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

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The official story makes no sense.

You don't make any sense. You try to discredit witnesses that saw a plane hit, yet you maintain the plane hit. You point to a piece of wreckage and try to cast doubt on it, yet you claim flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You claim there isn't footage or sufficient radar/data of a plane hitting, but you maintain the plane hit.

Do you genuinely not see how batshiat contradictory your views on this are..

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The official story makes no sense. Eight pilots with different airlines just forgot to radio in middle eastern men outside their cockpit door were hijacking the planes. The lack of communication here make zero sense, and only make sense if the communications on the plane got jammed.

What about Flight 93 cockpit recording of the plane being taken over? The pilot shouting "get out of here"?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You don't make any sense. You try to discredit witnesses that saw a plane hit, yet you maintain the plane hit. You point to a piece of wreckage and try to cast doubt on it, yet you claim flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You claim there isn't footage or sufficient radar/data of a plane hitting, but you maintain the plane hit.

Do you genuinely not see how batshiat contradictory your views on this are..

It sounds ridiculous to you, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff and DOD drew up an entire document in the 60s about changing planes and crew and passengers and carrying out false attacks against US citizens and cities. The military saw this policy was sane. Kennedy thought it was nuts and blocked the plan.
If they could swap commercial planes and create fake identities in the 60s, what makes you doubt they could pull it off 40 years later?

They spoon feed the info that supports the official story, the strangeness is never addressed.

Operation Northwoods- a version of 9/11.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It sounds ridiculous to you

Your logic here is absolutely ridiculous as I've pointed out

King Mob

So I guess Cheerful has flipped back to denying a plane hit again?
How bizarre...

Cheerful Spring2

I just found this three part documentary today and never knew it existed. Paid for by the BBC, that shocked me.

It's the history not taught in schools. Dohnjoe should watch it he'll receive a history lesson!

Bravo to the BBC here for showing the real history of the war on terror. This is a series 9/11 debunkers should watch.

The film compares the rise of the neoconservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, drawing comparisons between their origins, and remarking on similarities between the two groups. More controversially, it argues that radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organisation, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth, or noble lie, perpetuated by leaders of many countries—and particularly neoconservatives in the U.S.—in a renewed attempt to unite and inspire their people after the ultimate failure of utopian ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
There an explanation of each show to be read in the Wiki link.

Ruby gray

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Ruby gray: I have changed my position about the Pentagon attack. I believe a large plane mostly likely flight 77 hit the west wall on 9/11.

There's lot of evidence something very big hit the wall and there pieces of plane wreckage debris outside and inside the Pentagon. That's lot of effort to stage?

That scenario with Lloyde seems more elaborate then what i thought happened!. Lloyd testimony confusing here, and was never clarified i agree what he meant we came down to the "highway together" seems his hinting something got moved from the scene?

I do believe the official report wrong about the plane/ air speed on approach to the Pentagon though and they got the direction of the plane wrong before it hit.. The problem is we know flight 77 got hijacked so had to end up somewhere? The most logical explanation it crashed at the Pentagon.

That's a big turnaround!
Not necessary though.

When Lloyde said, "We came across the highway together," what he meant was simply this: the plane flew west to east across Route 27 as he was driving north to south down Route 27.

I don't understand why CIT made such a dog's dinner of the interviews they did with Lloyde. They got the wrong end of the stick every time, and accused him of some terrible things.

But fortunately the videos taken that day absolve Lloyde of every hateful slur and innuendo. He was a humble, honest working man, who told the absolute truth as well as he knew it, to the best of his ability.

Lloyde had not seen all the media photos and the internet wrangling that went on around this. He knew where he was. He knew what happened, and that's all he needed to know.

He said to Jeff Hill in 2011,

33:03
"All the time my wife wanted me to spend. She said, 'Don't talk to 'em.' But I, the reason I talked to them [CIT] was because I thought that they would tell the truth, but they told their side of the story the way they wanted to tell it.
"And no one has come, what I see, no one has come, has actually come to me the way they [CIT] did, to hear the other side.
"And I’m not challenging what they [CIT] said because they can't prove nothing. All they can do is bring up a subject and have a idea about what should happen, but they weren't there."

Yes. that was a lot of effort to stage, but so many things don't add up.

There was not a single piece of luggage, clothing, or mail seen anywhere, which is always spread over a wide area in any plane crash. There were no wing spars found. These are thick, solid extruded aluminium I-beams, up to almost 1 metre high, three rows of them, extending the length of the wings. Where did they go?

