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
-
Assuming these things are true (they're not.)
So why not just make the plane fly on an easier path that it could do?
Again, ignoring that no such thing happened, and flight 77 did exist and contained real people....
Why not just put a bomb on a 757?
Why would they need to put a bomb on it when it would only draw suspicion and make it look like it wasn't a plane crash.
Again, assuming this is true and possible...
Why not switch with a 757?
The explosion was reported to have happened at 9.30am on Sept 12. The clocks stopped near 9.31am. Eyewitnesses reported a 9.31am blast.
The timeline changed later to 9.37am I always felt they changed the timeline for some reason later?
I think the timeline change is key to understanding what happened at the Pentagon on 9/110 -
OK. So people can be mistaken.
So the fact some witnesses said it's white does not help the idea of your conspiracy.
Again, it only serves to highlight how silly it is.
They painted an entirely different plane because they didn't want people to notice. But they obviously didn't care if people noticed it was an entirely different plane.
Both of these things cannot be true at the same time as they are a contradiction.
If they wanted to make people think a 757 hit the Pentagon, that's what they would use.
If a 757 hitting the Pentagon was so impossible to the point that it makes the conspiracy obvious, they would just attack somewhere else.
The Conspiracy is silly if you actually think about it for more that a second.0 -
OK. So people can be mistaken.
So the fact some witnesses said it's white does not help the idea of your conspiracy.
Again, it only serves to highlight how silly it is.
They painted an entirely different plane because they didn't want people to notice. But they obviously didn't care if people noticed it was an entirely different plane.
Both of these things cannot be true at the same time as they are a contradiction.
If they wanted to make people think a 757 hit the Pentagon, that's what they would use.
If a 757 hitting the Pentagon was so impossible to the point that it makes the conspiracy obvious, they would just attack somewhere else.
The Conspiracy is silly if you actually think about it for more that a second.
To do that you have to ignore the inconsistencies. If the event did not have inconsistencies there be no conspiracy to investigate. And we know it not just truthers who disbelieve the official government story. Members of the 9/11 committee said this after they released their findings and the two leading members wrote a book detailing their frustration with the investigation.
That's a cover up!
Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue,
You can not say there were not covering up here?
Kean and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which appeared headed toward Washington.
Did they stand down the defences on purpose?
In fact, the commission determined — after it subpoenaed audiotapes and e-mails of the sequence of events — that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed.0 -
OK, so ignoring how so far a lot of your inconsistencies turned out to be based on false things, like the idea of Sam sites...
Did either of these people or anyone on the commission conclude it was an inside job or that the American government was in involved in the planning or execution of the attacks?
Do either of them buy or support the silly notion that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?
The answer is no.
Claiming they support the nonsense conspiracy theories you've swallowed is disingenuous in the extreme.0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »The found the passport 7 blocks away? It survived a fire in the plane exploding, an explosion in the building and magically travelled 7 blocks, to be found intact with no damage?
I think he is in the plot that's what he acts like he does not know anything, soon as the camera was not recording when he thought it was off he opened up about this was staged and planned.
I normally carry my passport in the left inside pocket of my jacket.
I think most men do. Some slobs keep it in the arse pocket of their jeans and it gets all bent and dog-eared but I prefer to keep mine nice and intact. Anyway if I was in a plane and it hit a building and burst into flames, flames hot enough apparently to melt steel and my passport was found in the rubble I would expect that the jacket in which the passport was carried and the (my) body in which the jacket was wrapped would also be found in the same spot.0 -
Advertisement
-
it was reportedly found before the towers collapsed and handed in.
I just mentioned where it was handed in - in the vicinity of Albany street (it could have been found anywhere) Despite this, there is a photo of Albany street with debris all over the ground, including an intact seat cover (cant post now due to being in work)
Some stuff survived, as mentioned the planes paper itinerary survived despite being made of.. paper
The other passport survived relatively intact after being plunged into the ground at 500 mph
No everything gets "insto-vapourized", material can be ejected intact and relatively intact
One officer described seeing luggage strewn all over the ground close to the twin towers (before the collapse)
So how did it get out of the plane? How did it get out of his pocket and out of the plane? Surely his body would have been in the exact spot where this passport was found, no?0 -
It was 2001, not everybody had phones glued to their hands 24/7, radio signals went nuts when you got a text message even. Most people would not have drawn attention to themselves by trying to make phonecalls.
