Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1246795

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    ALL OF YOUR ASSERTIONS PROOF DOCUMENTS VIDEOS ARTICLES

    What do you want to know I told you I do one at a time I can back up everything I say. This is not a courtroom.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I cannot see what picture you have posted. You are going to have to do better.

    Please explain in your own words your source, then provide a link to a reputable website that confirms what you say.

    No images, no YouTube videos.
    Just an answer to a direct, simple question.

    It's like drawing blood from stones...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    I cannot see what picture you have posted. You are going to have to do better.

    Please explain in your own words your source, then provide a link to a reputable website that confirms what you say.

    No images, no YouTube videos.
    Just an answer to a direct, simple question.

    It's like drawing blood from stones...

    I have posted clear evidence if you can't see it not my problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob



    I have posted clear evidence if you can't see it not my problem.
    I'm done. You cannot provide a source as you are lying. No SAM sites existed at the Pentagon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm done. You cannot provide a source as you are lying. No SAM sites existed at the Pentagon.

    I have just posted an interview with a Pentagon employee who confirmed what I said. Ask someone else for the image of the interview. Not my problem your internet sucks.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    I cannot see what picture you have posted. You are going to have to do better.

    Please explain in your own words your source, then provide a link to a reputable website that confirms what you say.

    No images, no YouTube videos.
    Just an answer to a direct, simple question.

    It's like drawing blood from stones...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Unfortunately this is blocked have you a subscription?
    Her Story described here if you want to know if she legit or not.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/23/september11.usa7


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,975 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I have actually I researched both sides version about 9/11.

    Yes but in fairness you have made quite a few unbacked assertions and claims in this thread

    For example, the most recent
    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.

    Simple research

    The "max speed" of a 757-223 shows us 571 mph
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

    The plane allegedly hit the Pentagon doing approx 530 mph

    You've also claimed that a plane will break-up doing that speed on approach, what is that assertion based on?

    A quick search brings up this thread (this is a pilots forum)
    https://www.pprune.org/questions/465642-boeing-767-max-speed-sea-level.html
    It's about a 767, but they mention other planes like the 757 and their max speed capabilities, speed based on dives and how altitude affects them

    If you are trying to cast doubt on a plane hitting the pentagon, then you must answer questions as to what you believe did hit the pentagon with supporting evidence


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,912 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/ Unfortunately this is blocked have you a subscription?
    Her Story described here if you want to know if she legit or not.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/23/september11.usa7

    Okay can't get into the first but no where can I see anything about SAM missiles in the second. So no proof yet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Last one for tonight.

    Daniel Lewin the Israeli spy. Served for four years in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as an officer in Sayeret Matkal, one of the IDF's special forces units Lewin earned the rank of captain. Was involved in hostage and terrorism rescue.

    I not post images for this since one poster can't see them

    He was on board flight 11.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,912 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    What do you want to know I told you I do one at a time I can back up everything I say. This is not a courtroom.

    Okay post #84 it was my reply to yours where you talked about something completely different then or other post. In that post I bolded some "facts of yours start with that


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Okay can't get into the first but no where can I see anything about SAM missiles in the second. So no proof yet.

    Did i not just post an interview from her confirming there was?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Okay post #84 it was my reply to yours where you talked about something completely different then or other post. In that post I bolded some "facts of yours start with that

    I not able to get to all of them tonight, but I will later.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,912 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Last one for tonight.

    Daniel Lewin the Israeli spy. Served for four years in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as an officer in Sayeret Matkal, one of the IDF's special forces units Lewin earned the rank of captain. Was involved in hostage and terrorism rescue.

    I not post images for this since one poster can't see them

    He was on board flight 11.

    Proof he was about flight easy 1 for you


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    I'm not sure why this is still up for debate. After all the reports and theories put forward, it's pretty clear that Russia was behind it.

    According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service...
    September 11, 2001 was directly rooted in a joint Soviet/Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operation conceived in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. The object of this joint operation was to repair Moscow's prestige by turning the Islamic world against Israel and by creating a rabid and violent hatred for its main supporter, the United States. The strategy was to portray the US, this land of freedom, as a Nazi-style "imperial-Zionist country" financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious "Council of the Elders of Zion" (the Kremlin's epithet for the US Congress), the aim of which was allegedly to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. In other words, the heart of the joint plan was to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States. We threw many millions of dollars at this gigantic task, which involved whole armies of intelligence officers.