Anyway, I don't want to get into all that. It's irrelevant.

As I said, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, so why waffle on about pointless details? Do that somewhere else, and save this thread for discussing Lloyde England, who truly is "The Eye of the Storm" of 9/11 Pentagon, but not in the way that CIT imagined.

The point is that Lloyde was driving 400 yards north of the bridge when the plane crossed the highway from west to east, just in front of his cab.

This fact alone proves that the plane did not fly diagonally across the bridge from southwest to northeast.

This makes Lloyde England the supreme North-of-Citgo witness, with the damaged taxi cab, and numerous videos showing it, to prove that this was all staged.

Lloyde was targeted, set up, and had a pole fired through his windscreen. His cab was then moved down the road, where it took the place of a decoy Capitol Cab which had been temporarily parked there on top of the bridge for the first 7 - 8 minutes (as seen on two independent videos) to fool any bystanders who happened to look across that way before Lloyde's cab finally arrived.

In that case, everything claimed by the government about what happened at the Pentagon is null and void.

The fact that Donald Rumsfeld and his bodyguard, PPO Aubrey Davis were deeply involved in the speedy, well-prepared relocation of Lloyde England and his cab from beside the Arlington National Cemetery retaining wall, 350 yards further south down to the Columbia Pike overpass bridge - within the first 8 minutes from the explosion - absolutely implicates them as having had not merely foreknowledge of the event, but as being profoundly involved in the planning of this false flag attack.

King Mob

Ruby gray wrote: »

There was not a single piece of luggage, clothing, or mail seen anywhere, which is always spread over a wide area in any plane crash. There were no wing spars found. These are thick, solid extruded aluminium I-beams, up to almost 1 metre high, three rows of them, extending the length of the wings. Where did they go?

None of that is true though.
There is tons of wreckage and effects recovered from Flight 77.
A cursory look would tell you this.

Also, you still haven't actually explained why they would do any of this.

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

That's a big turnaround!
Not necessary though.

When Lloyde said, "We came across the highway together," what he meant was simply this: the plane flew west to east across Route 27 as he was driving north to south down Route 27.

I don't understand why CIT made such a dog's dinner of the interviews they did with Lloyde. They got the wrong end of the stick every time, and accused him of some terrible things.

But fortunately the videos taken that day absolve Lloyde of every hateful slur and innuendo. He was a humble, honest working man, who told the absolute truth as well as he knew it, to the best of his ability.

Lloyde had not seen all the media photos and the internet wrangling that went on around this. He knew where he was. He knew what happened, and that's all he needed to know.

He said to Jeff Hill in 2011,

33:03
"All the time my wife wanted me to spend. She said, 'Don't talk to 'em.' But I, the reason I talked to them [CIT] was because I thought that they would tell the truth, but they told their side of the story the way they wanted to tell it.
"And no one has come, what I see, no one has come, has actually come to me the way they [CIT] did, to hear the other side.
"And I’m not challenging what they [CIT] said because they can't prove nothing. All they can do is bring up a subject and have a idea about what should happen, but they weren't there."

Yes. that was a lot of effort to stage, but so many things don't add up.

There was not a single piece of luggage, clothing, or mail seen anywhere, which is always spread over a wide area in any plane crash. There were no wing spars found. These are thick, solid extruded aluminium I-beams, up to almost 1 metre high, three rows of them, extending the length of the wings. Where did they go?

Anyway, I don't want to get into all that. It's irrelevant.

As I said, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread, so why waffle on about pointless details? Do that somewhere else, and save this thread for discussing Lloyde England, who truly is "The Eye of the Storm" of 9/11 Pentagon, but not in the way that CIT imagined.

The point is that Lloyde was driving 400 yards north of the bridge when the plane crossed the highway from west to east, just in front of his cab.

This fact alone proves that the plane did not fly diagonally across the bridge from southwest to northeast.

This makes Lloyde England the supreme North-of-Citgo witness, with the damaged taxi cab, and numerous videos showing it, to prove that this was all staged.

Lloyde was targeted, set up, and had a pole fired through his windscreen. His cab was then moved down the road, where it took the place of a decoy Capitol Cab which had been temporarily parked there on top of the bridge for the first 7 - 8 minutes (as seen on two independent videos) to fool any bystanders who happened to look across that way before Lloyde's cab finally arrived.

