lost) and then again at 9.32am, a blip reappeared, and it was not identified as Flight 77. They just tracked a fast moving object entering Washington DC airspace.

The pilots for Truth found a lot of discrepancies in the FDR data if I remember correctly. Just before the impact, even the data stopped recording. So it doesn't record an object striking the building. I have researched this in awhile, but a computer simulation does not prove anything.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not a decent post. The flight was never recorded in real time on radar. The flight path is based on a reconstruction using FDR data. This FDR data that was only released in 2007 ( 6 years after 9/11) so the data could have got manipulated at that time or could be fake? We know the plane was only tracked in real time up till 8.50am (contact was lost) and then again at 9.32am, a blip reappeared, and it was not identified as Flight 77. They just tracked a fast moving object entering Washington DC airspace.

The pilots for Truth found a lot of discrepancies in the FDR data if I remember correctly. Just before the impact, even the data stopped recording. So it doesn't record an object striking the building. I have researched this in awhile, but a computer simulation does not prove anything.

Didn't refute any of the points. Just inserted more personally created "alternative facts", further unsupported conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated speculation and appealed to past "research" (again)

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Didn't refute any of the points. Just inserted more personally created "alternative facts", further unsupported conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated speculation and appealed to past "research" (again)

Hang on a minute nearly finished. I made a post to show you the problem with the FDR data and official account.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe You want to talk about FDR Data.

This is NTSB animation they released to the public.

The plane North of the Navy Assex. It's on the wrong side the government claims it was should be where I marked in blue.





Final approach. Plane going 530mph and still at 180 feet in this picture.



The error clearly outlined here how did the Plane hit the light poles?




I like you dispute the facts I showed you? Even look at the time on the second picture 9.37am still at 180 feet.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe: I will prove to you how dishonest Skeptics are. Since you keep using Metabunk for where you find information on this subject.


Mike West debunking video

Now notice where he places the plane flying over the Navy Annex! The official account of the plane is more to the right not over the building. He totally ignores the FDR data that places the plane on the North side, it never flew over the Navy Annex.

Mike West taking the plane over the building.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Some articles online claim Pentagon 5 floors is 77 feet in height, some other people say 70 feet. Either way, it going to be only 12 or 14 feet on each floor.

Like I said, you've never bothered to check or research it yourself.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Even it is 14 feet that still too small a hole in height for a plane to fit through.

You keep saying this, but this is you being incredibly dishonest. The hole is not 14 feet in diameter.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I try to explain what I mean.

This a diagram is taken from Pentagon Performance report.

Two windows hanging down to the left, further to the left of that, there is a gap underneath columns are gone and missing. This is column 11 and Column 10

Column 14 is the where the impact zone is marked in blue. Column 11 and 10 are marked in blue.

Now, this is a problem.

Where I marked a red kind of box (photo) is where column 10 and 11 should be missing and broken and gone. Even the windows don't seem to be smashed. Where did wings go if Column 10 and 11 is still standing? Where the back tail of the wing impact at?

Again, notice first how you have provided exactly nothing to answer my question. I asked you to show the measurements you've used and the references to back them up. You've shown none of that because you have never measured anything.

You are simply lying when you claimed the hole on the second floor is only 5-7 ft wide.
You lied when you said there was no damage on the second floor.

Now you are blatantly lying about what the pictures you are pointing to say.
In the diagram, they do not say that the columns in red are completely gone.
It says: "Impacted, Missing, Broken, Disconnected or otherwise without remaining function."
This can mean a lot of things.
Furthermore, you are relying on a misunderstanding of physics based on having watched too many cartoons. The plane is not going to cut a perfect outline of itself in the building.
When it impacts, it breaks up. However all those pieces still have mass and are still traveling at high speed.
You seem to know this when you think it's convenient to you as you claim the plane should have vapourised before the landing gear hit the back wall.
(Also, I'm not sure why you think a picture of landing gear is convincing. Do you think the landing gear only means the wheel, and not the dense, solid metal parts designed to support the weight of a plane?)

So how do you explain all of this in conspiracy land?
That hole is clearly too big for it to be an A3 skyhunter. And if you say that nothing could of hit those columns, what caused the walls in that area to vanish?
How come the damage is taller than an A3?
How come an A3 can magically bypass the ground effect you think would stop a 757?
AND AGAIN: WHY WOULDN'T THEY JUST USE A 757?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Like I said, you've never bothered to check or research it yourself.


You keep saying this, but this is you being incredibly dishonest. The hole is not 14 feet in diameter.


Again, notice first how you have provided exactly nothing to answer my question. I asked you to show the measurements you've used and the references to back them up. You've shown none of that because you have never measured anything.

You are simply lying when you claimed the hole on the second floor is only 5-7 ft wide.
You lied when you said there was no damage on the second floor.

Now you are blatantly lying about what the pictures you are pointing to say.
In the diagram, they do not say that the columns in red are completely gone.
It says: "Impacted, Missing, Broken, Disconnected or otherwise without remaining function."

?

I don't know how many times I have told you the hole was 14 feet in height along the first floor of E ring) Not that diameter of the entire hole was 14 feet.

Did you miss the part where I said the cone of the plane is about 12 feet in diameter? I said the plane was 30 feet from the ground to the top of the Fuselage when flying ( not including the back tail of the plane)

In Pentagon Performance report diagrams those columns are taken out missing no longer there in place.

Even FDR data places the position of the plane North of the Navy Annex. To hit the 5 poles Flight 77 has to be flying in Southward position. The only way this can be wrong is if NTSB released fraudulent data belonging to Flight 77

Cheerful Spring

King Mob I providing you with the official version and the truther version side by side to compare. If you can't see what wrong maybe you not smart enough as a person? Anyone can see the NTSB FDR data places the plane north of the Navy Annex. The plane could not have hit the 5 light poles. If the light poles are staged everything else about this attack on the Pentagon was staged.

