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

1…1213151718…95

Comments

  • #422
    mickdw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,808 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    I don't know. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm basing my opinion on the footage not being available / government agents reported to have immediately grabbed all cc evidence.

    How do you guys explain the the light poles being knocked on a path that is at variance with eye witness account of a plane that was seen and also at variance with the flight data records. I think we can rule out that complex theory explaining why the flight data might show the plane in the wrong place given that eye witness seem to correspond with data.
    Surely you guys that believe the official story must see something amiss. Do you think there was a second plane that knocked the poles?
    why was the taxi driver whos wife works for the FBI denying his location When it was put to him that the plane that was seen couldn't have been anywhere near his taxi?
    And what the hell was his friend doing on the bridge with his camera that day?


  • #423
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    mickdw wrote: »
    I don't have any footage of a missile hitting the building..... maybe that means it didn't happen.

    Indeed, but this is using faulty logic. We don't have "footage" of the Battle of Hastings. Most of recorded history is built on circumstantial evidence. "Footage" is not a necessary component unless it is the only piece of evidence available.
    To me the crash site, from any photos I've seen does not seem nearly as badly destroyed as you would expect from the crash of a large airliner.
    Could a missile not have been fired from a fighter at high altitude?
    I'm guessing it would have approached from the line of the downed light poles.
    Missile parts wouldn't necessarily be found is such a bomb site specifically if government didn't want them to be found.
    could the flyby airliner have been on alternative approach to ensure it didn't get downed by missile targeting pentagon.
    We're there any reports of plane flying away from pentagon? I don't know but I'd like to find out.

    This is your personal speculation. If there's no supported evidence for the theory of a missile hitting the Pentagon then the theory can be dismissed.


  • #424
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    mickdw wrote: »
    I don't know. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm basing my opinion on the footage not being available / government agents reported to have immediately grabbed all cc evidence.

    How do you guys explain the the light poles being knocked on a path that is at variance with eye witness account of a plane that was seen and also at variance with the flight data records. I think we can rule out that complex theory explaining why the flight data might show the plane in the wrong place given that eye witness seem to correspond with data.
    Surely you guys that believe the official story must see something amiss. Do you think there was a second plane that knocked the poles?
    why was the taxi driver whos wife works for the FBI denying his location When it was put to him that the plane that was seen couldn't have been anywhere near his taxi?
    And what the hell was his friend doing on the bridge with his camera that day?

    All the evidence places a plane North East. I found another piece of evidence confirming that direction. A military plane called Gopher 6 saw the plane in last minute of its flight and placed the plane heading North Eastbound.

    This is likely how the plane came in.

    449470.png


  • #425
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    mickdw wrote: »

    How do you guys explain the the light poles being knocked on a path that is at variance with eye witness account of a plane that was seen and also at variance with the flight data records.

    One eye witness on their own is not always reliable. This is why consensus is used. The majority of eye witnesses saw an airliner hit the building.
    why was the taxi driver whos wife works for the FBI denying his location When it was put to him that the plane that was seen couldn't have been anywhere near his taxi?

    In one interview he said he wasn't even there. He's fairly old and seems to have memory problems. He's one witness out of dozens.

    Might want to ask yourself what the motive of the people interviewing him is and why are they only interviewing the one witness who has memory problems and not the dozens of others.


  • #426
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    One eye witness on their own is not always reliable. This is why consensus is used. The majority of eye witnesses saw an airliner hit the building.



    In one interview he said he wasn't even there. He's fairly old and seems to have memory problems. He's one witness out of dozens.

    Might want to ask yourself what the motive of the people interviewing him is and why are they only interviewing the one witness who has memory problems and not the dozens of others.

    A plane crashed but is not in the direction the 9/11 commission claimed.

    We know this to be true we have damning evidence the plane hit the building coming from a North East path. The South West direction is looking like a false path for the plane. The knocked down light poles was a staged event.

    FDR has plane heading North East
    Eyewitnesses saw it heading North East
    Gopher 6, a call sign for a military transport plane, the pilot saw the plane heading North East Bound before hitting the Pentagon.


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The knocked down light poles was a staged event.

    According to you, some conspiracy theorists and "P4T"

    Who cut the poles? with what? when? names, dates, details, evidence, witnesses

    Anything?

    If you have no credible substantiated evidence of the poles being cut as part of an inside job then it can be dismissed


  • #428
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    According to you, some conspiracy theorists and "P4T"

    Who cut the poles? with what? when? names, dates, details, evidence, witnesses

    Anything?

    If you have no credible substantiated evidence of the poles being cut as part of an inside job then it can be dismissed

    The evidence is overwhelming now this was where the plane was on the day. Construction was happening in this area of the Pentagon (West side) The light poles were likely taken down the night before or taken down just before the event when nobody noticed. AMEC the construction company has ties to well-known Neocon politicians and does a lot of its work in Saudi Arabia.


  • #429
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    This too suspicious. I always curious why Hani Hanjour circled the building to hit this area? Made no sense now till you find out the CEO is friend of Donald Rumsfield a hardcore neocon who signed up to the principles of the project for new American century and they needed a new pearl harbor event!

    The CEO of AMEC Construction was Peter Janson, a long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld. Under Janson's leadership, AMEC had just completed a $258 million refurbishment of Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, exactly where AA Flight 77 impacted the building


  • #430
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The evidence is overwhelming now this was where the plane was on the day.

    Just to you personally. You make-up or borrow stories like the below, then assert them as fact. I like the part where evidence of the baseless conspiracy is another baseless conspiracy.
    Construction was happening in this area of the Pentagon (West side) The light poles were likely taken down the night before or taken down just before the event when nobody noticed. AMEC the construction company has ties to well-known Neocon politicians and does a lot of its work in Saudi Arabia.


  • #431
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I always curious why Hani Hanjour circled the building to hit this area?

    In his A3 Skywarrior or?


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Just to you personally. You make-up or borrow stories like the below, then assert them as fact. I like the part where evidence of the baseless conspiracy is another baseless conspiracy.

    FDR data, eyewitnesses, a pilot flying in the area all spotted this plane heading North East. When you got this kind of data we know it happened this way.


  • #433
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Donald Rumsfield is one of the conspirators it obvious now he planned this event, with others.


  • #434
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    In his A3 Skywarrior or?

    The hijackers were bit players in a wider conspiracy. Hijacking planes it just a small bit of the story. Could they be agents of the Saudi Arabian government who were willing to sacrifice themselves for this event? ( classified section 29 pages of the 9/11 commission report found evidence the hijackers met with people connected with the government there) or were used as patsies to fool the world and did not know it?


  • #435
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The hijackers were bit players in a wider conspiracy. Hijacking planes it just a small bit of the story. Could they be agents of the Saudi Arabian government who were willing to sacrifice themselves for this event? ( classified section 29 pages of the 9/11 commission report found evidence the hijackers met with people connected with the government there) or were used as patsies to fool the world and did not know it?

    Was Hani flying a 757 or a Skywarrior?


  • #436
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mickdw wrote: »
    I don't know. I'm not claiming to be an expert.
    So here's the thing.

    You are rejecting the reality of the situation/"official story" because you think you've found plot holes or things that can't be explained by it.

    Yet now, here we have some examples of plot holes in the conspiracy narrative. You've just said you can't explain why they would use a missile instead of a plane. I'm also going to save a lot of bother and assume that you likewise cannot provide an explanation for why they would hire a random taxi driver or why they would release data that disproves their story.

    These are fairly large gaping plot holes. And you can see them just as clearly.

    Yet you still believe the conspiracy theory.

    Why reject the real explanation cause there's stuff you as a non-expert can't explain, yet fully embrace the conspiracy theory when there's even more basic stuff you can't explain?

    Personal, I don't think it's a matter of evidence or reason at all. I think you guys just prefer the conspiracy theory.


  • #437
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    NE path lines up perfectly with the damage on the west wing of the Pentagon. Even the second floor E ring damage. Plane travelling SW does not line up with the damage on the second floor E ring.

    6034073


    Second-floor damage. This looks where the upper part of the fuselage of the plane smashed into the wall

    449479.png


  • #438
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    Personal, I don't think it's a matter of evidence or reason at all. I think you guys just prefer the conspiracy theory.

    I tend towards this view as well. Unsurprisingly conspiracy theorists often yearn for conspiracies. Likewise some people love mysteries, there's almost disappointment when a boring explanation is found.


  • #439
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I tend towards this view as well. Unsurprisingly conspiracy theorists often yearn for conspiracies. Likewise some people love mysteries, there's almost disappointment when a boring explanation is found.

    The damage to the second floor E ring doesn't make sense if the plane came in at an angle SW.

    Ignoring FDR data, eyewitnesses accounts, pilots in the air all spotted the plane in NE bound position. The evidence is overwhelming, you just need to stop burying your head in the sand.


  • #440
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The damage to the second floor E ring doesn't make sense if the plane came in at an angle SW.

    Ignoring FDR data, eyewitnesses accounts, pilots in the air all spotted the plane in NE bound position. The evidence is overwhelming, you just need to stop burying your head in the sand.

    Which plane hit the Pentagon?


  • #441
    mickdw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,808 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    This forum is nuts. So confrontational.
    I'm not claiming to be an expert and only putting forward a theory which may or may not hold water. There cannot it seems be any simple discussion here, its just an I'm right your wrong attitude at all times.
    I mentioned a missile as a possibility given the discrepancy in flight data records and no visible evidence of the plane..... immediately someone replies looking for the name of the guy who polished the missile before setting it off together with the details of what he had for breakfast for the 7 days before.
    Yet when compared to the official story, no plane footage..... ah sure what evidence do you need is the attitude.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    A 757 plane height is about 18 feet to 20 feet with no landing gear down ( not including the back tail)

    18 to 20 feet. The first floor is 14 feet + second floor is 14 feet= 28 feet. Two floors are higher than the plane

    So just about right for a frontal hit.


  • #443
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Which plane hit the Pentagon?

    757 plane. I have changed my mind based on the evidence.

    The plane hit the Pentagon from an NE direction, not an SW direction stated by the 9/11 commision. The damage does not match up with a plane coming in from an angle on an SW path.


  • #444
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    mickdw wrote: »
    This forum is nuts. So confrontational.
    I'm not claiming to be an expert and only putting forward a theory which may or may not hold water. There cannot it seems be any simple discussion here, its just an I'm right your wrong attitude at all times.
    I mentioned a missile as a possibility given the discrepancy in flight data records and no visible evidence of the plane..... immediately someone replies looking for the name of the guy who polished the missile before setting it off together with the details of what he had for breakfast for the 7 days before.
    Yet when compared to the official story, no plane footage..... ah sure what evidence do you need is the attitude.

    There probably a second event. The light poles were staged to account for the damage inside the Pentagon and C exit hole.

    The landing gear was pictured inside the building underneath the rubble, not possible it came through the exit hole in C ring. Only one piece of landing gear was pictured on 9/11 found.


  • #445
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    This picture gives us a general idea why an NE path made more sense.

    449484.png


  • #446
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Something clearly wrong there needs to be a new investigation of the flight path. The FAA released this animation too based on radar returns from Reagan National airport.

    In their animation, the plane is flying over the Navy Annex to the North East side to strike the Pentagon. FAA also places the plane away from striking the light poles.



  • #447
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Sorry for crap marking, but the redblob is where the plane is alleged to knocked down 5 light poles.


    449490.png


  • #448
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Look oh **** this is the smoking gun notice where the plane is in both pictures from NTSB and FAA inside that roundabout NE

    NTSB and Eyewitness placed the plane in that roundabout
    449491.png

    Same with the FAA animation
    449492.png


  • #449
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mickdw wrote: »
    This forum is nuts. So confrontational.
    I'm not claiming to be an expert and only putting forward a theory which may or may not hold water.
    But it doesn't hold water at all. It doesn't even come close because if it were true it would make no sense.

    There is no reason at all for why they would not just use a plane.
    The missile idea is just not viable, so it has to be that the plane hit the building.

    You reject the real explanation because you think that it has plot holes.
    You should then also reject the idea of a missile as well.
    mickdw wrote: »
    I mentioned a missile as a possibility given the discrepancy in flight data records and no visible evidence of the plane.
    No visible evidence of a missile and it is not consistent with flight data as the flight data shows a 757 crashed into the building.

    Why would anyone thing the missile theory is worth considering?
    Why a missile and not say a space laser and holograms like some conspiracy theorists suggest.
    They are exactly as sensible and evidenced.


  • #450
    mickdw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,808 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    Okay. I will reject the missile idea. As I said I was only thinking aloud as I figured things didn't add up.

    Now. So can we come around to the aircraft flight path and the downed poles.
    The data log is there for all to see. I see the argument re inaccuracies etc but I'm certainly not buying that. The eye witness accounts and the flight data match and amazingly the so called faulty data positions the aircraft 100 percent correctly at the Pentagon.
    Now, which is logical - the multiple accounts of people on the ground together with the flight data or the argument that puts the plane somewhere else entirely?


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    757 plane. I have changed my mind based on the evidence.

    Based on the easier "conspiracy" to support.


Advertisement