In that case, everything claimed by the government about what happened at the Pentagon is null and void.

The fact that Donald Rumsfeld and his bodyguard, PPO Aubrey Davis were deeply involved in the speedy, well-prepared relocation of Lloyde England and his cab from beside the Arlington National Cemetery retaining wall, 350 yards further south down to the Columbia Pike overpass bridge - within the first 8 minutes from the explosion - absolutely implicates them as having had not merely foreknowledge of the event, but as being profoundly involved in the planning of this false flag attack.

Just to ask again, you claim that this definitely was a "false flag". In that case, what exactly happened, please provide a basic timeline and details..

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I just found this three part documentary today and never knew it existed. Paid for by the BBC, that shocked me.

It's the history not taught in schools. Dohnjoe should watch it he'll receive a history lesson!

Bravo to the BBC here for showing the real history of the war on terror. This is a series 9/11 debunkers should watch.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
There an explanation of each show to be read in the Wiki link.

Its clear that you haven't watched this. It was released in 2004 so a lot of the claims are a bit dated now and it doesn't claim anything other than the official story into 9/11. ie that Al Qaeda acted alone. No reason "debunkers should watch".

Its a really good documentary. You haven't watched it. You just skim read the plot and pretended that you did.

Adam Curtis also made Bitter Lake which is also excellent.

Ruby gray

King Mob wrote: »

But why though?
None of that makes any sense for them to do.

No it doesn't.
And yet that is exactly what they did.

It sounds so far-fetched that nobody would believe they did it.

But it had the most compelling effect on everybody, whether or not they believe the official story.

Even CIT, the champions of the North-of-Citgo flightopatgh, were deceived by the glossy photos of Lloyde England and his cab posed next to a downed lightpole on top of the bridge.

Although CIT KNEW that the plane did not fly across there, and that therefore the plane could not have hit those lightpoles, and nor could that lightpole have been what impacted Lloyde's cab, Aldo and Craig just did not ever get it.

Lloyde explained to them as best he could, what happened.
Lloyde told and showed them exactly where he was when it happened.
Lloyde showed them the damaged cab with the 4-inch pole-sized imprints on the rear seat, the 4-inch pole-sized entry hole in the windscreen, yet they kept accusing him of lying for saying that a lightpole went through his windscreen, because CIT thought Lloyde was talking about that 38-foot x 8-inch lightpole lying on the ground.

But Lloyde even denied that it was that lightpole, and pointed out the pole that really did go through his windshield - a much smaller, 4-inch x 12-foot pole lying on the road on the other side of his cab ... and still CIT missed it.

So, weird as it sounds, Rumsfeld's absurd little tableau was wildly successful.
The 9/11 Memorial paved over the southwest Pentagon lawn has rows of seats in diagonal lines, indicating the mythical flightpath of "AA77", when in fact, the plane never flew that trajectory at all, and nobody ever saw it there. Eyewitnesses on the bridge did not see the plane fly over their heads from southwest to northeast, but further up the highway, perpendicular to the west wall, over the Navy Annex and nprth of the Citgo station.

But you can look at satellite photos which show you these directional rows set in concrete, and you are supposed to be convinced that is the way it happened.

Ruby gray

King Mob wrote: »

None of that is true though.
There is tons of wreckage and effects recovered from Flight 77.
A cursory look would tell you this.

Also, you still haven't actually explained why they would do any of this.

This sentence of yours does not make sense.

"There is tons of wreckage and effects recovered FROM FLIGHT 77."

What makes you think that any of that wreckage was FROM AA77?

No serial numbers of wreckage were ever matched to N644AA.

A 757 weighs about 90 tons. There was nothing remotely like 90 tons of recognisable 757 wreckage recovered.

There were a couple of alleged eyewitness testimonies claiming that the tail of the plane, people strapped in seats, flight crew uniforms, internal fittings etc were seen and recognised inside the Pentagon, but not one of these claims stands up to the facts, there are no photos of any such thing, and none of these testimonies was followed up with recorded interviews of the alleged witnesses.

According to the NTSB, Flight AA77 was not scheduled on to fly on 9/11, and never left the ground that morning.

The only pieces of wreckage on the lawn and Helipad were small enough to pick up in one hand. There was nothing resembling the wing spars, which are about 3 inches thick x 3 feet high solid aluminium I-beams, which should have been wrapped around the columns of the building, or snapped off and lying on the lawn. Ditto the tail.