Pre 2001 hijacking did not lead to instant death, procedures would have involved figuring out where to land to start negotiations.
Not the first or last ever plane to be hijacked, how has any plane anywhere ever been hijacked?
bohsman,
in 2001 the technology did not exist to receive a phone signal above 3000 feet. When my train from work to home hit 110 kmph (that's about 70 mph) the signal dropped out. And that's at sea level in Europe whose GSM technology at the time (and still is) much more reliable and advanced than US mobile phone networks.
To think that people could call on mobile phones from an aircraft travelling at, possibly 400 mph at a height greater, is inconceivable.
I'm going to leave aside all the talk about thermite and Operation Northwoods and Israelis dancing in Jersey City or Hoboken or whereever and stick with the physics. The Science has been violated repeatedly by the explanations.
There are convenient retorts to scientific facts in order to cloud the issue but these are not SCIENCE.
I, personally, would like to stick to one very irrefutable law of physics and that is the law of motion.0 -
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."
Perhaps we ought to ALL stick to one question then until it has been answered.
I'm all for that Dohnjoe.0 -
There are a few, but they are bad quality. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference (consider how much high quality footage exists of the airliners hitting the twin towers and the resulting collapse)
It's also not critical to the case- Air traffic control tracked the flight
- The flight data recorder survived
- Many witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon
- Physical wreckage of the plane was found inside and outside the Pentagon
- 184 of the 189 who died in the attacks were identified forensically (includes passengers and Pentagon workers)
There are no other credible theories.
I would like to focus on this issue for a moment.
Perhaps all the cameras in Washington failed that day. It's possible.
Perhaps everyone was looking away or distracted. That too is possible.
Perhaps everyone was not paying attention or going about their late morning business.
All of that is possible.
What I have difficulty in believing is that a hole was made in the Pentagon that was half the size of the "girth" of the airplane that was supposed to have inflicted this damage.
We can discuss engines and wings later, but let's just stick to that very simple question. Why would a plane make a smaller hole than its own size?0 -
For anyone who doesn't know, the NIST report is a culmination of years of work by a large body of experts and specialists. It's been widely accepted and as far as I know no recognised body of experts anywhere (architects, engineers, etc) have found significant fault with the findings of the report. It didn't produce anything dramatic we didn't know and it largely supported the findings of other less intensive reports/investigations - it just went into a lot more depth
If someone has found an error(s), it's possible, even reports backed by expert consensus aren't totally infallible
Unfortunately a lot of these so called "holes" in the NIST are raised by
a) laypeople who don't understand the complexities or have misunderstood
b) Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones who just want to discredit the NIST purely because it contradicts their narrative
c) a + b
If someone doesn't understand something about a report like the NIST then it only makes sense for them to go to an engineering forum or similar and seek out explanations
Obviously it doesn't make much sense to be going to conspiracy theory forums - it's the equivalent of not understanding something about the process of vaccinations and going to an anti-vax forum
I have no doubt this response will be used as a fulcrum to quickly jump off the whole "Skywarrior" thing and jump into discrediting the NIST (calling it now) - but there's already a thread open on the 911 forum on that, so we'll keep "discussion" of that in there - where we are also eagerly awaiting Dr Hulsey's long overdue final report (and peer review) AKA AE911's neverending attempt to keep screwing conspiracy theorists out of money 17 years after the fact
Dohnjoe,
If you are so faithful or convinced in NIST reports then you ought to be so confident in their scientific veracity and integrity so that is it unquestionable as to their findings.
I don't put any faith whatsoever in guesswork or speculation. Not a shred. So .... if you put your faith in NIST findings then how do you feel about NIST not being completely forthcoming with their findings?
Are you tolerant with cracks and white lies in an investigation or do you want it completely and scientifically proven.....something that is VERY possible?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
OK, so ignoring how so far a lot of your inconsistencies turned out to be based on false things, like the idea of Sam sites...
Did either of these people or anyone on the commission conclude it was an inside job or that the American government was in involved in the planning or execution of the attacks?
Do either of them buy or support the silly notion that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?
The answer is no.
Claiming they support the nonsense conspiracy theories you've swallowed is disingenuous in the extreme.
You have so far avoided talking about inconsistencies It only false if there is no information about anti-air defences at Pentagon mentioned anywhere. Clearly, there is I provided you with two quotes from people who said there was!
What you ignore is they are on the record stating they believed the investigation hit roadblocks and some of the questions the 9/11 commission asked where not answered truthfully. You got to ask why would do that if it was just 15 Middle Eastern men who did the hijackings? They believed the Pentagon was hiding stuff from them. The video I told you to watch is further proof the official story is not accurate.
I don't expect government elected officials to dig deeper there belief system is their government would not carry out a false flag. What they did learn was enough for them to think there were deception and cover-up happening though.0 -
I normally carry my passport in the left inside pocket of my jacket.
I think most men do. Some slobs keep it in the arse pocket of their jeans and it gets all bent and dog-eared but I prefer to keep mine nice and intact. Anyway if I was in a plane and it hit a building and burst into flames, flames hot enough apparently to melt steel and my passport was found in the rubble I would expect that the jacket in which the passport was carried and the (my) body in which the jacket was wrapped would also be found in the same spot.
Exactly the man who found it just happens to run off and never be heard from again. Don't you think he would come forward after all these years, yes that was me who found it? The passport would not survive the fireball was too large for a small object to escape from.0 -
I would like to focus on this issue for a moment.
Perhaps all the cameras in Washington failed that day. It's possible.
Perhaps everyone was looking away or distracted. That too is possible.
Perhaps everyone was not paying attention or going about their late morning business.
All of that is possible.
What I have difficulty in believing is that a hole was made in the Pentagon that was half the size of the "girth" of the airplane that was supposed to have inflicted this damage.
We can discuss engines and wings later, but let's just stick to that very simple question. Why would a plane make a smaller hole than its own size?
Many people don't know this but they changed the timestamp when we got the Pentagon security tape in 2006. The timestamp was dated Sep 12 I believe it read 5pm. They claim this happened because it was the time they downloaded the frames from the computer? Bull**** the timestamp would not remove itself unless someone deliberately did that in the editing process. Why are they hiding the time?
In my opinion, this further proof they know the attack happened much earlier, just like the Pentagon Eyewitnesses said the blast happened around 9.31am, the clock found in the wreckage and firehouse stopping at 9.31am. What happened at 9.31am they need to keep this a secret?0 -
What I have difficulty in believing is that a hole was made in the Pentagon that was half the size of the "girth" of the airplane that was supposed to have inflicted this damage.
We can discuss engines and wings later, but let's just stick to that very simple question. Why would a plane make a smaller hole than its own size?
There is no place on the Pentagon wall where I can see a nose cone fitting through?. The Nose cone is about 12 feet in diameter, a plane is about 18 to 20 feet in height (lowest part of the engine to the top of the fuselage) when no landing gear is deployed. Plane needs space to fly or the engines will hit the ground. So another 5 to 10 feet is required.
About 95 percent of the damage to the wall occurred on the first floor of that wall is about 12 to 14 feet in height, next floor up again is the same height.
There is 3 punch out exit holes in C ring. Only one is explained by the government this is where the plane wreckage exited out.0 -
, flames hot enough apparently to melt steel and my passport was found in the rubble I would expect that the jacket in which the passport was carried and the (my) body in which the jacket was wrapped would also be found in the same spot.
