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
Comments
-
Please address the topic of this thread.
To refresh your memories :
Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event
It wandered off into pointless speculation 2 years ago, and nobody seems to want to have a serious discussion about the subject, so I wonder why so many are here at all.
Serious discussion here is the last thing you will find0 -
Many more than you think.
Okay, how many people saw Flight 77 miss the Pentagon? please provide their witness statements
I am reading through witness statements now, can't find any describing the plane missing the Pentagon, quite the opposite, most are describing the airliner hitting the Pentagon.0 -
Ok, so why did the government tell him it was a part of a lightpole?I do not see how you can claim this! In what way did the government "go out of their way to manipulate him to say what he said"?
...
He did however repeat what he was told, that the pole was part of a lightpole.
But this cannot have been true, as no part of a lightpole has dimensions matching the pole which he identified, and the physical damage to his cab.
Nor could the lightpole downed on the bridge, possibly have travelled 400 yards up the road to hit Lloyde's cab.0 -
-
Before you maintained that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
What is your belief now:
a) It hit the Pentagon
b) It didn't hit the Pentagon
I’m open to both sides being right here. Official story not unbelievable here. Here we have a good deal of evidence a plane crashed at the Pentagon. Now was it flight 77 or was it a dummy/decoy-drone replacement plane fitted out to accomplish this strike?
Could Flight 77 bear the low level flying at the 20 feet above ground in Washington DC and alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour perform a wonder that day flying this jet from the pilot cockpit seat?
FDR shows flight 77 would go over the Pentagon roofline and not collide with the wall. Is up to debunkers to provide evidence here the FDR data false.
FDR physical evidence.
My primary interest is demolitions in New York, there i have firm belief the official version false. I am uncertain about the events at the Pentagon. It could be flight 77 that crashed there. Where's in New York i don’t believe for a second fire caused building seven to collapse.0 -
Advertisement
-
And yup. You've flip flopped again...Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »I’m open to both sides being right here. Official story not unbelievable here. Here we have a good deal of evidence a plane crashed at the Pentagon. Now was it flight 77 or was it a dummy/decoy-drone replacement plane fitted out to accomplish this strike?
Could Flight 77 bear the low level flying at the 20 feet above ground in Washington DC and alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour perform a wonder that day flying this jet from the pilot cockpit seat?
FDR shows flight 77 would go over the Pentagon roofline and not collide with the wall. Is up to debunkers to provide evidence here the FDR data false.
FDR physical evidence.
My primary interest is demolitions in New York, there i have firm belief the official version false. I am uncertain about the events at the Pentagon. It could be flight 77 that crashed there. Where's in New York i don’t believe for a second fire caused building seven to collapse.0 -
The consensus of witness statements is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
How many witnesses saw the plane fly over the Pentagon?
Supposed Hijacker Hani Hanjour was piloting the plane manually in the last minutes and he was reported to be a beginner a unskilled pilot. At 400mph + imagine how focused you would need to be recognize and see the building through the plane window at that speed? The plane was at 530mph a few seconds before the alleged crash, it look like a missile streaking through the sky at that speed and alleged here the plane was only 2 feet off the Pentagon grass before it crashed. Whatever you believe about the attack, hani turned into a expert a world class pilot that day.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »I’m open to both sides being right here.
Thanks for the answer.. So to summarise:
1. You believed a missile hit the Pentagon
2. You believed a "military jet" hit the Pentagon
3. You believed Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but from a slightly different angle, you argued this as fact for a long period of time
4. You now suddenly "open" to Flight 77 completely missing the Pentagon
And on a wider note, you believe WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were blown up by secret controlled demolitions orchestrated by a wide list of characters including "secret Nazi's" and Joe Biden among many others0 -
Thanks for the answer.. So to summarise:
1. You believed a missile hit the Pentagon
2. You believed a "military jet" hit the Pentagon
3. You believed Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but from a slightly different angle, you argued this as fact for a long period of time
4. You now suddenly "open" to Flight 77 completely missing the Pentagon
And on a wider note, you believe WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 were blown up by secret controlled demolitions orchestrated by a wide list of characters including "secret Nazi's" and Joe Biden among many others
I assumed another plane hit and discussed why it might be a smaller military jet heading southwest that crashed at the Pentagon!