    This would sow the seeds. But of course, how do you connect that to the planes that crashed.

    From Konstantin Preobrazhensky, former Lt. Colonel in the KGB in his book, Russia and Islam are not Separate: Why Russia backs Al-Qaeda says
    Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, five months before the attack. But Iraqi intelligence was just a client of Russia's intelligence service. It brings a new understanding to the fact that President Putin was the first foreign President to call President Bush on 9/11. One may conjecture that he knew in advance what was to happen.

    Suspicious, don't you think?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,912 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    I not able to get to all of them tonight, but I will later.

    Fair enough it is late after all


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,912 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    I have just posted an interview with a Pentagon employee who confirmed what I said. Ask someone else for the image of the interview. Not my problem your internet sucks.

    What post was that. On my mobile so maybe not showing up will look tomorrow after work


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yes but in fairness you have made quite a few unbacked assertions and claims in this thread

    For example, the most recent



    Simple research

    The "max speed" of a 757-223 shows us 571 mph
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

    The plane allegedly hit the Pentagon doing approx 530 mph

    You've also claimed that a plane will break-up doing that speed on approach, what is that assertion based on?

    A quick search brings up this thread (this is a pilots forum)
    https://www.pprune.org/questions/465642-boeing-767-max-speed-sea-level.html
    It's about a 767, but they mention other planes like the 757 and their max speed capabilities, speed based on dives and how altitude affects them

    If you are trying to cast doubt on a plane hitting the pentagon, then you must answer questions as to what you believe did hit the pentagon with supporting evidence

    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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    What post was that. On my mobile so maybe not showing up will look tomorrow after work

    Post 89 check that? If it doesn't show up for you either Tomorrow I upload the images again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,975 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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!

    1. What is the max speed of a 757 223? (with sources)
    1a) It should be kept in mind that max speed is max safe speed, planes can go beyond these speeds

    2. Flight 175 hit at 590 mph at low altitude

    3. The flights have been replicated on simulators

    When you claim that flight 77 as being next to impossible, are you claiming it didn't happen and no plane hit the Pentagon? (here's a guy with minimal experience pulling it off in a simulator - note how the engines become over-stressed at the end, replicating the smoke plumes that happened during it's final descent)

    If flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm done. You cannot provide a source as you are lying. No SAM sites existed at the Pentagon.

    I have just posted an interview with a Pentagon employee who confirmed what I said. Ask someone else for the image of the interview. Not my problem your internet sucks.
    Edit: (FYI, I checked your post when I got access to a computer, the picture is still unavailable. The problem is on your end. So you have not posted anything to support your claims at all)

    What did she say exactly?
    How do you know she's an authority? How do you know she's being accurately being quoted in the image you posted?

    If the Pentagon did have a Sam site, it would be easy to show this for a fact.
    Instead you have to rely on what I'm going to guess is either a fabrication or a out of context quote.

    If this Sam site existed you could post pictures of it. News reports that mention it. You're pretending to be familiar with flight rules, so surely they'd get a mention in some regulations. Especially since there is an airport in what you claimed was the no fly zone.

    So again, no pictures, no unsourced images with unverifiable quotes. Just type out the words of your own argument yourself.

    Why do you believe there was a Sam site at the Pentagon?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,975 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Just to give a heads-up about this technique - gish gallop

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

    ""Gish gallop" is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

    The term was coined by Eugenie C. Scott and named after the creationist Duane T. Gish, who used the technique frequently against science-based opponents on the topic of evolution."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Edit: (FYI, I checked your post when I got access to a computer, the picture is still unavailable. The problem is on your end. So you have not posted anything to support your claims at all)

    What did she say exactly?
    How do you know she's an authority? How do you know she's being accurately being quoted in the image you posted?

    If the Pentagon did have a Sam site, it would be easy to show this for a fact.
    Instead you have to rely on what I'm going to guess is either a fabrication or a out of context quote.

    If this Sam site existed you could post pictures of it. News reports that mention it. You're pretending to be familiar with flight rules, so surely they'd get a mention in some regulations. Especially since there is an airport in what you claimed was the no fly zone

    So again, no pictures, no unsourced images with unverifiable quotes. Just type out the words of your own argument yourself.

