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…1314161819…95

Comments

  • #452
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    mickdw wrote: »
    This forum is nuts. So confrontational.

    Because people believe this made-up conspiracy stuff. Which is all harmless until it isn't. The Tsarnaev brothers who killed people at the Boston marathon believed in 911 conspiracy theories. So whether it's anti-vax loons helping eradicated diseases make a come back or people harassing victims of attacks.. none of this should be left unchallenged.


  • #453
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mickdw wrote: »
    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?

    But again, we run into a plot hole for the conspiracy.

    Why would they say the plane came from a different direction?
    Why would they half ass trying to fake evidence for that when that makes it obvious it's a conspiracy?
    Why not just say the plane came from whatever direction it supposedly did.

    There is no benefit for trying to say it came from a different direction than it did. There is no reason to do so and it only exposes the conspiracy.

    Can you think of a single possible sensible reason for them to do this?
    If not, why then entertain a conspiracy explanation when it can't explain anything?

    Further, why would they release the flight data when it proves there's a conspiracy?
    Why not fake it, alter it or just make it vanish?
    If it was a conspiracy, the last thing they'd do would be to hand out this data cause people asked for it.
    Again, a major plot hole in the conspiracy that you are totally fine with...


  • #454
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why would they say the plane came from a different direction?

    Exactly why did the place the plane South Westbound? Let us speculate why?

    We have four different sources now the plane hit the building from NE direction

    Eyewitnesses saw the plane NE
    FAA animation has the plane located NE
    Gopher 6 pilot saw the plane NE
    NTSB animation has the plane located NE


  • #455
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Exactly why did the place the plane South Westbound? Let us speculate why?

    This doesn't answer any of the questions

    If a plane is going to hit the Pentagon, why would they fake that it comes from a slightly different direction?

    What benefit is it to them to claim it came from a slightly different direction?

    Same end product

    Even when you personally choose to go with the "easiest" conspiracy to defend, it still makes no sense. It's like trying really hard to make a conspiracy out of something just for the sake of trying to make a conspiracy


  • #456
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Exactly why did the place the plane South Westbound? Let us speculate why?
    Yes, I'm still looking for an answer.
    It makes no sense.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This doesn't answer any of the questions

    If a plane is going to hit the Pentagon, why would they fake that it comes from a slightly different direction?

    What benefit is it to them to claim it came from a slightly different direction?

    Same end product

    Even when you personally choose to go with the "easiest" conspiracy to defend, it still makes no sense. It's like trying really hard to make a conspiracy out of something just for the sake of trying to make a conspiracy

    Is my hypothesis there had to be another event besides the plane crashing? So there trying to cover up another event inside the building? What they could be covering up is an inside job. Construction looking people came in and rigged the columns, wedges, walls to explode on 9/11?

    The bomb damage had to be explained away by a plane heading in that other direction? Could C hole be a hollow charge blast?

    I don't see how the US government can claim the plane was heading South West when the animation from FAA and NTSB has the plane North East of the Pentagon.


  • #458
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Is my hypothesis there had to be another event besides the plane crashing?
    Or maybe there was aliens in there!?!

    Either way, doesn't explain why they would claim the plan would come from a different direction.

    Also your specific argument doesn't work as you've claimed that the damage could only possibly be caused from a plane heading in the government's claimed direction. (This being after you claimed for a fact that it couldn't be caused by a 757.)
    And again, it's a contradiction because the only reason you are aware of this supposed cover up is because they tried to cover it up.

    Likewise, there's no reason why they would need or want to plant bombs in the building. They could just fly a plane into it.


  • #459
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Or maybe there was aliens in there!?!

    Either way, doesn't explain why they would claim the plan would come from a different direction.

    Yes, it does because a plane going straight in will travel a different path inside the Pentagon. The path is different if came in at an angle from SW it takes out different Pentagon offices there.

    What your theory so. Are FAA and NTSB releasing fraudulent data? Where the eyewitnesses blind and mistaken they saw a plane heading NE. Was Gopher 6 (military transport plane) did the pilot make a mistake too?


  • #460
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yes, it does because a plane going straight in will travel a different path inside the Pentagon. The path is different if came in at an angle from SW it takes out different Pentagon offices there.
    So then even your random made up fantasy version doesn't work as an explanation.