Anyway, my point is not to explain why they would do this, simply to show that this is what they did do.

The videos and photos taken that morning prove what they did, but I cannot convince anybody who chooses to disbelieve them. It is up to others what they do with the information. But the intelligent thing to do is to consider the new information carefully and think laterally ... since they actually DID implement this complicated plan ... and work it out for yourself.

As I am a new member here, I cannot post links or images yet, so illustrated explanations will have to wait, sorry.

King Mob

Ruby gray wrote: »

This sentence of yours does not make sense.

"There is tons of wreckage and effects recovered FROM FLIGHT 77."

What makes you think that any of that wreckage was FROM AA77?

The sentence is perfectly understandable.
There's many items and pieces of wreckage from the plane.
They have to be from the plane as there's no other way of putting it there.

Do you have any video or photos of any one planting all that evidence?

Ruby gray wrote: »

No it doesn't.
And yet that is exactly what they did.

It sounds so far-fetched that nobody would believe they did it.

Ruby gray wrote: »

Anyway, my point is not to explain why they would do this, simply to show that this is what they did do.

Well no, you are just stating long debunked factoids that can be explained by other things or are simply untrue.
But none of that really matters as you have no explanation.
You can't explain why they would do any of this. No conspiracy theorist can. Because it simply makes no logical sense for them to do any of that stuff.

So we are left with two possibilities:

1. The government engaged in a massively complicated plan to fake a plan hitting the pentagon for no discernible logical reason and did so in a way that any amateur detective with no training and an internet connection could crack easily.

Or.

2. Some random conspiracy theorist on the internet is wrong.

So unless you can actually provide a sensible reason why they did this, it's not going to matter how many factoids you spew out. The two options remain the same.

Ruby gray

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Debunkers never look at the reports with an critical eye. Example for two here. No wing hit the ground thats evidence. The grass was unscathed here all photographs show that. What did he actually see here?

Yes, it is true that those who claim that "all these witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon" do not study the witness testimony critically. They would find a very different story if they did.

As you say, this one :

Anderson, Steve
"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."

This guy told his story a total of one time. He was never interviewed. This account was written some time after the event. You would think, since he worked for USA TODAY, his employers would have jumped on his account. But no.

Can what he said be true? He was in his office fully 2 miles from the explosion. There was the tree-covered hill of the Arlington Cemetery in between.

The plane, according to all the close-up eyewitnesses, banked to the RIGHT, but Anderson says it banked LEFT.

He, like some others, claims that the wing hit the ground. I believe that he saw somwthing that he interpreted as this, but that it was actually something else he witnessed.

Now backtrack some. He said that he heard jet engines go past his buiilding.
How? The official flightpath has AA77 flying nowhere near his building! It allegedly made that huge righthand loop miles before it approached the Pentagon from the southwest. But the USA TODAY building was to the north of the Pentagon.

So what did Anderson hear? Not the official AA77 plane.

But other people testified that the plane first flew NORTH of the Pentagon, that it flew east of the Potomac, that it went past the Mall, the White House, that it looped back over the river and approached the Pentagon from the SOUTH.

Some of the people who saw the plane on that trajectory are :

Heliport ATC Sean Boger.
Jackie Kidd (also in the Heliport tower).
William Middleton, ANC worker.
Lieutenant Colonel Steve O'Brien, C-130 pilot (and crew), requested to follow the plane.
Air Traffic Controllers who asked O'Brien to follow the unidentified plane and report on it.
Brigadier General Clyde Vaughn (although it seems the plane he saw was the C-130, flying over Georgetown, far north of the Pentagon).
Steve Chaconas, charter boat operator, on the Potomac, far south of Reagan National airport.
Sergeant Dewey Snavely, Quaker Lane.
Fire Captain Steve McCoy, Glebe Rd & I-395.

The list goes on.
All these credible witnesses saw something that was not "AA77" on the official flightpath.

If people would really study the published eyewitness accounts, locate them on maps, and compare with the offiial story, they would have to rethink their beliefs.

Many of the alleged witnesses on Eric Bart's list, and various other lists, were not even witnesses at all. They were miles away at the time.
Some were misquoted.
Many were anonymous, and/or third-person accounts, and/or embellished by journalists.
Many of them specifically testified that they saw something other than the official flightpath - eg the plane banked RIGHT, it flew over the NAVY ANNEX, NORTH of the CITGO, PERPENDICULAR to the west wall, 50 FEET to 75 YARDS ABOVE Route 27, the plane "hit at the 3rd floor", etc etc.
There are also numerous eyewitness accounts that only make sense in the context of the plane having overflown the Pentagon.