    Why do you believe there was a Sam site at the Pentagon?

    You don't make the rules here. I post the information I got.

    The person I am quoting she is Army administrative specialist inside the Pentagon. Apparently, she was given a tour of those defences when she worked there? You can be sued for damages for misquoting someone in a publication. It would not be easy to show where defences are, it's a need to know thing to stop the enemy knowing where they are located, it called compartmentation, look it up.

    Pictured on 9/11 outside the Pentagon building.
    448531.png


    Here she asked by an interviewer why the plane was not shot down?

    448532.png

    The Pentagon sits inside the P-56-A restricted airspace section that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, and that activated air defences from a joint FAA/Secret Service radar and air traffic control at Langley, VA for many years prior to 9/11. Interceptor fighter jets in that area, which is separate from and more restricted than FAA commercial airspace, as well as much better defended, were regularly scrambled when small or commercial planes went off course or were not on scheduled routes within a larger Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that extends 50 miles out to give time for the response. Andrews Air Force Base, within 10 miles of the city as well as the 113th Air Wing of the National Guard at Anacostia NAS have provided consistent scramble-ready defences for the P-56 sector, which protects the most important government buildings


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The person I am quoting she is Army administrative specialist inside the Pentagon. Apparently, she was given a tour of those defences when she worked there?
    Even if we accept that this person was an army administrative specialist, and actually said what is in the picture, both of which you're going to have to substantiate before I will buy, so what?
    How would this mean she knows the nature of the air defenses of the pentagon?
    She got a tour of these sites? When? According to who?
    It would not be easy to show where defences are, it's a need to know thing to stop the enemy knowing where they are located, it called compartmentation, look it up.
    Yet, you then also claim you know for a fact they exist and their capabilities. This is a contradiction.
    Here she asked by an interviewer why the plane was not shot down?
    No where there does she say there are SAM sites at the pentagon on 9/11.

    So after all of that the only sliver of evidence you had does not actually say what you said it did.
    I am utterly shocked...
    The Pentagon sits inside the P-56-A restricted airspace section that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, and that activated air defences from a joint FAA/Secret Service radar and air traffic control at Langley, VA for many years prior to 9/11. Interceptor fighter jets in that area, which is separate from and more restricted than FAA commercial airspace, as well as much better defended, were regularly scrambled when small or commercial planes went off course or were not on scheduled routes within a larger Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that extends 50 miles out to give time for the response. Andrews Air Force Base, within 10 miles of the city as well as the 113th Air Wing of the National Guard at Anacostia NAS have provided consistent scramble-ready defences for the P-56 sector, which protects the most important government buildings
    Where did you copy paste this from?
    Also notice how it also does not refer to any SAM sites?
    Also notice how it contradicts the claimed words of your expert which stated that the planes should be shot down immediately?
    Which should we believe?

    So how does this gel with the fact there's an airport right next to the Pentagon? You keep ignoring that small detail.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    1. What is the max speed of a 757 223? (with sources)
    1a) It should be kept in mind that max speed is max safe speed, planes can go beyond these speeds

    2. Flight 175 hit at 590 mph at low altitude

    3. The flights have been replicated on simulators

    When you claim that flight 77 as being next to impossible, are you claiming it didn't happen and no plane hit the Pentagon? (here's a guy with minimal experience pulling it off in a simulator - note how the engines become over-stressed at the end, replicating the smoke plumes that happened during it's final descent)[/URL


    If flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?


    That's not true going over Max Speed the plane starts to crumble and fatigue and break apart. Nobody has flown a plane a commercial airline just feet from the ground at 530mph hour. Imagine trying to control a plane at that speed when you're not experienced.

    This is one month before 9/11 Hani Hanjour was flying a Cessna plane at about 180knots about a third of the speed he was going at on 9/11 when he approached the Pentagon for the crash.

    The instructor said just a few weeks before 9/11
    Quote "Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloguing 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

    Is the same Hani who was able to control and handle a bigger commercial airliner with precision on 9/11? If he has difficulty handling a Cessna why do we believe he could handle a commercial jet like an experienced pilot?

    This is specifications for flight 77
    https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-757_N674AN_american-airlines_495.html


    This is why truther are upset they know camera footage is likely hidden because we know on the freeway/highway near the Pentagon this camera existed
    448534.png


    There is a camera located just on the top of the roof looking down at the Pentagon where the plane crashed.