    If the damage showed it came from the government's direction, then you might have a point, but then it would be evidence against the plane coming from your direction.
    And this can't be the case cause you argued that the damage could only possibly be caused by a 757 coming from your direction. (again, after you were 100% sure it was impossible a 757 could cause the damage at all.)

    If the damage came from the direction you think it did, you're back to square one because there'd be no reason for the government to contradict that.

    And this is before we come to the fact that this new conspiracy theory in a conspiracy theory is completely imaginary and without evidence.


  • #461
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then even your random made up fantasy version doesn't work as an explanation.

    If the damage showed it came from the government's direction, then you might have a point, but then it would be evidence against the plane coming from your direction.
    And this can't be the case cause you argued that the damage could only possibly be caused by a 757 coming from your direction. (again, after you were 100% sure it was impossible a 757 could cause the damage at all.)

    If the damage came from the direction you think it did, you're back to square one because there'd be no reason for the government to contradict that.

    And this is before we come to the fact that this new conspiracy theory in a conspiracy theory is completely imaginary and without evidence.

    I love how you just sidestep my questions again. Theories evolve would you prefer I just said a different plane crashed into the Pentagon, would that make you feel better?

    Tell me why the NTSB and FAA animations are wrong? Give me your best answer

    Why are all the witnesses wrong, give me your best answer


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I love how you just sidestep my questions again.
    So you have no explanation for why the government would claim the plane would come from a different direction.

    It's a massive plot hole in your conspiracy theory that you just ignore.


  • #463
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Listen to the two Pentagon police officers and the talk about where the plane was.



  • #464
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you have no explanation for why the government would claim the plane would come from a different direction.

    It's a massive plot hole in your conspiracy theory that you just ignore.

    What your explanation then? If the plane did not hit 5 light poles they knocked them down for some reason? Has to be another event.


    Let us not forget the clocks stopped at 9.31am 6 minutes before the plane hit and some eyewitnesses reported a blast at 9.31am and the Pentagon security tape the timestamp and date were removed. There lot of suspicious activity.


  • #465
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    What your explanation then?
    Why would I need to give one when there's no viable alternative?
    Even if all of your claims were true and accurate and held up, then that wouldn't prove anything. The conspiracy would be nonsensical and the official story would be the only viable explanation.

    Why would I give one when it won't convince you. You still cling onto the conspiracy even though it doesn't make sense and doesn't actually explain anything.
    You don't believe the conspiracy for rational reasons, otherwise you'd reject it entirely like you do with the official story.

    You just prefer the conspiracy theory. I can't change that and it's not worth the effort to try.
    You won't even admit how nonsensical it is when it staring you in the face.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Let us not forget the clocks stopped at 9.31am 6 minutes before the plane hit and some eyewitnesses reported a blast at 9.31am and the Pentagon security tape the timestamp and date were removed. There lot of suspicious activity.
    But then they forgot to take care of that pesky flight data. Whoopies.


  • #466
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Is my hypothesis there had to be another event besides the plane crashing? So there trying to cover up another event inside the building? What they could be covering up is an inside job. Construction looking people came in and rigged the columns, wedges, walls to explode on 9/11?

    Now you're conjuring up a conspiracy out of thin air to try to explain a conspiracy


  • #467
    mickdw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,808 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    So let me get this straight.
    People believe that the eyewitness reports on the day are wrong and also believe that the flight data log is riddled with errors. . Both possible individually I guess.
    Now when you put them together and see the the eye witnesses put the plane on the exact track as shown by the flight data log, the only logical conclusion is that the flight data and witnesses on the day are accurate.
    I'm expecting the response querying why why why but for once maybe someone would acknowledge that all the concrete evidence placing the aircraft away from the downed light pole is at least suspicious and at worst, a complete cover up.


  • #468
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    mickdw wrote: »
    So let me get this straight.

    The FDR recorded flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However when analysing the data with an absolute second-by-second fine comb there are discrepancies which have been painfully explained

    Conspiracy theorists are not interested in these explanations - anything that isn't 100% to them is a conspiracy

    Likewise with witnesses. The majority of witnesses describe events as they happened. There are one or two witnesses who may have said something different at a later stage, again conspiracy theorists take this as the witnesses aren't 100% - therefore there's a conspiracy


  • #469
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why would I need to give one when there's no viable alternative?
    Even if all of your claims were true and accurate and held up, then that wouldn't prove anything. The conspiracy would be nonsensical and the official story would be the only viable explanation.

    Why would I give one when it won't convince you. You still cling onto the conspiracy even though it doesn't make sense and doesn't actually explain anything.
    You don't believe the conspiracy for rational reasons, otherwise you'd reject it entirely like you do with the official story.

    You just prefer the conspiracy theory. I can't change that and it's not worth the effort to try.
    You won't even admit how nonsensical it is when it staring you in the face.


    But then they forgot to take care of that pesky flight data. Whoopies.

    What nonsense are you typing? A plane that hit the Pentagon from an NE position does not prove a conspiracy? What the hell are you forgetting there are 5 light poles knocked down by a plane according to the official story?

    I don't prefer the conspiracy theory have you noticed I changed my position and I believe a 757 plane did crash the Pentagon.

    It, not a conspiracy when a dozen eyewitnesses saw a plane heading NE. A pilot in the air saw the plane NE. Even the NTSB and FAA animation prove the plane was NE. You people prefer to ignore that just believe in a flight path that does not match up with the evidence.


  • #470
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The FDR recorded flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However when analysing the data with an absolute second-by-second fine comb there are discrepancies which have been painfully explained

    Conspiracy theorists are not interested in these explanations - anything that isn't 100% to them is a conspiracy

    Likewise with witnesses. The majority of witnesses describe events as they happened. There are one or two witnesses who may have said something different at a later stage, again conspiracy theorists take this as the witnesses aren't 100% - therefore there's a conspiracy

    Wrong because both animations are based on different data.

    NTSB data is from FDR flight 77
    FAA data is based on radar returns from Reagan airport. Impossible both animations are wrong. And the animations was released seven years after 9/11, any errors would be noticeable after this amount of time.

    Most of the eyewitnesses saw a plane NE the two police officers said 100 percent they saw the plane heading NE they said no way they saw the plane heading Southwest of the Cisco petrol station.

    When you got animations backing up the eyewitnesses accounts you can't ignore that.


  • #471
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Now you're conjuring up a conspiracy out of thin air to try to explain a conspiracy

    A conspiracy makes perfect sense if you understand what the Neocons proposed in 1997, four years before 9/11. Neocons openly discussed regime change in Iraq pre 9/11 and taking out other hostile regimes in the region and around the world. This was only possible if America was attacked by so-called Terrorists. They even had the slogan ready on 9/11 this was a war on terror. It obvious 9/11 was a preplanned neo-con event.

    15 of the Hijackers are Saudi and two were from UAE both regimes are long-term allies of the US government. Bin Laden denied he was involved in this attack days after 9/11 happened

    Statement here Sep 17th 2001
    DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

    In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

    "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

    "I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    A conspiracy makes perfect sense if

    If you try hard enough to discredit the truth in order to promote it

    It's no different from how Alex Jones peddles it


  • #473
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mickdw wrote: »
    So let me get this straight.
    People believe that the eyewitness reports on the day are wrong and also believe that the flight data log is riddled with errors. . Both possible individually I guess.
    Now when you put them together and see the the eye witnesses put the plane on the exact track as shown by the flight data log, the only logical conclusion is that the flight data and witnesses on the day are accurate.
    Assuming this is all true for the moment, the logical conclusion must be that there is no conspiracy.
    Logically, there's no reason for the conspirators to claim that the plane came from a different direction than it did.
    Logically, there's no reason why they would hand over unaltered flight data if it exposes the conspiracy.
    Logically, there's no reason they would produce animations that contradict their claims.
    mickdw wrote: »
    I'm expecting the response querying why why why but for once maybe someone would acknowledge that all the concrete evidence placing the aircraft away from the downed light pole is at least suspicious and at worst, a complete cover up.
    It's funny you demand this, but you're dodging the point and you don't want to admit the obvious.

    You cannot explain these plot holes in the conspiracy.
    They are big gaping plot holes that make the conspiracy silly and obviously not true.

    If you'd like we could actually dig into the real explanations for the discrepancies, but first you have to acknowledge that there is no conspiracy explanation for them.
    Otherwise, I'd just be wasting my breath.


  • #474
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I don't prefer the conspiracy theory ...
    Then why do you believe it when there's these big giant plot holes you cannot explain?


  • #475
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Then why do you believe it when there's these big giant plot holes you cannot explain?

    I tell you why one eyewitness maybe even two can be wrong, but multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane heading for the Pentagon NE of the Cisco fueling station.

    Two animations released be wrong? NTSB animation has the place NE. FAA data has the plane NE. What is the skeptics' explantation for this f**k up. Both animations are not using similar data. FAA tracked the plane using radar at Reagan airport.


  • #476
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I tell you why one eyewitness maybe even two can be wrong, but multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane heading for the Pentagon NE of the Cisco fueling station.

    Two animations released be wrong? NTSB animation has the place NE. FAA data has the plane NE. What is the skeptics' explantation for this f**k up. Both animations are not using similar data. FAA tracked the plane using radar at Reagan airport.
    But why would the conspiracy allow these eyewitnesses to claim this?
    Why would they allow animations to contradict them?
    Why would they release this data in the first place?

    Why not just say the plane flew in the direction you think it did.

    There's no conspiracy explanation for this.


  • #477
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But why would the conspiracy allow these eyewitnesses to claim this?
    Why would they allow animations to contradict them?
    Why would they release this data in the first place?

    Why not just say the plane flew in the direction you think it did.

    There's no conspiracy explanation for this.

    No need they have skeptics online and media doing the work for them to bash the truth movement.

    Killing eyewitnesses I doubt they get away with that.

    They used the 9/11 commission report to satisfy a certain section of the public. Even though we know years later some of the people on the panel of 9/11 commission felt there was a cover up a deception and officials involved lied to the commission and the 9/11 commissioners recommended a new enquiry it never happened. The 9/11 commission report was a cover-up to hide the truth.

    They obviously are covering up another event if the 9/11 commission claiming a plane hit the building from a South West direction?


  • #478
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    No need they have skeptics online and media doing the work for them to bash the truth movement.

    Killing eyewitnesses I doubt they get away with that.

    They used the 9/11 commission report to satisfy a certain section of the public. Even though we know years later some of the people on the panel of 9/11 commission felt there was a cover up a deception and officials involved lied to the commission and the 9/11 commissioners recommended a new enquiry it never happened. The 9/11 commission report was a cover-up to hide the truth.
    None of these address the problems with any of the plot holes.
    They only open a lot more.

    Lets focus on one:
    Can you think of a single reason why they wouldn't just alter or destroy the data that contradicts them?
    If not, why would they release it to the public?
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    They obviously are covering up another event if the 9/11 commission claiming a plane hit the building from a South West direction?
    So if they were obviously covering up something, please explain what and how and how coming from a different angle helps cover this up?
    Then also explain the plot hole that arises from this: why would they try to cover something up by drawing attention to it?

    You've not provided any explanations for any of the plot holes.
    Do you not thing they exist?


  • #479
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    This what the damage would look like if the plane came straight in from NE direction.
    449608.png

    The 9/11 commission said the plane came in at an angle. If the plane was like this you see the plane sideways.

    Something like this. Would wings not break off at this angle be found on the grass?

    449609.png


  • #480
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    This what the damage would look like if the plane came straight in from NE direction.

    The 9/11 commission said the plane came in at an angle. If the plane was like this you see the plane sideways.

    Something like this. Would wings not break off at this angle be found on the grass?
    You were also arguing for a fact that those same images showed it was impossible that a 757 crashed into it.

    Maybe you're wrong here too?


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    None of these address the problems with any of the plot holes.
    They only open a lot more.

    Lets focus on one:
    Can you think of a single reason why they wouldn't just alter or destroy the data that contradicts them?
    If not, why would they release it to the public?

    So if they were obviously covering up something, please explain what and how and how coming from a different angle helps cover this up?
    Then also explain the plot hole that arises from this: why would they try to cover something up by drawing attention to it?

    You've not provided any explanations for any of the plot holes.
    Do you not thing they exist?

    It, not a plot involving everyone who works for US government. If they tried faking the data would this not expose the conspiracy to people working in those agencies? That kind of conspiracy would be massive and hard to keep quiet. Rumsfield left office in 2006 and I think he is one of conspirators neo-cons involved. The animations came out in 2007 and believe the FAA one in 2008.


Advertisement