Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

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

1899091929395»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Ruby gray


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sorry, you're just posting more spam.
    I've already addressed one of your previous images.
    Why are you ignoring that?

    If we stop to address one of these new images I think you'd ignore that too and just post yet more spam.


    Only in a very perverse and twisted parallel universe is EVIDENCE considered to be "SPAM" when it is posted in the appropriate forum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    Only in a very perverse and twisted parallel universe is EVIDENCE considered to be "SPAM" when it is posted in the appropriate forum.

    Ok.
    Why are you ignoring the points I made?

    Are you going to address them now? Or are you going to continue to ignore them?

    If anyone addressed any of your more recent pictures, will you ignore them also?

    If your purpose is to just copy paste images from somewhere and someone else and you aren't willing or able to engage with anyone (which looks to be the case so far) then yea, spam is an accurate description of what you are doing.

    We've seen it many times before, hence why we expect actually taking the time to dig into any of the witnesses would be a waste of time.

    Again for your convenience:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114515518&postcount=2794


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    I already told you I am ignoring your baiting tyre-kicking questions.

    You are ignoring any question put to you.

    So far you have not been able to address a single one of these illustrated pieces of evidence given by confirmed eyewtinesses, nor have you been able to find a single witness for your side.

    Witnesses heard and saw a plane crash into the Pentagon. You claim the plane didn't hit. The witnesses directly contradict your claim.

    You have posted photographs with the Pentagon burning and smoking in the background, what's happening in those photographs according to you?

    If flight 77 flew over the Pentagon where did it go?

    How come the passengers and crew (and hijackers) were forensically identified inside the Pentagon?

    How do you explain all the plane parts and wreckage found inside and outside the Pentagon?

    I've read just about every 9/11 conspiracy theory going, from mini-nukes to energy weapons, and (so far) this is one of the most vapid empty 911 theories I've ever come across. The fact that you can't answer even the most basic question, or provide the most elementary details of the theory is evidence that of that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    Only in a very perverse and twisted parallel universe is EVIDENCE considered to be "SPAM" when it is posted in the appropriate forum.

    You are paste-dumping stuff trying to discredit witness statements describing a plane hitting the Pentagon, and photos of the Pentagon hit by a plane to clam that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon..


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    I already told you I am ignoring your baiting tyre-kicking questions.

    So far you have not been able to address a single one of these illustrated pieces of evidence given by confirmed eyewtinesses,
    But I have addressed one of them. You are ignoring the points because you can't counter them.

    Again, you can post all the pictures you want, but it's going to be the same thing every time.
    You can't actually address any points brought up against the images if you're forced to stick to them and actually look into them.
    Instead you have to deflect and dodge and try to convince people by volume rather than quality.

    So yes, any one of your images can be easily addressed. Which is why you won't actually stop and discuss them, despite your whinging.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    To sum up, what we have here is someone attempting to discredit witnesses to the Pentagon attack, one by one, by claiming "there was a tree in the way", "they couldn't have seen it from that angle", "there was a highway in the way" and so on and so on, all of which to support one unreliable witness (Lloyd England)

    The overwhelming physical evidence of flight 77 striking the Pentagon isn't addressed, the radar, ATC and FDR data isn't addressed, the forensic evidence isn't addressed, the multiple investigations carried out by professionals and air-crash investigators isn't addressed, none of the corroborating evidence is properly addressed at all

    On top of that, a one-line theory is mentioned, but no details are provided, no supporting evidence, no explanations, and anyone who asks questions is ignored or attacked. Wow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Here's a good example of the type of bull**** the author of these images is attempting.

    525780.jpg

    Note how the author is adding things and "correcting" things after the fact.
    This is bull**** on two levels.
    Firstly it begs the question of why they need to "correct" anything. The conspiracy theories here all rely on the witnesses's statement being inerrently correct and perfect. If that's the case, then why would the statement statement need correcting? If the witness statement can be wrong about some stuff, maybe it's wrong about other stuff?

    Notice also how the author only "corrects" some things, like the angle of the pentagon's wall, but not others.
    525783.jpg
    For instance, why does he correct the angle of the wall, but not the angle of the road? The road is very inaccurately drawn in many places.

    Comparing the drawing to the map, we can see the loop road on the left is actually closer to the witness than it was in his drawing where he puts the loop on the right closer to him.
    The author does not correct that, yet uses the position of the left loop as a part of his argument.

    We can also see simple mistakes like how the green line that is supposedly the planes flight path doesn't actually line up with the plane's direction or with itself.
    We can also see that the line of the official flight path forms a different angle to the claimed flight path in the drawing than it does in the map.

    The issue here is that the author is using a rough doodle to try and make precise judgements about the position and direction of the plane.
    I'd wager that the crude drawing of the plane isn't to the right scale either.

    This leads to the second point.
    The image ruby provided isn't a "witness statement" it's someone's interpretation of a witness statement.
    That someone has added to the information and made conclusions beyond the quotes from the witness. And we have no idea if those are something the witness would agree with.

    And all of this is just on the face of it. And this is before we consider things about how and when this statement was collected. How long afterwards was it? Did the interviewer influence the answers either consciously or unconsciously?

    And this is ignoring the stuff that always causes issues with eyewitness statements, like how the author is assuming that the witness is a perfect judge of distance, size and direction.

    And it's also ignoring the issue that this particular claimed flight path doesn't match up with the other claims in other pictures.

    And it's also ignoring the fact the witness does not state the plane flew over and away from the pentagon.

    And of course it's not even touching that all of this is premised on the notion that the government was lying about the flight path of the plane. Something that still doesn't make sense and can't be explained by conspiracy theorists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And another thing that's bugging me...

    Notice how in the drawing north is labeled as pointing along and to the right of the road.
    However in the Google map and comparing it to the angle of the "corrected" wall of the pentagon, we see that the arrow is pointing solidly towards the northeast, not north.

    The direction of North in the drawing looks to be between 30 and 45 degrees off its true direction.

    Then notice the angle between the claimed flight path and the official flight path. That seems less than 30 degrees to me.

    So if this witness can be wrong about the direction of North by up to 45 degrees, isn't it possible that he could be off about the angle of a fast moving plane by an even lesser amount?

    Also note how the witness' flight path is imposed on the Google map.
    There, when north is correctly aligned the flight path has the plane coming from exactly west of the crash point and heading directly east.

    However according to the map the witness drew, the plane was south west of the crash point and came in on a north east heading.

    Again the difference here is a good 45 degrees.

    If someone said the witness claimed west to east, but the witness actually claimed southwest to northeast, that would be a massive disconnect between the witness report and the interpretation of that report.

    But again all of this will be ignored because it doesn't suit the conspiracy theory and there are a dozen more equally dodgy interpretations that can be thrown out as a distraction.

    Conspiracy theorists say the plane was going west to east.
    The official story says the plane was going southwest to northeast.
    This witness says that it was going southwest to northeast.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    Conspiracy theorists say the plane was going west to east.
    The official story says the plane was going southwest to northeast.
    This witness says that it was going southwest to northeast.

    Yes it's complete nonsense, but that's what they want to drag you into. A granular subjective debate where they invent the rules.

    When you don't play that absurd game, the toys come out of the pram as we've seen


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yes it's complete nonsense, but that's what they want to drag you into. A granular subjective debate where they invent the rules.

    When you don't play that absurd game, the toys come out of the pram as we've seen

    Oh I know. I'm only digging into these examples knowing that ruby and other conspiracy theorists will have no interest in actually discussing what they're copy pasting from elsewhere. All in spite of their whining earlier.
    I fully expect that my posts will be ignored entirely and yet more images will be spammed.

    I don't think they actually are interested in a granular debate about any specific point. It's more they have a bunch of specific points told to them by conspiracy theory sites and they want to repeat them at people in place of original thought.
    Then when someone gives up in exasperation cause they aren't bothered to wade through a flood of spammed pictures to address the many points of error, the conspiracy theorist is in luck. Now they can say that "no one can counter all this evidence."