    I can't upload the picture but you can see where the security cameras are located.

    http://tinypic.com/02/1/11793/0506/63ax9xg

    Actually, it never replicated people have tried using pilot simulators a home and they think that's the same as flying a plane. It so stupid. You not experiencing weight, you experiencing lift, you not experiencing drag, you not experiencing thrust, you not experiencing conditions around you in real time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,975 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    That's not true going over Max Speed the plane starts to crumble and fatigue and break apart.

    Sources for this (non-conspiracy please)

    Please provide sources for the max speed of the type of plane that hit the Pentagon


    I can't find the specs on this link?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Sources for this (non-conspiracy please)

    Please provide sources for the max speed of the type of plane that hit the Pentagon




    I can't find the specs on this link?

    Press show more the specs will show up for you then!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Even if we accept that this person was an army administrative specialist, and actually said what is in the picture, both of which you're going to have to substantiate before I will buy, so what?
    How would this mean she knows the nature of the air defenses of the pentagon?
    She got a tour of these sites? When? According to who?


    Yet, you then also claim you know for a fact they exist and their capabilities. This is a contradiction.

    No where there does she say there are SAM sites at the pentagon on 9/11.

    So after all of that the only sliver of evidence you had does not actually say what you said it did.
    I am utterly shocked...

    Where did you copy paste this from?
    Also notice how it also does not refer to any SAM sites?
    Also notice how it contradicts the claimed words of your expert which stated that the planes should be shot down immediately?
    Which should we believe?

    So how does this gel with the fact there's an airport right next to the Pentagon? You keep ignoring that small detail.

    I provided you with enough evidence it's down to you know to debunk what she said. Have you proofed she lying what is your source for this? She was featured as an employee of the Pentagon on 9/11 in Washington post and Guardian news articles, are you denying her job? She talking about anti-air defences did not engage the plane. People you don't like have researched this topic and claim anti air missiles exist, since this information you don't want to hear we move on. The area around Washington is definitely a no-fly zone for hijacked planes. Was their any fighter craft nearby at the military base?




    .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    This a photograph how low the aircraft had to get to hit the Pentagon.

    448540.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Sources for this (non-conspiracy please)

    The plenty of flying forums online pilots posting they describe the effects of a plane exceed it's a max speed

    I just posted this video this it is a conspiracy video but the guy trying it had experience flying and the guy who was involved was a real airline pilot. This simulator would be a better way to test if this can be done! If you have got a better example to disprove this post it?

    The plane started tumbling and breaking apart at those speeds.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I provided you with enough evidence it's down to you know to debunk what she said. Have you proofed she lying what is your source for this?
    You have not provided any evidence.
    You have provided a picture.
    We don't know where you got the picture, who is the author, whether or not it's accurately quoting who they said it's quoting.
    And even then, your evidence comes down to one sentence from that.
    And that sentence does not say what you claim it does.
    She was featured as an employee of the Pentagon on 9/11 in Washington post and Guardian news articles, are you denying her job?
    I am skeptical that she is the one being quoted in the unsourced picture you posted.

    Her being an employee of the Pentagon does not mean that she knows whether or not there are SAM sites on the building.

    And again: She does not say that there were SAM sites on the building.
    She talking about anti-air defences did not engage the plane.
    You might need to read it again as she does not say anything about whether or not there were SAM sites on the premises.
    No where does she say anything of the sort.
    She refers to the idea of such things existing after 9/11, but there's no way she'd know that, and it contradicts the information you copy pasted and plagerised from somewhere.
    People you don't like have researched this topic and claim anti air missiles exist, since this information you don't want to hear we move on.
    What people? Was all they found this one scrap of evidence?
    Surely if it's true and they did research this information you'd be able to provide something more solid than this.

    Please point to this research. Please outline the research you did to verify it was all sound and accurate.

    But I don't think you will.

    No one did this research and you never verified anything.
    A conspiracy video made up the claim and you swallowed it without thinking. Now you are grasping at straws to pretend you've actually done more than watch youtube videos.
    The area around Washington is definitely a no-fly zone for hijacked planes.
    Ok, you've ignored it again.
    Do you not agree there is an Airport right next to the Pentagon?


Advertisement