Ruby gray

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Please detail the "false flag" that took place. Provide a basic timeline, what happened, and we'll go from there.

Not a problem, once I am able to post links and images.


But remember that my primary objective is to show that Lloyde England was telling the truth. Other discussions belong in other threads.


However, if Lloyde England told the truth, then the official Pentagon story has to be a lie.

King Mob

Ruby gray wrote: »

However, if Lloyde England told the truth, then the official Pentagon story has to be a lie.

But that can't be a possibility.
The pentagon has no reason to lie. You can't explain why they would.

So we have to look at other possibilities, such as he was telling the truth, just that conspiracy theorists are making errors and are generally being dishonest.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Its clear that you haven't watched this. It was released in 2004 so a lot of the claims are a bit dated now and it doesn't claim anything other than the official story into 9/11. ie that Al Qaeda acted alone. No reason "debunkers should watch".

Its a really good documentary. You haven't watched it. You just skim read the plot and pretended that you did.

Adam Curtis also made Bitter Lake which is also excellent.

You have managed not to understand the material then

Adam Curtis states the neoconservative movement in America invented myths, legends and fantasy to progress their insane agenda around the world. Their chief mentor, Leo Strauss, argued this philosophy, and they used it here to gain power and influence in Washington

Adam Curtis argues the neoconservative movement is one of most dangerous and frightening ideologies to have ever existed in human history .
One primary aim of neoconservatives is to dismantle and destroy all liberalism in America.

Third video
Bin Laden staged videos with fighters around him with guns., he paid them to show up for the day. There’s literally no proof there was an international global network of fighters there in Afghanistan and Pakistan under Leaderrship.
Curtis says a Sudanese Islamist referred to in the documentary ends up in America (an associate of bin Laden) Got paid and housed and he then feed the Americans, phony and fabricated information about Bin aden.

He built a picture for the FBI there was this grand organisation, that had leadership, very similar to the mob/mafia and, turns out it was a big fat lie.
He told the Americans this organised organisation was called Al Qaeda. There was no such structure or organisation called Al Qaeda, another big fat lie.
Fighters with different causes showed up to train around Afghanistan, that was it.

Bin laden was not their commander or leader. He was a guy with money in the region.. Bin Laden never said Al Qaeda before September 11 and looks to be an American/ false name created for this group. The Americans created a myth, a lie there was an organisation in Afghanistan where Islamists would show up to be part of the Al Qaeda network. There was no global network in different parts of the world with a coherrent base of operations it's all a lie.

Curtis suggests an Islamist named Sheikh Mohammed turned to Bin laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri,  looking for money to pull of this 9/11 operation. Thats the story.

Sheikh Mohammed stated numerous occasions in given Testimony Bin Laden was not who he worked for. He insists to have knowledge of Saudi Kingdom involvement in 9/11 and was working for someone else to pull of 9/11. Sheikh Mohammed, the enigma here who was his boss then? 18 years we still don’t know?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have managed not to understand the material then

I understood it perfectly and understand that some of the claims made in 2004 aren't accurate/are dated or common knowledge anymore as history has unfolded. It was 16 years ago.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Curtis suggests an Islamist named Sheikh Mohammed turned to Bin laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri,  looking for money to pull of this 9/11 operation. Thats the story.

"Curtis suggests"? Its Khalid Sheikh Mohammed! lol FFS

Like saying "Curtis suggests" George Bush was president at the time. We know.

The documentary if anything, debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories. But you wouldn't know that as you haven't watched it.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have managed not to understand the material then

Adam Curtis states the neoconservative movement in America invented myths, legends and fantasy to progress their insane agenda around the world. Their chief mentor, Leo Strauss, argued this philosophy, and they used it here to gain power and influence in Washington

Adam Curtis argues the neoconservative movement is one of most dangerous and frightening ideologies to have ever existed in human history .
One primary aim of neoconservatives is to dismantle and destroy all liberalism in America.

Third video
Bin Laden staged videos with fighters around him with guns., he paid them to show up for the day. There’s literally no proof there was an international global network of fighters there in Afghanistan and Pakistan under Leaderrship.
Curtis says a Sudanese Islamist referred to in the documentary ends up in America (an associate of bin Laden) Got paid and housed and he then feed the Americans, phony and fabricated information about Bin aden.