    Better yet, if someone dismisses these pictures off hand, the conspiracy theorist can play martyr and act like people are afraid to address all these amazing points that they have.

    The last thing a conspiracy theorist wants is to actually discuss the evidence they presented.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Ruby gray


    King Mob wrote: »
    Oh I know. I'm only digging into these examples knowing that ruby and other conspiracy theorists will have no interest in actually discussing what they're copy pasting from elsewhere. All in spite of their whining earlier.
    I fully expect that my posts will be ignored entirely and yet more images will be spammed.

    I don't think they actually are interested in a granular debate about any specific point. It's more they have a bunch of specific points told to them by conspiracy theory sites and they want to repeat them at people in place of original thought.
    Then when someone gives up in exasperation cause they aren't bothered to wade through a flood of spammed pictures to address the many points of error, the conspiracy theorist is in luck. Now they can say that "no one can counter all this evidence."

    Better yet, if someone dismisses these pictures off hand, the conspiracy theorist can play martyr and act like people are afraid to address all these amazing points that they have.

    The last thing a conspiracy theorist wants is to actually discuss the evidence they presented.

    Still waiting for you to counter with EVEN JUST ONE IMAGE OF A CONFIRMED EYEWITNESS WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    Still waiting for you to counter with EVEN JUST ONE IMAGE OF A CONFIRMED EYEWITNESS WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.
    I have. Twice. In detail.
    You are just ignoring points you can't address because you can't simply copy and paste an answer.

    Additionally, I have pointed out that one of your witnesses did say that the plane went diagonally across the bridge. You're ignoring that too.

    And at the same time you've yet to show a single witness that claims the plane flew over and away from the pentagon. In fact several of the ones you posted said specifically that it didn't.

    Please go back and address the points I've already raised.
    Your whining here rings false.


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,741 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    Thanks for the heads-up!
    No worries, I do recognise the syndrome they are suffering from.

    I am not trying have a discussion with them, which would of course be pointless.

    I am not doing this for their benefit, but for anyone else who may be genuinely interested in hearing the latest developments on this topic, especially as we are almost at the 19th anniversary.

    In fact, there are many new discoveries to be shared.

    This is a discussion forum. If you are not here for discussion, by definition you are soapboxing, and it won't be tolerated here. Spam more content and you will be banned. These interviews are easily linked to and do not need to be dumped here across dozens of posts while the site is experiencing database errors. Consider yourself prohibited from attaching any more files to this thread.

    Posts without personal contributions deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 80,741 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    I have reiterated many times.

    I am not presenting "my theory" and nor do i need to invent a personal theory to cater to your whims.

    THIS THREAD IS ABOUT LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS INVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 PENTAGON.

    Everything you have written over the past 2 years here is therefore OFF-TOPIC, and a transparent attempt to derail the discussion, to slight anyone who does want to discuss it, and to libel an honest man who is a most significant, credible eyewitness in possession of the famous cab which is a testimony to the fact that the government version of 9/11 is a damnable lie.

    It is clear that it is YOU who are avoiding all questions, that YOU are easily fooled by incomplete, vague, third-person poetic-licenced journalistic excerpts, rather than in pinning down eyewitness identifications and locations and first-person quotes which tell such a different story.

    I have so far provided many scores of individual pieces of evidence which all contradict the government version, which you are afraid to address.

    Yet YOU CANNOT PRODUCE THE NAME, LOCATION AND TESTIMONY OF ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.
    Ruby gray wrote: »
    The synapses are clearly misfiring.
    You have absolutely everything backwards.
    Ruby gray wrote: »
    Time is finite, and you are attempting to derail the discussion of this TOPIC with endless time-wasting hypothetica.


    Posting responses on a tablet at home is more difficult than using a real computer which is only available when I get to town.


    I do not have to answer every single point in every reply.


    So far you have not entered into the discussion of the TOPIC, which is not encouraging me to answer you at all.
    Ruby gray wrote: »
    OH AREN'T YOU FUNNY.
    You are the one running away from facts and cold hard evidence.


    NAME SOMEBODY WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.


    PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

    On 2nd thought don't post in this thread again. If you have any confusion about why, PM me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Ruby gray


    King Mob wrote: »
    And AFAIR, these pictures are from a crowd who are arguing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon. Something which cheerful has denied previously and described as crazy.
    Not sure if that's something ruby subscribes to, as they have not been very open or forthcoming about their beliefs for some reason.

    Also I'm not sure if that conspiracy crowd also subscribe to the notion of holographic planes, but their images sure are used a lot by those who do...

    No, you are quite wrong. CIT strongly disputed the theory of a missile hitting the Pentagon.

    Wrong again about the holographic planes. They spent years seeking out and personally interviewing scores of eyewitnesses who saw the plane, many of them never previously recorded. Unanimously, these eyewitnesses saw the plane flying on a trajectory that is 100% inconsistent with the official flightpath.

    They simply could not find anyone who witnessed the plane flying across the bridge. And nor could anyone else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    No, you are quite wrong. CIT strongly disputed the theory of a missile hitting the Pentagon.

    Wrong again about the holographic planes. They spent years seeking out and personally interviewing scores of eyewitnesses who saw the plane, many of them never previously recorded. Unanimously, these eyewitnesses saw the plane flying on a trajectory that is 100% inconsistent with the official flightpath.

    They simply could not find anyone who witnessed the plane flying across the bridge. And nor could anyone else.
    Weird point to come back to.

    I made several direct points in my last few posts. Address them please.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,678 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    CIT strongly disputed the theory of a missile hitting the Pentagon.

    FYI "CIT" aren't some organisation or official experts, they are some conspiracy theorists from the internet.
    Unanimously, these eyewitnesses saw the plane flying on a trajectory that is 100% inconsistent with the official flightpath.

    They simply could not find anyone who witnessed the plane flying across the bridge. And nor could anyone else.

    False. These conspiracy theorists have subjectively (and deliberately) discredited and misinterpreted witness statements in order to cast doubt on the event, whilst never producing any credible counter-theory. When they found Lloyd England it was like a gold mine because he actually changed his story (which is why they endlessly badgered him)

    Denialism is evidence of nothing but denial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1 gamolon


    Ruby gray wrote: »
    No, you are quite wrong.

    Ruby, how about let's discuss your fantasy theory regarding Lloyde England. I have asked you numerous times in another forum regarding many inconsistencies and impossible scenarios you have put forth. Your excuse there was that you couldn't post pictures so it was useless to address those items.

    Let's start with your claim that Tony Terronez and Lloyde England experienced the "light pole through Lloyde's windows" event at the same time and that Tony actually saw Lloyde's windshield and interacted with him.

    This is impossible and here's why.

    This is Tony's description of his experience:
    I was stunned. It was just so surreal, like something out of a movie, like `Die Hard.' The side of a building just exploded! As the fireball got higher and higher, you saw this debris go up in the air. I'm watching this in my rearview mirror, and then I thought, `Oh my God, there's debris coming toward me!' So my reaction was, I ducked into my passenger seat and I heard the pitter-patter of pebbles and concrete bouncing off my car. And the next thing you know, I heard this big crash come from somewhere. It sounded like glass being shattered and I thought maybe, at first, it was one of my windows so I popped up to look but everything was fine. But when I looked to the car next to me I realized that something went through (the driver's) rear windshield and shattered it.

    After the plane flying over the highway (Tony's "woosh"), which both men experienced at the same time, Tony experienced MULTIPLE events happen before the "big crash/shattered glass" event he described. Tony described (2)Pentagon exploding, (3)Debris going into the air, (4)ducked into his seat, and (5)heard pitter-patter of debris. THEN Tony heard the (6)"crash/shattering of glass".

    So Tony experienced multiple events between the plane flying over the highway and hearing the "shattering glass" (which is supposed to be the pole going through Lloyde's windshield).

    That being said, both Lloyde's description of events and their timing in no way matches what Tony describes.

    You are completely wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,364 ✭✭✭✭The Nal




Advertisement