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…1415171920…95

Comments

  • #482
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    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?

    I argued the South West angle does not explain the damage. The second-floor damage on E ring looks where the plane upper fuselage hit the wall (NE path)


  • #483
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    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.
    But you are arguing that the data does expose the conspiracy.
    Your claiming that the data contradicts the official story, so the people producing this data have to be in on it.

    Nor does it explain why they couldn't just intercept the data.
    Nor does it explain why they couldn't stop it from being released to the public.


  • #484
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you are arguing that the data does expose the conspiracy.
    Your claiming that the data contradicts the official story, so the people producing this data have to be in on it.

    Nor does it explain why they couldn't just intercept the data.
    Nor does it explain why they couldn't stop it from being released to the public.

    Why do normal working people at the FAA and NTSB have to be involved in a conspiracy? There just releasing the data they got from the day. If this information was seen then I doubt they can just cover it up. I'm talking about a covert group was involved a deep state group of maybe only 20 or 40 people know what happened.I don't believe every politician in America is aware of this conspiracy.


  • #485
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    All you need is 5 or 10 highly connected people with enough power and money to want to do this to pull this off.

    Rumsfield is one of those people.

    They then use some black ops operatives they trust to carry this out in secret.


  • #486
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why do normal working people at the FAA and NTSB have to be involved in a conspiracy? There just releasing the data they got from the day. If this information was seen then I doubt they can just cover it up. I'm talking about a covert group was involved a deep state group of maybe only 20 or 40 people know what happened.I don't believe every politician in America is aware of this conspiracy.
    But they couldn't stop things like data getting out?

    And yes, the people at the FAA and NTSB do have to be involved, otherwise, why do they not support the conspiracy theory?
    They've seen the same data you have, so obviously they must know that there's a conspiracy like you do. Remember, these people are experts unlike you, so if you can figure it out, so can they.
    So if the data exposed the conspiracy, then the FAA and NTSB would have exposed it, only with more evidence and expertise.

    But they don't. It can't be that the conspirators are stopping them, as you've claimed that they can't do that. And if they could, then they'd stop the data from getting out in the first place.

    And even then, you still have not explained why they would just say the plane would come from the direction it did.

    Also, if it's just 20 people, who was it that took down the light posts?
    Donald Rumsfield himself climb up there with a hack saw?

    Did the rock up to some random taxi driver wear a fake moustache and tell him to say he saw a plane?


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But they couldn't stop things like data getting out?

    And yes, the people at the FAA and NTSB do have to be involved, otherwise, why do they not support the conspiracy theory?
    They've seen the same data you have, so obviously they must know that there's a conspiracy like you do. Remember, these people are experts unlike you, so if you can figure it out, so can they.
    So if the data exposed the conspiracy, then the FAA and NTSB would have exposed it, only with more evidence and expertise.

    But they don't. It can't be that the conspirators are stopping them, as you've claimed that they can't do that. And if they could, then they'd stop the data from getting out in the first place.

    And even then, you still have not explained why they would just say the plane would come from the direction it did.

    Also, if it's just 20 people, who was it that took down the light posts?
    Donald Rumsfield himself climb up there with a hack saw?

    Did the rock up to some random taxi driver wear a fake moustache and tell him to say he saw a plane?

    Maybe the FAA and NTSB did not notice this or care not think of that? They are not researching every fine detail of the event or worrying about a conspiracy, they are just living their lives doing their job and they then go home to their family. What can they do about it, even if they did know? We know officials lied to the 9/11 commission and they got away with lying. There is not a huge incentive to come forward when the system is set up to keep a tight lid on secrets.

    I have explained it I said they staged the 5 light poles to cover up another event inside the Pentagon.

    Rumsfield was in charge of the US military response to 9/11, on the day. I think the light poles got taken down by people pretending to be construction workers.


  • #488
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Maybe the FAA and NTSB did not notice this or care not think of that?
    So people who's actual job and expertise was to find out which direction the plane was coming from didn't notice which direction the plane was coming from?
    Yet, conspiracy theorists like yourself with expertise from Youtube somehow did manage to notice it?

    No. That's patently silly.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    What can they do about it, even if they did know? We know officials lied to the 9/11 commission and they got away with lying. There is not a huge incentive to come forward when the system is set up to keep a tight lid on secrets.
    And the 9/11 commission never bothered to ask the NTSB or FAA anything?
    And none of the experts who would have definitely noticed something amiss never brought it up to the commission?

    And it can't be that they had the control enough to incentivise keeping quiet. If this was the case, then the data would have never been released.