He built a picture for the FBI there was this grand organisation, that had leadership, very similar to the mob/mafia and, turns out it was a big fat lie.
He told the Americans this organised organisation was called Al Qaeda. There was no such structure or organisation called Al Qaeda, another big fat lie.
Fighters with different causes showed up to train around Afghanistan, that was it.

Bin laden was not their commander or leader. He was a guy with money in the region.. Bin Laden never said Al Qaeda before September 11 and looks to be an American/ false name created for this group. The Americans created a myth, a lie there was an organisation in Afghanistan where Islamists would show up to be part of the Al Qaeda network. There was no global network in different parts of the world with a coherrent base of operations it's all a lie.

Curtis suggests an Islamist named Sheikh Mohammed turned to Bin laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri,  looking for money to pull of this 9/11 operation. Thats the story.

Sheikh Mohammed stated numerous occasions in given Testimony Bin Laden was not who he worked for. He insists to have knowledge of Saudi Kingdom involvement in 9/11 and was working for someone else to pull of 9/11. Sheikh Mohammed, the enigma here who was his boss then? 18 years we still don’t know?

So how come he doesn't mention any of the stuff you believe?
Where's him talking about secret demolitions? Secret Nazis?

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

"Curtis suggests"? Its Khalid Sheikh Mohammed! lol FFS

Like saying "Curtis suggests" George Bush was president at the time. We know.

The documentary if anything, debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories. But you wouldn't know that as you haven't watched it.

Curtis position on the third program is the Al Qaeda organisation, a fantasy, a myth, invented truth
Well then who picked and selected the 19 men to carry out this plan to takeover four or more planes? To handle different terrorists cells linked to Al Qaeda, you need a network, can't be done without one?

Curtis evidence is inconsistent with the 9/11 attacks. He says no Al Qaeda with coherent structure existed, its a lie, and yet men tied to this network allegedly pulled off the biggest terrorist attack in human history?

Sheikh Mohammed was not a representative of Al Qaeda it doesn’t exist according to Curtis. So you can’t rule out state involvement or intelligence in mobilizing middle east men to carry out the 9/11 hijackings.

Who else did Sheikh Mohammed meet and show the plane /attack plan to before 9/11?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Curtis position on the third program is the Al Qaeda organisation, a fantasy, a myth, invented truth
Well then who picked and selected the 19 men to carry out this plan to takeover four or more planes? To handle different terrorists cells linked to Al Qaeda, you need a network, can't be done without one?

Curtis evidence is inconsistent with the 9/11 attacks. He says no Al Qaeda with coherent structure existed, its a lie, and yet men tied to this network allegedly pulled off the biggest terrorist attack in human history?

Sheikh Mohammed was not a representative of Al Qaeda it doesn’t exist according to Curtis. So you can’t rule out state involvement or intelligence in mobilizing middle east men to carry out the 9/11 hijackings.

Who else did Sheikh Mohammed meet and show the plane /attack plan to before 9/11?

Real puffy pointless waffle there. Which is to be expected since you haven't watched the documentary.

But its 16 years old. Things he claims then aren't true now.

Al Qaeda existed. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Bin Laden, Mohammed Atef, al-Zawahiri etc planned 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds trial is due to begin in 4 months.

Ipso

I watched that when it came out, can't remember anything that would prove a conspiracy. My main take away was that the nature of Al Qaeda as an organisation was mis-represented. They were sold as a massive structured, hierarchial organization when in fact they were more of a banner or a rally cry where the top level funded and helped closely connected networks with training.
Jason Burke, who was in the show, is well worth reading up on.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Real puffy pointless waffle there. Which is to be expected since you haven't watched the documentary.

But its 16 years old. Things he claims then aren't true now.

Al Qaeda existed. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Bin Laden, Mohammed Atef, al-Zawahiri etc planned 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds trial is due to begin in 4 months.

Nonsense is your speciality. Al Qaeda is purportedly to have formed in 1988. And this three part documentary from 2004-05. What did he miss here, that will show Al Qaeda existed?

Even the Afghan leaders doubt the western country’s claims.

Al Qaeda has never operated in Afghanistan, the country's former President Hamid Karzai said in a recent interview, dismissing the notion that the terror group plotted the Sept. 11 terror attacks inside the country as "a myth,

whether he believed now-deceased Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden plotted the attacks from Afghanistan, Karzai said, "That is what I have heard from our Western friends. That is what the Western media says."