Reason why i thought that you left out. A couple of years ago, i thought eyewitnesses, and the evidence showed only one plane heading Southwest was seen here.
While doing research i learned no people saw a plane heading northeast too. I then found the FDR and FAA animations and both show their plane heading northeast, not southwest. That’s strange, now the official narrative not backed by the physical evidence found at the Pentagon
When i stared at the west wall damage at the Pentagon a plane crashing against the wall coming in from northeast made sense
What you are unable to notice here is the southwest position not supported by the physical evidence and therefore the official version not accurate.
It my position the plane flew over the Pentagon, it what the FDR shows! I open like i said the Flight 77 height on the FDR not conclusive and maybe calibrated unaccurately "corrupted-missing data who knows? The plane in the right spot on the FDR to knock over lighpoles, heading northeast, the issue is the jet just too high above the bridge to do so on the FDR. Fix that issue, the plane knocks over poles!0 -
Lol you've gone entirely 180 now.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
It my position the plane flew over the Pentagon, it what the FDR shows!
Previously you claimed this.
Then you claimed that the plane hit.
Now you're claiming this again.
Is it just because you want to agree with the one other conspiracy theorist here?0 -
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Supposed Hijacker Hani Hanjour
Hani wasn't an "expert pilot" by any stretch, he struggled with his English and he didn't perform well in early training, however he achieved his private license and several months later the FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a satisfactory result.
e.g. from chapter 7 in the 9/11 commission reportFBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52*57. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).
A novice pilot with the same level of experience in the same situation hit the Pentagon 3 out of 3 times on a proper aircraft simulator. Any proper pilots forum will confirm the manouveur is possible for someone with that level of training.
This has been explained to you multiple times, each time you either ignore it or attack it with incredulity, move on, then bring it up a few months later. There is nothing rational or reasonable about your approach to this event.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »I
While doing research
"Research". You have a history of googling bad conspiracy blogs and regurgitating them here (e.g. I found where you got all that "military jet" stuff from). A new poster comes in and in the space of a few posts you completely change position, again.
Once again this demonstrates that you can't seem to grasp that history and facts are independent from your changeable imaginings.0 -
We're also still waiting for him to explain his alternative for this. He hasn't actually said how the plane did that manuvuer if it wasn't who the official story said.This has been explained to you multiple times, each time you either ignore it or attack it with incredulity, move on, then bring it up a few months later. There is nothing rational or reasonable about your approach to this event.
Was it a different person?
Remote control that took over from the highjackers?
Mind control?0 -
Hani wasn't an "expert pilot" by any stretch, he struggled with his English and he didn't perform well in early training, however he achieved his private license and several months later the FAA commercial pilot certificate in April 1999, getting a satisfactory result.
e.g. from chapter 7 in the 9/11 commission report
A novice pilot with the same level of experience in the same situation hit the Pentagon 3 out of 3 times on a proper aircraft simulator. Any proper pilots forum will confirm the manouveur is possible for someone with that level of training.
This has been explained to you multiple times, each time you either ignore it or attack it with incredulity, move on, then bring it up a few months later. There is nothing rational or reasonable about your approach to this event.
Eddie Shalev the only trainer to claim Hani had the skills to fly a plane. On close scrutiny Eddie Shalev was a Jewish American inhabitant, had Israeli military service ties, who just happened to have an Al Qaeda Terrorist sitting beside him before 9/11. It’s that an accident? Why did all the American pilot coaches have a different opinion of his flying skills weeks before 9/11?
A computer simulator at home, does not stimulate the forces here when you flying a commercial jet near ground at 400 to 500mph an hour.0 -
We're also still waiting for him to explain his alternative for this. He hasn't actually said how the plane did that manuvuer if it wasn't who the official story said.
Was it a different person?
Remote control that took over from the highjackers?
Mind control?