This is where I disagree with truthers the steel does not need to melt to buckle and lose strength. I think fires need to reach 650c to lose half the strength. This maybe be enough to weaken the core and for the building to fall? It's debatable what would happen in those circumstances?
What strange though is the South Tower collapsed first not the North tower that was hit first by a plane? It took longer to come down the North Tower.
This pure speculation if they rigged both buildings to come down. They take down the tower that was empty of people by this time first. South Tower likely was evacuated after the first tower got hit? They then knew the North Tower was likely to come down and made preparations to get everyone out.0 -
Dohnjoe,
If you are so faithful or convinced in NIST reports then you ought to be so confident in their scientific veracity and integrity so that is it unquestionable as to their findings.
I don't put any faith whatsoever in guesswork or speculation. Not a shred. So .... if you put your faith in NIST findings then how do you feel about NIST not being completely forthcoming with their findings?
Are you tolerant with cracks and white lies in an investigation or do you want it completely and scientifically proven.....something that is VERY possible?
WTC7 we have evidence through the owner talked about bringing down the building with demolitions sometime during the day. We don't know exactly when this conversation took place and if it was done? Strange enough Larry Silverstein owned all three buildings on 9/11 and got a huge payout of billions of dollars when the buildings came down. He also bought a new lease two months before 9/11 that included a terrorism payout. Many people in the truther camp have speculated he was involved in the planning or at least knew this was going to happen?
WTC7 is a strange one because NIST thinks only office fires caused the collapse, even though we have mounting evidence the fires went out later during the day and were not hot enough to bring the building down.0 -
Damage to the Pentagon has been comprehensively explained and detailed
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/
As mentioned many times, in many threads, after 17 years there are no credible counter-theories, there are still none
WTC 7 fell due to uncontrolled fires. All recognised reports and investigations (including the NIST) have shown this. The NIST was peer reviewed. No accredited architectural or engineering group has come up with anything different, in fact those that have mentioned anything, have supported the findings of the NIST (and discredited crank outfits like AE911)
https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/
These findings are going in the history books
I get it, some people have a problem with it, that's fine, some people have a problem with the earth being round, either they enjoy arguing it as a hobby, as a perverse hobby or they just like mysteries/conspiracies. Subjective personal opinions aside, the consensus on experts is that these events are explained.0 -
Damage to the Pentagon has been comprehensively explained and detailed
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/
As mentioned many times, in many threads, after 17 years there are no credible counter-theories, there are still none
WTC 7 fell due to uncontrolled fires. All recognised reports and investigations (including the NIST) have shown this. The NIST was peer reviewed. No accredited architectural or engineering group has come up with anything different, in fact those that have mentioned anything, have supported the findings of the NIST (and discredited crank outfits like AE911)
https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/
These findings are going in the history books
I get it, some people have a problem with it, that's fine, some people have a problem with the earth being round, either they enjoy arguing it as a hobby, as a perverse hobby or they just like mysteries/conspiracies. Subjective personal opinions aside, the consensus on experts is that these events are explained.
You find me the section where they talk the about A and B exit holes in C ring in the Pentagon. These holes can only be the result of an internal blast inside the Pentagon. There no way the cone of the plane would have survived it would have got crushed and broken into pieces in Ring E. Even the landing gear explantation does make any sense the hole is a circle cut out in the wall.
The damage at the front of the Pentagon also is proof no 757 crashed there. The plane was about 24 to 30 feet in the air (ground to the top of the plane) The first floor is 12 to 14 feet. Do the math there no way an airliner travelling 30 feet in the air is going to squeeze through a 14 feet hole, it's impossible. The first floor only has 50 feet wide damage hole. The wing of 757 is over 125 feet long where did rest of the wings go when hit the wall?
NIST is a government institution they had zero interest in solving this crime.0 -
Pilots have pointed out they don't know what this bump under the plane is? Is it a missile or some device attached to the plane? This is the second plane attacking the South Tower Flight 175.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Why do you think it was 30 feet in the air?Cheerful Spring wrote: »Do the math there no way an airliner travelling 30 feet in the air is going to squeeze through a 14 feet hole, it's impossible
Why do you claim the hole is 14 feet in size when it's clearly not?0 -
Why do you think it was 30 feet in the air?
Why do you claim the hole is 14 feet in size when it's clearly not?
15 odd years ago when I first watched an online video and read about this conspiracy the same small hole (which was created by the landing gear shooting forward) was portrayed as one of the primary holes caused by the plane itself (carefully ignoring or cropping other photos showing the more extensive damage to the building caused by the airliner)
The level of dishonesty and trickery in this is staggering0 -
Same thing when they show the edited version of WTC7 falling. Conspiracy videos almost always crop out the start of the collapse to make the video fit their preferred narrative.15 odd years ago when I first watched an online video and read about this conspiracy the same small hole (which was created by the landing gear shooting forward) was portrayed as one of the primary holes caused by the plane itself (carefully ignoring or cropping other photos showing the more extensive damage to the building caused by the airliner)
The level of dishonesty and trickery in this is staggering
This can't be done by accident. These people who put together these videos have to know what they are doing.
As for anyone who blindly follows the conspiracy. Apparently things like this are totally fine and unimportant.0 -
Why do you think it was 30 feet in the air?
Why do you claim the hole is 14 feet in size when it's clearly not?
The height (vertical) section of a plane with no land gear deployed is 18 to 20 feet in height. This does not include the safe space between the plane engines and the ground needed to fly (5 to 10 feet needed for this) this is the reason I estimate the plane 30 feet from ground to very to the top of the plane
The lower part of the plane (engine) hits the ground the plane would explode and move erratically in a different direction to where it hit.
Even though the cone of the plane is only 12 feet in diameter the plane has to hit the wall at a vertical height.
Ground effect phenomenon likely would cause the plane to lift upwards if flying this close to the ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aerodynamics)
The plane is also exceeding it Max speed low to the ground. Surely the plane would have stalled?
Then there is lack of noticeable damage on the second floor of the Pentagon E ring. A plane going over 500+ an hour would instantly cause a shockwave and break windows, but the second floor of E ring the Windows are not broken. The Pentagon building report states also 8 columns are broken and missing on the first floor of E ring, this is false only 4 columns are missing (i posted a photograph that proves that in this thread) There is no evidence anywhere where the back tail of the plane hit? There is even no evidence 124 feet wings hit the first floor of E ring.
Then we have this strange semi-circle hole in C ring (that looks like a hollow charge blast occurred there) How did landing gear survive the blast, the reinforced concrete inside three different rings of support columns and form a semi-circle hole?0 -
Same thing when they show the edited version of WTC7 falling. Conspiracy videos almost always crop out the start of the collapse to make the video fit their preferred narrative.
This can't be done by accident. These people who put together these videos have to know what they are doing.
As for anyone who blindly follows the conspiracy. Apparently things like this are totally fine and unimportant.
NIST computer model of the collapse does not match the collapse in real time shown on the videos uploaded on 9/11.
This is NIST claim. Building caving inwards from all sides.
This is what actually happened notice how different the reality is on the right side of the building!
0 -
Sorry, you're lying and backtracking again.Cheerful Spring wrote: »The height (vertical) section of a plane with no land gear deployed is 18 to 20 feet in height. This does not include the safe space between the plane engines and the ground needed to fly (5 to 10 feet needed for this) this is the reason I estimate the plane 30 feet from ground to very to the top of the plane
You said that the plan needed 25 ft.
You said that the two floors together is 28ft.
You now claim that the plane was 30 ft in the air.
This is also a lie. Back this up with some hard evidence.
Likely according to who? Based on what?Cheerful Spring wrote: »Ground effect phenomenon likely would cause the plane to lift upwards if flying this close to the ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aerodynamics)
The plane is also exceeding it Max speed low to the ground. Surely the plane would have stalled?
Again, back this up.
Except for the damage on the second floor.Cheerful Spring wrote: »Then there is lack of noticeable damage on the second floor of the Pentagon E ring.