    Again, no. That's silly.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I have explained it I said they staged the 5 light poles to cover up another event inside the Pentagon.
    You asserted that, but never explained what they would be covering up. Or how having a plane coming from a different direction would do so. Or how they planned on covering something up by making it obvious they were covering it.
    Or you know, any sort of evidence you didn't just pull it out of your ass to avoid the fact the conspiracy is full of plot holes.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Rumsfield was in charge of the US military response to 9/11, on the day. I think the light poles got taken down by people pretending to be construction workers.
    Right, Rumsfield in a construction worker outfit. Got it.


  • #489
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So people who's actual job and expertise was to find out which direction the plane was coming from didn't notice which direction the plane was coming from?
    Yet, conspiracy theorists like yourself with expertise from Youtube somehow did manage to notice it?

    No. That's patently silly.


    And the 9/11 commission never bothered to ask the NTSB or FAA anything?
    And none of the experts who would have definitely noticed something amiss never brought it up?

    Again, no. That's silly.

    You asserted that, but never explained what they would be covering up. Or how having a plane coming from a different direction would do so. Or how they planned on covering something up by making it obvious they were covering it.
    Or you know, any sort of evidence you didn't just pull it out of your ass to avoid the fact the conspiracy is full of plot holes.


    Right, Rumsfield in a construction worker outfit. Got it.

    It's not their job to be releasing fake data. And not their job to lie. They released the data they had from 9/11 Why is their job to confirm the 9/11 commission path for the plane, this doesn't make sense.

    Just to inform since you obviously don't know the 9/11 Commission report was released in 2004. The animations did not come until 2007 and 2008.


  • #490
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So your entire conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that the people investigating the flight path of the plane never once bothered to check what the government claimed about the flight path.

    That's very silly.

    Now notice here:
    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/

    Here we have an organisation specifically saying that the plane came from a different direction than you think it did.
    You held this very report up as infallible back when you thought that it was supporting your idea of a 757 not hitting the pentagon.

    So what's the deal. Did the government control all of these guys and force them to say that the plane came from a different direction?

    How could they government control these guys, but not NTSB?


  • #491
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    All you need is 5 or 10 highly connected people with enough power and money to want to do this to pull this off.

    To pull what off? you haven't fleshed out your conspiracy theory yet


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    So your entire conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that the people investigating the flight path of the plane never once bothered to check what the government claimed about the flight path.

    That's very silly.

    Now notice here:
    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/

    Here we have an organisation specifically saying that the plane came from a different direction than you think it did.
    You held this very report up as infallible back when you thought that it was supporting your idea of a 757 not hitting the pentagon.

    So what's the deal. Did the government control all of these guys and force them to say that the plane came from a different direction?

    How could they government control these guys, but not NTSB?

    Metabunk is unaware of who the lead the official investigation. ASCE sponsored the Pentagon building report. However, the project leader was Paul Mlakar who was vice president of defence contractor called Jaycor. He is a deep state guy.
    Mlakar also filed for a number of patents on explosive containment devices for aircraft pre 9/11. He likely one of the guys brought in to cover up the event.

    Amec connection to the renovations and clean up after that attacks is another red flag. The AMEC construction has long-standing ties to Saudi Arabia. Peter Janson close friend of Rumsfield was the CEO of Amec they gained greatly from the attacks afterwards in new contracts to take Iraqi oil and clean up the mess at the Pentagon and Twin Towers. The people controlling the renovation project had for years prior to 9/11 called for a revolution and deposing hostile regimes in the middle east, so you just have to connect the dots.

    Then Hani Hanjour crappy pilot skills ( was he the pilot) and the 330 U-turn he did to hit this location where there were fewer people working and where AMEC was carrying out construction pre 9/11.


  • #493
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Metabunk is unaware of who the lead the official investigation. ASCE sponsored the Pentagon building report. However, the project leader was Paul Mlakar who was vice president of defence contractor called Jaycor. He is a deep state guy.
    Mlakar also filed for a number of patents on explosive containment devices for aircraft pre 9/11. He likely one of the guys brought in to cover up the event.

    Amec connection to the renovations and clean up after that attacks is another red flag. The AMEC construction has long-standing ties to Saudi Arabia. Peter Janson close friend of Rumsfield was the CEO of Amec they gained greatly from the attacks afterwards in new contracts to take Iraqi oil and clean up the mess at the Pentagon and Twin Towers. The people controlling the renovation project had for years prior to 9/11 called for a revolution and deposing hostile regimes in the middle east, so you just have to connect the dots.

    Then Hani Hanjour crappy pilot skills ( was he the pilot) and the 330 U-turn he did to hit this location where there were fewer people working and where AMEC was carrying out construction pre 9/11.
    Ah, so now on top of not being able to address the gaping plot holes in your conspiracy, you're just making stuff up now.

    Fair enough.


  • #494
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah, so now on top of not being able to address the gaping plot holes in your conspiracy, you're just making stuff up now.

    Fair enough.

    No all this is factual just have to research this to find this out.


  • #495
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    No all this is factual just have to research this to find this out.
    Sure. I believe you, what with all the lying and complete dishonesty you've shown.

    And that totally makes the plot holes disappear like they've never existed...


  • #496
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sure. I believe you, what with all the lying and complete dishonesty you've shown.

    And that totally makes the plot holes disappear like they've never existed...

    Sure mate. I faked the animations from the FAA and NTSB and multiple eyewitnesses saw the plane NE don't exist.;)


  • #497
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Sure mate. I faked the animations from the FAA and NTSB and multiple eyewitnesses saw the plane NE don't exist.;)
    But you have failed repeatedly how this could work in the conspiracy fantasy land you live it.

    You had to decide that the people working on these are complete dumbasses who are in capable of doing their jobs.

    And then you invent an entire chain of conspiracy for the other issues.

    You can't explain why they would have these animations because the theory is silly and flawed.

    You believe it anyway.


  • #498
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you have failed repeatedly how this could work in the conspiracy fantasy land you live it.

    You had to decide that the people working on these are complete dumbasses who are in capable of doing their jobs.

    And then you invent an entire chain of conspiracy for the other issues.

    You can't explain why they would have these animations because the theory is silly and flawed.

    You believe it anyway.

    I know what they did it and the plan for it was outlined in the project for New American century in 1997. Rumsfield signed up to those principles. After 9/11 they started to implement these aims with popular support from the American people.

    This was said in the Neocon blueprint in 1998

    The group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there was "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."


  • #499
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I know what they did it and the plan for it was outlined in the project for New American century in 1997."
    Ok. Bully for you.
    But this still doesn't explain the plot holes.

    You do realise they are there right?
    You've been working very hard to avoid acknowledging them, so this must mean you realise how silly they make your theory look.


  • #500
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok. Bully for you.
    But this still doesn't explain the plot holes.

    You do realise they are there right?
    You've been working very hard to avoid acknowledging them, so this must mean you realise how silly they make your theory look.

    How are they right the Middle East region a mess since 2001?The neocons who did this controlled the damage cleanup and 9/11 investigations later.

    What are plot holes exactly? The evidence clearly has a plane hitting the Pentagon NE. You never explained how two sets of flight data are wrong? NTSB data was information taken from the Flight data recorder discovered at the Pentagon. FAA data is based on Reagan Airport radar returns (primary target)


  • #501
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I know what they did it and the plan for it was outlined in the project for New American century in 1997. Rumsfield signed up to those principles. After 9/11 they started to implement these aims with popular support from the American people.

    This was said in the Neocon blueprint in 1998

    It's a report written by a think tank - here's the line

    ""Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

    Yup, I'd agree, it generally takes a catastrophic event to dramatically change things - plenty of examples of this throughout history

    Quite a jump between that and "lol let's murder 3,000 Americans in broad daylight with this ridiculously risky and over-the-top treasonous plan"

    But that's the jump you've made.. so to ask again, what are the details of your conspiracy theory on this?


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    What are plot holes exactly? The evidence clearly has a plane hitting the Pentagon NE. You never explained how two sets of flight data are wrong? NTSB data was information taken from the Flight data recorder discovered at the Pentagon. FAA data is based on Reagan Airport radar returns (primary target)
    Again, I have detailed this several times.
    Now in addition to lying, ignoring and dreaming up entire people and wings to conspiracy, you are feigning amnesia.

    Why would the conspirators produce or allow data that contradicted them to be made public?
    You've already claimed that one such group was in their pocket and faked evidence. There's no reason why they couldn't do the same with other groups.

    Why, if they'd go to so much trouble, would they not just fly the plane in the direction you think it did?

    These are just the most recent two. This doesn't count the dozens of others your theory entails and the dozens more back when you were claiming with 100% certainty it was a missile.


  • #503
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's a report written by a think tank - here's the line

    ""Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

    Yup, I'd agree, it generally takes a catastrophic event to dramatically change things - plenty of examples of this throughout history

    Quite a jump between that and "lol let's murder 3,000 Americans in broad daylight with this ridiculously risky and over-the-top treasonous plan"

    But that's the jump you've made.. so to ask again, what are the details of your conspiracy theory on this?

    Yes, but the principles signatories included Donald Rumsfield. The man who controlled the US military response to events on 9/11 and had complete control. It well known now Rumsfield went missing for an hour on 9/11 and did not talk to the President till the event was over. 9/11 commissioners believed there was a deception about the response to these attacks and the slow reaction puzzled them, they called for a new enquiry about this.

    I think 3000 people dead is not important they US military killed hundreds of thousands of people post 9/11. Achieving War aims in the Middle East and making billions of dollars is more important to neocon fanatics like Rumsfield.


  • #504
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Quite a jump between that and "lol let's murder 3,000 Americans in broad daylight with this ridiculously risky and over-the-top treasonous plan"
    Also I'm sure that they wrote: "Lol lets also leave a ton of easy to find clues so it's super obvious we're doing it because it's funny. And lets do it in the most complex and ridiculous way possible, again, for funsies. Also we should totally print this in a publicly available document."


  • #505
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, I have detailed this several times.
    Now in addition to lying, ignoring and dreaming up entire people and wings to conspiracy, you are feigning amnesia.

    Why would the conspirators produce or allow data that contradicted them to be made public?
    You've already claimed that one such group was in their pocket and faked evidence. There's no reason why they couldn't do the same with other groups.

    Why, if they'd go to so much trouble, would they not just fly the plane in the direction you think it did?

    These are just the most recent two. This doesn't count the dozens of others your theory entails and the dozens more back when you were claiming with 100% certainty it was a missile.

    Again your sidestepping. Detail your evidence the NTSB and FAA animations are not accurate? Multiple eyewitnesses described seeing a plane head North East of the Cisco Station, so they were mistaken, what do you think?


  • #506
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Again your sidestepping. Detail your evidence the NTSB and FAA animations are not accurate? Multiple eyewitnesses described seeing a plane head North East of the Cisco Station, so they were mistaken, what do you think?
    I'm not side stepping. I'm just not interested in going into these points with you.

    You however are side stepping. You've dodged the plotholes again.
    You asked me to reiterate them, so I did.

    You have no answer.

    I'm going to leave it there, cause you're just going to go around in circles.
    But we both know that you can't address the problems with the conspiracy theory, but you believe it anyway because you position is neither rational or honest.


  • #507
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm not side stepping. I'm just not interested in going into these points with you.

    You however are side stepping. You've dodged the plotholes again.
    You asked me to reiterate them, so I did.

    You have no answer.

    I'm going to leave it there, cause you're just going to go around in circles.
    But we both know that you can't address the problems with the conspiracy theory, but you believe it anyway.

    Yes, you are sidestepping you still ignoring questions I have asked. If you don't believe the multiple eyewitnesses, and NTSB and FAA animations are accurate, then write out your alternative explanation, a sceptical viewpoint why they got it wrong? What plotholes are you talking about?


  • #508
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    What plotholes are you talking about?
    Lol. This is why I've no interest in going into any of the points or chasing you down for explanations you don't have.

    On top of the dodging and lies and ignoring, you don't see to be even reading what people are posting.

    I outline these plot holes two posts ago...

    I know you can't explain them, but pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away.


  • #509
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. This is why I've no interest in going into any of the points or chasing you down for explanations you don't have.

    On top of the dodging and lies and ignoring, you don't see to be even reading what people are posting.

    I outline these plot holes two posts ago...

    I know you can't explain them, but pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away.

    I talked about this already read the thread again. I gave you my theory what happened and why they said the plane came in from South Westbound path. Still sidestepping my questions I see. Anyway no point continuing if you not going to answer.


  • #510
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I talked about this already read the thread again. I gave you my theory what happened and why they said the plane came in from South Westbound path.
    Yes, you stated that, but didn't explain it or how it filled in the plot hole or answered anything or how you knew it was the case or where the evidence of it was or how it addressed the follow on plot holes that it itself had.
    It was a half baked nonsense idea that you know was silly, but had to pull out of thin air anyway.

    Nor does it address the other plot hole I just pointed to and you are pretending doesn't exist.

    Who exactly do you think you are fooling with this?

    You can't explain these plotholes because there is no conspiracy.
    You have to ignore them and pretend they don't exist because you prefer believing in the conspiracy theory and you are not honest enough to just admit "No, I cannot explain these problems."


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I gave you my theory what happened

    No you haven't.

    You half claimed a military jet hit, abandoned that then essentially claimed "lol I think Rumsfeld is involved or something and the plane came from a diff angle" - that's literally it

    How did they do it? who was involved? what happened with the Twin Towers? did they work with the terrorists? if so how? names, dates, times, suspects, evidence

    Otherwise it's just another exercise in bad creative thinking


Advertisement