I strongly suspect Cheerful will merge the two
The original nonsense that Flight 77 came in "at a slightly different" angle, and this new claim that flew up at the last second. All built on incredulity and denial as per usual.0 -
I strongly suspect Cheerful will merge the two
The original nonsense that Flight 77 came in "at a slightly different" angle, and this new claim that flew up at the last second. All built on incredulity and denial as per usual.
Well it's not new. that's what he was originally claiming until he put all of his chips on the dlight recorder being completely accurate and untampered with.
He snookered himself and couldn't explain why no witnesses describe the plane flying away or why the flight data didn't show that.
And then when he couldn't explain how they flight date could be completely accurate and also from a missile or other plane, he decided that it was flight 77. The slightly different angle (and the secret pentagon vault he invented) all come from him having to have something to preserve the conspiracy theory.
And he whined every time we pointed at the trail of discarded beliefs and claims.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
A computer simulator at home, does not stimulate the forces here when you flying a commercial jet near ground at 400 to 500mph an hour.
The novice pilot hit the Pentagon 3 out of 3 times in a proper Boeing simulator. You know this because it's been explained to you multiple times.
Okay, explain this new theory of yours..
1. Who flew the plane, name(s)? (with supporting evidence)
2. Where did this plane go after it "flew over the Pentagon?" (with supporting evidence)
3. Proof the forensic investigation which identified the passengers/crew/hijackers of Flight 77 at the Pentagon was faked (with credible evidence)
4. Explanation of what caused the damage at the Pentagon, the entry damage, the internal damage, the wreckage of Flight 77 inside and outside the structure (I watched it live, we had very quick footage of the Pentagon attack after it happened) - all of which has to be supported by evidence
Once you explain this basics, then we can move on
Any made-up, or imagined stuff is irrelevant.0 -
The novice pilot hit the Pentagon 3 out of 3 times in a proper Boeing simulator. You know this because it's been explained to you multiple times.
Okay, explain this new theory of yours..
1. Who flew the plane, name(s)? (with supporting evidence)
2. Where did this plane go after it "flew over the Pentagon?" (with supporting evidence)
3. Proof the forensic investigation which identified the passengers/crew/hijackers of Flight 77 at the Pentagon was faked (with credible evidence)
4. Explanation of what caused the damage at the Pentagon, the entry damage, the internal damage, the wreckage of Flight 77 inside and outside the structure (I watched it live, we had very quick footage of the Pentagon attack after it happened) - all of which has to be supported by evidence
Once you explain this basics, then we can move on
Any made-up, or imagined stuff is irrelevant.
NTSB and FAA both released public animations, they’re not belonging to conspiracy blogs.
Everything just straight and narrow with you, there never any troubles with the official story about 9/11 and anybody who determines differently is wrong.
I am open to Ruby theory, i not closed off to new knowledge like you are. Could he and i be wrong here sure. Can you and your friends be wrong sure, but you so confident of the official story you will go ahead dismiss information here before you see it.
Dohnjoe i don’t have to prove anything here. The American pilot trainers of Hani Hanjor said he was a **** crappy pilot, thats their statement and you can find it online. One guy with Israeli military ties said no the Hani he trained appears to have had military aviation training? Why does this depiction differ to the rest of them? Hani a successful pilot with a aviation licence, all his instructors should be praising him, but the majority don't. One instructor says he could barely fly a Cessna weeks before 9/11 in the sky.
Where you onboard the plane to identify HanjoUr. Did you see the passengers here? The ony evidence terrorists took a plane that day is a few minutes of tape. That airport security tape had no time or date stamp, it was removed why? We also know from insurance documents the alleged 9/11 terrorists performed dummy roads and boarded planes before 9/11. Where that footage? Why is hard to catalogue everything here for history sake?0 -
You previous said you were closed off and stated 100% that his theory wasn't true.Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »I am open to Ruby theory, i not closed off to new knowledge like you are.
But now, because you're desperate for any kind of support, you've flip floped yet again.0 -
Serious discussion here is the last thing you will find
Agreed. Debunkers are like lawyers, they invariably will always find an angle to dispute something without saying much at all.
You show them pictures and screenshots of alleged Flight 77 flying over the Navy Annex heading northeast and they make up **** that you somehow created/invented this position for the plane. Its crazy stuff that they don’t see seem to notice there doing!
Ruby arguing no plane knocked over light poles at the bridge and the plane never crashed. Ruby has a grander plot with two cabs involved one got moved and one left the scene. Lloyd cab was in a different location and the plane was near the heliport/ cemetery wall.
We only have the FDR and Eyewitnesses and radar to verify a plane was there. Problem for Ruby theory , the FDR plane not at the cemetery it flying at a height above the bridge near the ring roads. The only support here for Ruby theory is the plane 180 feet above the bridge at the time so the underside and wings at that height can not hit poles!
Debunkers will somehow twist it that your lying here and the plane was lower on the FDR and the screenshots and pictures you showed are false :eek: this is the level of debate you see here.0 -
Advertisement
-
Okay, how many people saw Flight 77 miss the Pentagon? please provide their witness statements
I am reading through witness statements now, can't find any describing the plane missing the Pentagon, quite the opposite, most are describing the airliner hitting the Pentagon.
I read through Penny Schoner's list of about 90 so-called witnesses who allegedly witnessed the impact of AA77 into the Pentagon.
By the time I had eliminated everybody who was actually miles away at the time, anonymous people, third-person reports, all accounts which did not specifically state that they had seen the impact, those who said they ducked at the moment of impact, known liars whose various testimonies contradict themselves, those who were identified as being in locations which had no line of sight to the explosion point, and so on ... There were less than 30 possible candidates remaining.
Of these, their exact locations often need establishing to prove they had a line of sight.
Many of these also testified to details which are mutually exclusive with the plane hitting the Pentagon on the official flightpath at that acute angle, such as describing a RIGHT BANK, or the plane flying OVER THE NAVY ANNEX or the CEMETERY, or FAR TOO HIGH above the highway for it to have impacted the ground floor.
Three of these witnesses were certain that the plane hit 2 storeys HIGHER than the hole in the Pentagon.
Most of them are adamant that the plane DID NOT FLY OVER THE BRIDGE, therefore they are NORTH OF CITGO WITNESSES.
Others did not specify the flightpath.
But NOBODY SAW THE PLANE FLY OVER THE BRIDGE.
Numerous accounts are compatible with having witnessed a FLYOVER sleight-of-hand illusion.
Here are those witnesses remaining from Schoner's list, who thought they witnessed the plane crashing into the building.
1. STEVE RISKUS
He plotted his position and the flightpath he saw on several overhead images. His position is known thanks to his photo series beginning 1 minute post explosion. He drew the plane flying perpendicular to the wall, on the NORTH-OF-CITGO track, and confirmed it was above the height of the tree-topped cemetery bank as it crossed Route 27.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge, and could NOT have hit the ground floor from this height.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
2. ATC SEAN BOGER
He stated that the plane flew across the Navy Annex, then NORTH OF CITGO, BANKED RIGHT, and hit the building between 2nd & 3rd floors.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge, and did NOT hit the ground floor.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
3. DONALD BOUCHOUX
At least 200 yds from site. Location & direction uncertain.
Does not describe flightpath or impact in any detail.
CONCLUSION : INCONCLUSIVE
4. MIKE DOBBS
Inside Pentagon watching approaching plane. Location unknown but did not hear or feel impact. Ran away.
Plane flightpath and impact not described.
CONCLUSION : INCONCLYSIVE
5. ALBERT HEMPHILL
About 8 windows from northeast corner of Navy Annex, on eastern side.
Said plane flew diagonally across the Navy Annex, "came to my right shouoder", and flew to the ANC side NORTH OF CITGO.
Saw a "flash" which he interpreted as a single lightpole having been hit, but did not see the taxi hit by a pole.
Described a RIGHT BANK.
CONCLUSION: Plane could not have flown across the bridge on this trajectory.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
6. FATHER STEPHEN MCGRAW
Was located opposite the Heliport Tower, and the plane flew across the top of his car.
He saw a piece of pole inside Lloyde England's cab which was just a few feet away from his car, next to the cemetery retaining wall.
CONCLUSION: Plane did not fly across the bridge.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
7. JAMES CISSELL
On Route 27 opposite the Helipad. Plane flew in front of him, across the helipad.
CONCLUSION: Plane did not fly across bridge.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
BOB DUBILL
On Route 27, passing the building, therefore hundreds of feet north of the bridge.
The plane crossed the highway in front of him, 40 feet AGL.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across bridge, and could NOT have hit the ground floor from this height.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
9. PENNY ELGAS
On Route 27, north of the bridge.
Saw plane fly NORTH OF CITGO and fly STRAIGHT across the highway several cars in front of her, about 80 feet AGL.
She saw the underside of both wings, which she attributed to it tilting left wing down, but this is consistent with the plane lifting up to fly over the building (as described by other eyewitnesses).
She described it BANKING towards the Heliport.
Very fanciful description of impact "in slow motion".
Claims both wing and tail slipped / disappeared into the building, although the wall clearly remained unbreached except for a fuselage-sized hole.
"It seemed to simply melt into the building."
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across bridge, and could NOT have hit the ground floor from this height.
SHE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
10. BRUCE ELLIOTT
In ?? South Parking, so it is not certain that he had a view of the impact site at all.
Does not describe the impact, just said he saw the plane's approach and the flames.
Claimed that the plane "clipped a utility pole guide wire" which did not happen.
CONCLUSION : INCONCLUSIVE
11. KEN FORD
Was miles to the east of the Pentagon, across the Potomac, watching Reagan National Airport through binoculars.
Stated that the plane "FLEW UP THE RIVER FROM NATIONAL (AIRPORT). THEN IT TURNED BACK T9WARDS THE PENTAGON."
This means the plane flew a loop on the EAST SIDE of the Pentagon an over D.C.,, as described by many other witnesses.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly on the official flightpath. It did NOT make a loop 3 miles southwest of the Pentagon.
12. JOE HARRINGTON
Construction worker who went out of building into South Parking. Saw plane crossing Route 27, but It is unlikely that he actually had a line of sight to the explosion point.
CONCLUSION : INCONCLUSIVE
13. K., M
Anonymous and unconfirmable.
In an apartment in Pentagon City. Location at least 1 mile away.
Does not describe the impact. Unknown whether there was actually a line of sight to explosion point.
CONCLUSION : INCONCLUSIVE
14. TERRANCE KEAN
In an apartment, location and distance unknown. Line of sight to explosion pojnt not confirmed.
Does not describe the impact in detail
"It sort of disappeared ... It was very sort of surreal."
CONCLUSION : INCONCLUSIVE
15 AYDAN KIZILDRGLI
Plane BANKED. Third-person account.. Location unknown.
Plane trajectory not given. Line of sight unconfirmed.
CONCLUSION : INCONCLUSIVE
16 MAJOR LINCOLN LIEBNER
Location confirmed as 100 yards south of explosion site. First rescuer on the scene.
Within days, he testified on video, and drew on an overhead image, that he saw the plane fllying PERPENDICULAR to the west wall, at the level of the HELIPORT.
He thought it was A FLYOVER ARLINGTON CEMETERY.
He stated that the plane hit at the height of THE 2nd - 3rd FLOORS.
Stated that THE PLANE HIT A HELICOPTER ON THE HELIPAD.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge, and did NOT hit the ground floor.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
17 DAVID MARRA
On Route 27 west of the Pentagon.
Plane BANKED RIGHT.
Was 50 feet AGL.
Said its wing hit the Helipad and that it "cartwheeled".
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge, and did NOT hit the ground floor level with the lawn.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
18 JAMES MOSLEY
On a scaffold on the Navy Annex.
The plane flew over him.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
19 : CHRISTOPHER MUNSEY
Was apparently travelling west on either Columbia Pike or I-395, hundreds of yards from the Pentagon.
Saw the plane flying OVER THE NAVY ANNEX.
Unknown whether he had a line of sight to explosion point.
Said "It APPEARED to hit the side of the Pentagon".
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
20 VIN NARAYANAN
On Route 27, just south of the Columbia Pike exit road overhead sign, opposite the Heliport.
The plane flew in front of him, 25 feet above his car.
He categorically DENIED that it hit any lightpoles, but said (like ATC SEAN BOGER) that it's tail "clipped the overhead sign".
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
21 : MARY ANN OWENS
On Route 27 opposite the Helipad, confirmed by a photo she took there.
She saw the bottom of the plane as it flew directly above her.
It was 50 feet AGL.
She ducked down as it flew over.
Stated that the PLANE hit BETWEEN THE 2nd- 3rd FLOORS.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge, and did NOT hit the ground floor.
SHE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
22 : STEVE PATTERSON
In an apartment in Pentagon City, possibly > 1 mile away.
Line of sight to explosion point unconfirmed but apparently none as he saw "orange flames shoot out the back of the building".
Saw plane flying OVER ARLINGTON CEMETERY.
Does not describe impact but said, "This thing just became part of the Pentagon" ... the Pentagon "enveloped" the plane.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
23. CHRISTINE PETERSON
On Route 27 opposite the Helipad. Location confirmed in a photograph by STEVE RISKUS.
Looked to her LEFT to see plane coming straight at her. It flew over her car.
She could "read the numbers under the wing".
BUT American Airlines planes do NOT have numbers under their wings.
Said,
"MY MIND COULD NOT COMPREHEND WHAT HAD HAPPENED. WHERE DID THE PLANE GO? ... THERE WAS NO PLANE VISIBLE, ONLY HUGE BILLOWS OF SMOKE."
Did not describe the impact.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge. She was puzzled about what happened to the plane.
SHE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
24 . FRANK PROBST
Walking along footpath beside Route 27.
Saw plane fly from the WEST, over the NAVY ANNEX.
He dived to the ground, so it is not certain that he was looking at the explosion point.
He remembers the plane "vanishing in a cloud of smoke".
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
25. NOEL SEPULVEDA
His entire testimony is confused and fanciful.
Was in South Parking, therefore unlikely to have had a line of sight to explosion point.
Claimed plane's landing gear was down, which it was not.
Saw plane flying OVER HENDERSON HAL and the SHERATON HOTEL, west of NAVY ANNEX.
Claimed plane hit 2 lightpoles which tilted it to 45 degrees, which did not happen.
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT fly across the bridge.
HE WAS A NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.
26. "SKARLET"
On Route 27, location uncertain. Does not describe impact.
Was very conflicted about what happened to the plane.
She wrote on 9/11/2001,
"BUILDINGS DON'T EAT PLANES. THAT PLANE, IT JUST VANISHED ... THE AIRPLANE DIDN'T CRASH. WHERE ARE THE PARTS.?"
"I WANT TO MAKE IT MAKE SENSE. I WANT TO KNOW WHY THERE'S THIS GAP IN MY MEMORY, THIS GAP THAT MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH THE PLANE SIMPLY BECAME INVISIBLE AND BANKED UP AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE."
CONCLUSION: Skarlet sounds like a flyover witness.
27. TIM TIMMERMAN
In an apartment in Crystal City, 4,60p feet away. His view was of the southwest face of the Pentagon, with the west wall almost perpendicular.
Saw plane flying DOWN I-395, by SHERATON HOTEL.
View was then obstructed by tall buildings, as confirmed by video taken from his apartment.
Plane reappeared for a tiny fraction of a second as it crossed the lawn.
He claimed the plane crashed on the ground IN FRONT OF the wall, which it did not.
He said,
"The wings came FORWARD, and it WENT UP in a fireball ... I SAW THE WINGS FLY FORWARD."
CONCLUSION: Plane did NOT hit at the ground floor.
His account is suggestive of a FLYOVER, with the WINGS FLYING FORWARDS.
28. DAVE WINSLOW
Location unknown. Flightpath and impact not described. He said only,
"I saw the tail ... it ploughed into the Pentagon."
CONCLUSION : INCONCLUSIVE0 -
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »NTSB and FAA both released public animations, they’re not belonging to conspiracy blogs.
Conspiracy blogs interpret them differently. By some remarkable coincidence, they come out with conspiracy conclusions.Everything just straight and narrow with you, there never any troubles with the official story about 9/11 and anybody who determines differently is wrong.
You go to extreme lengths to attack/discredit the circumstances of 9/11 in the same way you attempt to attack/discredit historical details as part of your Holocaust denial.
The issue isn't the event or the facts or the evidence, it's your irrational, paranoid and delusional interpretation of it.
As usual, you didn't answer any of the questions. You entertain fanciful conspiracy notions with no evidence, yet you relentlessly attack established facts despite overwhelmingly evidence.0 -
CONCLUSION : INCONCLUSIVE
Is your personal conclusion, and that of some 911 conspiracy theorists who can't provide a coherent alternative explanation.
There were likely hundreds of witnesses that day, and well over hundred gave statements, how many saw the plane flying over the Pentagon?
You are using a technique of denial to discredit witnesses who support theory X, whilst at the same time providing no witnesses who support theory Y - why is that?
After this we can discuss the other glaring points to this theory such as:
1. Why did this plane "fly over" the Pentagon considering the other suicide attacks that day, why was this "different"? (with evidence)
2. If this attack was staged, were the other attacks staged? if yes, why did the pilots die? (with evidence), if no, was it coincidence? (with evidence)
3. Evidence that all the investigations which determined Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, including the forensic investigation were faked (full comprehensive evidence required for this)
4. How they faked the wreckage from Flight 77 inside and outside the Pentagon, and in such a short time (with evidence)
Once we're done with that, then you're going to have to provide extremely compelling evidence of what further happened to Flight 77 if it apparently "flew over" the Pentagon, where it went to, what happened to the passengers, etc
Evidence is required to back answers as 9/11 truthers have a habit of making stuff up or conjuring rationalisations. Likewise, they rely heavily on denying/discrediting details instead of supporting their theory.0 -
-
Is your personal conclusion, and that of some 911 conspiracy theorists who can't provide a coherent alternative explanation.
There were likely hundreds of witnesses that day, and well over hundred gave statements, how many saw the plane flying over the Pentagon?
You are using a technique of denial to discredit witnesses who support theory X, whilst at the same time providing no witnesses who support theory Y - why is that?
After this we can discuss the other glaring points to this theory such as:
1. Why did this plane "fly over" the Pentagon considering the other suicide attacks that day, why was this "different"? (with evidence)
2. If this attack was staged, were the other attacks staged? if yes, why did the pilots die? (with evidence), if no, was it coincidence? (with evidence)
3. Evidence that all the investigations which determined Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, including the forensic investigation were faked (full comprehensive evidence required for this)
4. How they faked the wreckage from Flight 77 inside and outside the Pentagon, and in such a short time (with evidence)
Once we're done with that, then you're going to have to provide extremely compelling evidence of what further happened to Flight 77 if it apparently "flew over" the Pentagon, where it went to, what happened to the passengers, etc
Evidence is required to back answers as 9/11 truthers have a habit of making stuff up or conjuring rationalisations. Likewise, they rely heavily on denying/discrediting details instead of supporting their theory.
I am not presenting "my theory".
I am presenting the verbal and physical and video evidence of Lloyde England, since he is the subject of this thread, which makes it appropriate for me to do so, and inappropriate for you to continue derailing the discussion with your off-topic complaints and attempts to sidetrack my attention from the topic.
So far you have made many demands of me, but been unable to refute any of the evidence I have shown, or to present a single credible eyewitness who testified consistently, in the first person, with proof of their location provided, that they witnessed the plane flying diagonally from southwest to northeast, across the bridge.
This is the problem Citizen Investigation Team also had, from 2006. They could not find a single witness who testified to this flightpath.
EVERYBODY saw the plane fly over the Navy Annex, north of the Citgo, over the Arlington National Cemetery, near the Columbia Pike exit road overhead sign.
Their many detractors ridiculed and condemned them, insisting that however-many eyewitnesses saw the plane fly over the bridge, but nor could any of them produce a single witness to that flightpath.
Still waiting.
One would think that, after 19 years, somebody would have come forward who witnessed the plane flying on the official flightpath, surely?
I have not "made stuff up" as you accuse.
I am not "denying/discrediting details" as you accuse. I am logically analysing eyewitness statements on their merits. I am cross-referencing these witnesses' other accounts, verifying locations on satellite maps whenever possible, determining whether or not they had the line of sight they claimed to have had, and identifying as many as I can on the imagery available from the first 20 minutes post explosion.
As I pointed out, over 70% of the "eyewitness to the impact" statement in Penny Schoner's list are no such thing.
That makes her claims fraudulent.
We can move on to the other lists of "eyewitness testimonies", where I can assure you, becauseI have studied them thoroughly, we will discover the same syndrome.
Perhaps you could try actually dealing with even a single one of the scores of excellent points I have already made, rather than hurling wholesale dissembling gripes.0 -
But as I keep explaining if you can't even suggest a plausible reason for why they would do something so nonsensical, then it means that they didn't do it and there's another explanation for the things you keep pointing too.That is for you to ponder.
All I present is evidence of the fact that this is what they did.
So again can you explain why the government would have the plane fly over rather than crash into the building?0 -
continue derailing the discussion with your off-topic complaints and attempts to sidetrack my attention from the topic.
Am discussing the "false flag event" as per title. It's the equivalent of me wandering into a thread about a Titanic survivor, stating the ship was sunk by torpedo, then acting annoyed when people ask me about it
You are stating as fact something happened that completely contradicts recorded history, multiple investigations, the evidence, other conspiracy theorists and the consensus of witnesses - mysteriously you provide almost no details of this "event", refuse to answer questions about it and most of it seems to hinge on one witness whose been relentlessly pursued by a group of amateurs determined to cast the event as a conspiracy.EVERYBODY saw the plane fly over the Navy Annex
It's a simple question, how many witnesses saw American Airlines Flight 77 fly over the Pentagon?0 -
Conspiracy blogs interpret them differently. By some remarkable coincidence, they come out with conspiracy conclusions.
You go to extreme lengths to attack/discredit the circumstances of 9/11 in the same way you attempt to attack/discredit historical details as part of your Holocaust denial.
The issue isn't the event or the facts or the evidence, it's your irrational, paranoid and delusional interpretation of it.
As usual, you didn't answer any of the questions. You entertain fanciful conspiracy notions with no evidence, yet you relentlessly attack established facts despite overwhelmingly evidence.
You are on this site for years and every post you present is denial. You reuse the same checklist conspiracy theorists are paranoid, can’t be believed, they are liars and don’t tell the truth. We have read all this before in different ways from you here on this site. You dont like people who question the nuances of history you think everything in history books is the full picture of events that’s your attitude, ok.
Try to stay on topic here, for once.
What is your real opinion of the event. Evidently you are unable to see the plane flying over the top of the Navy Annex? In what way, does a plane flying over the top of the Navy Annex give support to the official story, discuss? What the debunker conclusion, since you obviusly can’t stand the conspiracy conclusion?0 -
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Try to stay on topic here, for once.
Lol, this from you.Evidently you are unable to see the plane flying over the top of the Navy Annex?
Flight 77 hit the west side of the Pentagon, are you claiming that it flew over the Pentagon?What the debunker conclusion
Terrorists hijacked and flew planes into buildings on 911. Open any proper reference or encyclopedia on the subject.
You constantly attempt to discredit all that in order to insert vague baseless conspiracy theories that change all the time, "secret Nazi's", insurance scam, military jets, etc, ideas that make no sense and aren't backed by a shred of credible evidence0
Advertisement