You are not blatantly rejecting reality that's clearly staring at you in the face.
In every picture you can see that the damage extends over two floors. You can also plainly see that that section is at least as wide as it is tall.
You said 2 floors are 28 ft tall, so that gives the planes fuselage plenty of room.
You claiming that the hole is only 14 ft wide is a lie, pure and simple.
Again, a lie I've already pointed out.The Pentagon building report states also 8 columns are broken and missing on the first floor of E ring, this is false only 4 columns are missing (i posted a photograph that proves that in this thread)
Are you expecting a cartoon level of physics were the plane leaves a perfect cutout of itself when it hits the building?There is no evidence anywhere where the back tail of the plane hit? There is even no evidence 124 feet wings hit the first floor of E ring.
The tail and tips of the wings did not cut perfect holes for themselves because they broke before the concrete in the building.
Again, basic stuff here...0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »NIST computer model of the collapse does not match the collapse in real time shown on the videos uploaded on 9/11.
This is NIST claim. Building caving inwards from all sides.
This is what actually happened notice how different the reality is on the right side of the building!
Lol, ffs.
The simulation is looking from the south side of the building.
The video footage is looking from the north side.
So again, basic elementary school concepts like how big circles are and how north and south work counter the conspiracy theory...:rolleyes:0 -
Sorry, you're lying and backtracking again.
You said that the plan needed 25 ft.
You said that the two floors together is 28ft.
You now claim that the plane was 30 ft in the air.
This is also a lie. Back this up with some hard evidence.
Likely according to who? Based on what?
Again, back this up.
Except for the damage on the second floor.
You are not blatantly rejecting reality that's clearly staring at you in the face.
In every picture you can see that the damage extends over two floors. You can also plainly see that that section is at least as wide as it is tall.
You said 2 floors are 28 ft tall, so that gives the planes fuselage plenty of room.
You claiming that the hole is only 14 ft wide is a lie, pure and simple.
There only one piece of broken wall about 5 to 7 feet wide on the second floor of E ring. Even there that section the column standing shaped like a T. We have photographs of the area to prove this. How did the upper part of the plane go through there?
95 percent of the damage occurred on the first floor of Ring E it is only 12 to 14 feet in height. We have photographs to prove this. Then there is a problem 8 columns are not missing on the first floor of E ring, only 4 columns are gone, we have photographs to prove this.
It based on hard science and fact. The plane if it was lying flat out on the ground with no landing deployed is 18 to 20 feet ( 4 feet to 6 feet higher then the first floor of E ring. And you can not fly a plane if the engines are touching the ground. Space is needed between the engine and ground.0 -
Lol, ffs.
The simulation is looking from the south side of the building.
The video footage is looking from the north side.
So again, basic elementary school concepts like how big circles are and how north and south work counter the conspiracy theory...:rolleyes:
I think you to need to look again they are showing deformities to the building on the right side when it was coming down not visually seen on videos in real time.
Listen closely first few seconds of the second video, that sounds like a bang a explosion, a blast before the Penthouse collapsed in.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is outright lies.Cheerful Spring wrote: »There only one piece of broken wall about 5 to 7 feet wide on the second floor of E ring. Even there that section the column standing shaped like a T. We have photographs of the area to prove this. How did the upper part of the plane go through there?
95 percent of the damage occurred on the first floor of Ring E it is only 12 to 14 feet in height. We have photographs to prove this.
Provide these pictures, show your measurments and your references.
Otherwise, you're just making stuff up at this stage.
You said that there was no damage on the second floor, now you are saying there is, cause your lie has been called out.
And why exactly are your measurements wavering now? Eariler you stated as a fact that the height was 14 ft, now you say 12-14ft.
Which is it?
You're the one who's theory is rather dependent on these numbers, but it looks like you've never bothered to actually them look up or check them.
So how tall is one floor in the pentagon? Please provide a reference cause you've lost any credibility or benefit of the doubt.0
Advertisement