JJayoo

If 9/11 was any type of inside job Putin would have exposed it, imagine the absolute chaos it would cause and then imagine Putin with a huge smile on his face

Dohnjoe

Here come the poles (like clockwork)

FYI parts of this bunk is coming from our old friend P4T
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here come the poles (like clockwork)

FYI parts of this bunk is coming from our old friend P4T
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

That's nonsense Mate. We have the computer stimulation released by the NSTB to the public. How can Pilot for Truth fake the NSTB FDR flight 77 data?

Dohnjoe

JJayoo wrote: »

If 9/11 was any type of inside job Putin would have exposed it, imagine the absolute chaos it would cause and then imagine Putin with a huge smile on his face

Or Snowden, or Assange/Wikileaks, or any of the countless amount of people needed to pull it off, or any number of foreign intelligence agencies

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't know how many times I have told you the hole was 14 feet in height along the first floor of E ring) Not that diameter of the entire hole was 14 feet.

Show where you are getting your numbers from.
You are constantly lying and changing your answer now, so I simply don't believe you.
Show us the measurements you are using to reach your conclusion.
If they are not in your next post, including a diagram and a trustworthy source for them, then it is an admission that you have no such measurments.
Not going to bother chasing you around on this any longer.
Put up or shut up.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did you miss the part where I said the cone of the plane is about 12 feet in diameter?

So the fuselage would be able to fit into the hole?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I said the plane was 30 feet from the ground to the top of the Fuselage when flying ( not including the back tail of the plane)

Again, lies.
You said it was 25 ft earlier.
You have changed your answer again because your previous answer didn't look as good.

Again, provide the measurements you are using for this, otherwise it's an admission that you have none.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

In Pentagon Performance report diagrams those columns are taken out missing no longer there in place.

That's again, not true.
You have repeatedly misquoted and misrepresented pictured and diagrams you post.
Nor does it answer my point. You've just ignored it entirely.

King Mob I providing you with the official version and the truther version side by side to compare. If you can't see what wrong maybe you not smart enough as a person?

Lol, insults. Classy.

But no, you have not put the truther version out at all.
I've asked you repeatedly for the conspiracy explanation for the problems you point to, but you fail to address that.
I've pointed out how patently silly the conspiracy would have to be to accommodate your assertions, like how they'd half paint a plane.

For example, you have not given a single reason for why they wouldn't just use a 757.
This is because you have no answer. You've never bothered to think about it beyond what you've been told to believe by youtube videos.

Dohnjoe

P4T flight 77 stuff debunked and addressed here, with links to some of the other threads

https://www.metabunk.org/9-11-p4t-fdr-analysis-of-flight-77.t4282/

Cheerful Spring

JJayoo wrote: »

If 9/11 was any type of inside job Putin would have exposed it, imagine the absolute chaos it would cause and then imagine Putin with a huge smile on his face

You assuming Putin would have inside knowledge of a deep black project event. The neocons wanted a 9/11 event they even outlined this in their blueprint in 1997 called the Project for the New American Century. One of the chief people who signed up to these principles was Donald Rumsfield. The very guy controlling the US response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11


Even in their blueprint, they said this we need another Pearl harbour event

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

P4T flight 77 stuff debunked and addressed here, with links to some of the other threads

https://www.metabunk.org/9-11-p4t-fdr-analysis-of-flight-77.t4282/

I just looked there nothing on their reason given for why the plane was north of the Navy Annex on the FDR Flight data? Mike West is the owner of Metabunk his flying the plane over the Navy Annex. This is not supported by the FDR data.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Show where you are getting your numbers from.
You are constantly lying and changing your answer now, so I simply don't believe you.
Show us the measurements you are using to reach your conclusion.
If they are not in your next post, including a diagram and a trustworthy source for them, then it is an admission that you have no such measurments.
Not going to bother chasing you around on this any longer.
Put up or shut up.


So the fuselage would be able to fit into the hole?

Again, lies.
You said it was 25 ft earlier.
You have changed your answer again because your previous answer didn't look as good.

Again, provide the measurements you are using for this, otherwise it's an admission that you have none.

That's again, not true.
You have repeatedly misquoted and misrepresented pictured and diagrams you post.
Nor does it answer my point. You've just ignored it entirely.


Lol, insults. Classy.

But no, you have not put the truther version out at all.
I've asked you repeatedly for the conspiracy explanation for the problems you point to, but you fail to address that.
I've pointed out how patently silly the conspiracy would have to be to accommodate your assertions, like how they'd half paint a plane.

For example, you have not given a single reason for why they wouldn't just use a 757.
This is because you have no answer. You've never bothered to think about it beyond what you've been told to believe by youtube videos.

I not lying maybe you see things I never wrote. If you can find a quote where I said something different in this thread post it (quote me). I always stated the hole was 14 feet in height (first floor) not the width of the hole along the first floor of E ring.

Those diagrams are taken from the Pentagon performance report. How am i misrepresenting visual aids belonging to them? There visual aids taken from their report? Diagram clearly shows missing columns 10 and 11.

Do you not understand a plane has height?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You assuming Putin would have inside knowledge of a deep black project event. The neocons wanted a 9/11 event they even outlined this in their blueprint in 1997

A "deep black project event" - because giving a made-up scenario a made-up conspiracy sounding name definitely lends credibility

Ah the neocons under Bush, couldn't stop leaked memos coming out of the WH on an almost weekly basis, couldn't keep rendition a secret, couldn't plant WMDs in the desert, Rove and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz couldn't hold onto their respective jobs. A competent bunch.