“I have not seen them and I’ve not had any report about them, any report that would indicate that Al Qaeda is operating in Afghanistan," he also said,

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hamid-karzai-al-qaeda-afghanistan-myth-213493

It's not shocking, really, when there video of US soldiers showing Taliban and Afghan citizens photos of 9/11, and none of them knew what it was. Stunning insight when Al Qaeda alleged in the west to be biggest and baddest boogeyman since the Soviets and yet the fighters and ordinary citizens in Afghanistan have no clue even happened and who did it.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nonsense is your speciality. Al Qaeda is purportedly to have formed in 1988. And this three part documentary from 2004-05. What did he miss here, that will show Al Qaeda existed?

Theres been a lot of research done since then. It was 16 years ago.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Even the Afghan leaders doubt the western country’s claims.

Hamid Karzai? Incredibly corrupt. He basically is a western leader.

Ipso

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nonsense is your speciality. Al Qaeda is purportedly to have formed in 1988. And this three part documentary from 2004-05. What did he miss here, that will show Al Qaeda existed?

Even the Afghan leaders doubt the western country’s claims.





https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hamid-karzai-al-qaeda-afghanistan-myth-213493

It's not shocking, really, when there video of US soldiers showing Taliban and Afghan citizens photos of 9/11, and none of them knew what it was. Stunning insight when Al Qaeda alleged in the west to be biggest and baddest boogeyman since the Soviets and yet the fighters and ordinary citizens in Afghanistan have no clue even happened and who did it.

Because the taliban were a localized organization. The upper levels aligned themselves with the growing number of extremist organizations that wanted to strike world wide. Jason Burke said in one of his books that many Afghans had little knowledge of events outside of there, including the moon landing.

Cheerful Spring2

Ipso wrote: »

Because the taliban were a localized organization. The upper levels aligned themselves with the growing number of extremist organizations that wanted to strike world wide. Jason Burke said in one of his books that many Afghans had little knowledge of events outside of there, including the moon landing.

No. Foreign Islamist mercenaries arrived and joined the Taliban, There was no Al Qaeda or organisation The foreign fighters arrived in Afghanistan to fight the North Alliance and keep the country Islamist. America declared they were Al Qaeda fighters to give them an excuse to bomb the country. The war on terror build on a myth,.

Another myth they came there to train for terror attacks against the west. They came there to train to fight in their own countries in the middle east and help the Taliban against the Northern Alliance.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

No. Foreign Islamist mercenaries arrived and joined the Taliban, There was no Al Qaeda or organisation The foreign fighters arrived in Afghanistan to fight the North Alliance and keep the country Islamist. America declared they were Al Qaeda fighters to give them an excuse to bomb the country. The war on terror build on a myth,.

Another myth they came there to train for terror attacks against the west. They came there to train to fight in their own countries in the middle east and help the Taliban against the Northern Alliance.

So does anyone actually believe that cheerful knows what he's talking about?

Cheerful Spring2

Third part of the series. The hunt for Al Qaeda was a joke and they knew it.

Cheerful Spring2

Ruby gray wrote: »

Not a problem, once I am able to post links and images.


But remember that my primary objective is to show that Lloyde England was telling the truth. Other discussions belong in other threads.


However, if Lloyde England told the truth, then the official Pentagon story has to be a lie.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) provided Flight 77 FDR/CSR data and this is what it showed at the end of the tape.



You can see where the plane is too high up in the sky, and noway at that altitude, had the plane enough time to knock over light poles located on the bridge/ freeway/highway road.

Debunkers and conspiracists have argued about this data for a very long time.
9/11 conspiracy people, this is genuine evidence the plane kept going over the Pentagon and landed somewhere else, for debunkers they believe the NTSB data corrupted or missing data?

NTSB never helped clear up this confusion unfortunately for everyone.

FDR does not support Lloyd story though of an aircraft flying over his car at the heliport. The plane moving northeast between the ring roads and the bridge.

Cheerful Spring2

Ruby gray:

Norad/ FAA plotted the FDR plane movements and the released a animation.

The have the plane flying over the top of the Navy Annex building, heading Northeast towards the Pentagon.



The official story plane was not heading this direction to the Pentagon and was not flying over the Navy Annex to the Northeast side.

Green line is the official story plane position heading Southwest.



Different agencies release FDR animations that don't support the official story, its very strange :eek: