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

Overheal · 12-08-2019 05:14PM

smurfjed wrote: »

You do realise that the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator is bloody huge and needs a massive aircraft such as a C130 to carry it.

And, that or indeed anything smaller wouldn’t even come close to doing the damage the pentagon saw.

Bunker busters also by virtue of their operation are vertical drop ordnance, using kinetics to punch through a barrier before exploding inside the structure for maximum effect. Not at all what happened there.

You’d also have numerous eyewitness accounts if a helicopter managed to poop out a bunker buster that was almost as big as it was

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 07:38PM

The Nal wrote: »

Easily available with a quick google, as you know.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.html

lol

I know there were cameras there. Everyone knows there were cameras.

Answer this

What was the viewing area of the cameras? How far were they from the impact? What was the frame per second capture rate of those particular cameras?

Read 10 statements already.

1 to 4. No mention about the route the plane took.

5
There a time issue discrepancy the plane crashed at 9.37am and Washington Boulevard is a long road you travel heading northeast.
5 Bouchoux, Donald R. At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me.

6 Again no mention about the route the plane took.

7 To see the heliport he would have to be looking northeast. Arlington road is located northeast- near the Arlington cementry where the Pentagon officer claimed he saw the plane.
Hemphill, Albert [A Ballistic Missile Defense Organization staff member watched from the Navy Annex.]
coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike -- an Arlington road leading to Pentagon

8 McGraw, Stephen is now a northeast witness, i believe he car was pictured and confirmed to have stopped near the heliport and cemetery. While since i looked this up and will need to check this again.

9.White House and Capitol a plane was seen, i can't locate the plane before the explosion.

10. Route the plane took again hard to pin down. His claiming a second plane was in the area off to southwest?
Sucherman, Joel USAToday.com Multimedia Editor.
And it came screaming across the highway, it was Route 110, on the west side of the Pentagon. The plane went west to east, hit the west side of the Pentagon. Immediately flames were strewing up into the air. There was white smoke. And then within seconds, thick black smoke. Everybody got out of their cars. People were shocked.

Then there was another plane that was off to the southwest and that made a beeline straight up into the sky and then angled off and we weren't sure if that was going to come around and make another hit or if it was just trying to get out of the way. That disappeared and we didn't see it again.

How many of the ten eyewitnesses said the plane was southwest? Will you admit you got this wrong?

I read the rest of the statements later, when i have got the time.

You trying to argue a camera on the roof of the Pentagon would fail to record a 757? The camera located on the Pentagon roof and below it is where the the plane crashed. There not using cheap retail cameras to capture images. A plane coming in would appear, even if not crystal clear ( as the plane alleged travelling speed was 500mph ) you going to see something there.

Overheal · 12-08-2019 07:44PM

Plus, at 30,000 lbs one of those GBU-57 bunker busters would exceed the max takeoff weight of an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter by about 7,000 lbs, and you have to remember the craft itself accounts for about 11,300 lbs of empty weight - The whole kit would weigh almost 50,000 lbs with crew and fuel.

Even the CH-47 Chinook, a great big two main-rotor beluga of a helicopter only has a max payload of 24,000 lbs.

Overheal · 12-08-2019 07:52PM

Regarding cameras on the roof of the pentagon, they are in all likelihood pointed at the lawn, very likely the plane was traveling too fast in that field of view to be captured on a single frame of footage; in addition this is all pretending the camera infrastructure didn’t crap out in the impact, so if it didn’t capture the plane a fraction of a second before impact then it likely didn’t record the ensuing explosion either as miles of power and data cabling were blown up in an instant around the impact site.

Dohnjoe · 12-08-2019 07:55PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You trying to argue a camera on the roof of the Pentagon would fail to record a 757? The camera located on the Pentagon roof and below it is where the the plane crashed. There not using cheap retail cameras to capture images. A plane coming in would appear, even if not crystal clear ( as the plane alleged travelling speed was 500mph ) you going to see something there.

This has been explained to you over and over in past threads, so for the sake of everyone here

1. Maybe certain cameras weren't switched on
2. Most CCTV cameras of the period were grainy, 1 frame per sec types
3. Most were pointed down at foyers, lobbies, parking lots, not outward or upward
4. Some footage has been released, it's the typical CCTV low-frame, low quality fare
5. It's the Pentagon, even if they have additional footage, they don't have to release it, it's completely non-essential. What happened is very well documented, there are no competing theories whatsoever. (They certainly don't have to release it to satisfy a bunch of truthers who aren't satisfied with near perfect TV footage of the attacks from every angle in NY)

"BUt iTs thE PenTaGon tHeY arE sO AdvAnCed in Tv anD MoVies" - yeah, they couldn't account for billions because their ageing systems were decrepit and fragmented, I wouldn't count on it

Overheal · 12-08-2019 07:57PM

Trillions*

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 08:23PM

smurfjed wrote: »

You do realise that the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator is bloody huge and needs a massive aircraft such as a C130 to carry it.

Yep, i never said they used this bomb. You made this assumption on your own. Never said it was fact, the military style helicopter went behind the Pentagon building and fired a missile at the west wall.
I speculated about the possibility..
I did claim a military style helicopter can be refiitted to launch a heavy payload missile - this is true.
I don't see why it impossible- a small missile with a bunker buster explosive payload could not be engineered, carried and launched from a helicopter?

The helicopter incident- maybe it is mundane or could be something more? Just igorning it not the best way to solve conspiracies.

Overheal · 12-08-2019 08:31PM

You say it’s true so you have some evidence it’s been done before? Go on then

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 08:49PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This has been explained to you over and over in past threads, so for the sake of everyone here

1. Maybe certain cameras weren't switched on
2. Most CCTV cameras of the period were grainy, 1 frame per sec types
3. Most were pointed down at foyers, lobbies, parking lots, not outward or upward
4. Some footage has been released, it's the typical CCTV low-frame, low quality fare
5. It's the Pentagon, even if they have additional footage, they don't have to release it, it's completely non-essential. What happened is very well documented, there are no competing theories whatsoever. (They certainly don't have to release it to satisfy a bunch of truthers who aren't satisfied with near perfect TV footage of the attacks from every angle in NY)

"BUt iTs thE PenTaGon tHeY arE sO AdvAnCed in Tv anD MoVies" - yeah, they couldn't account for billions because their ageing systems were decrepit and fragmented, I wouldn't count on it

You just accepted it four cameras were turned off on 9/11. Again i don't buy it. Least two of the cameras would see the plane. Objects that should not be there will be noticeable, blurry or not.

Four cameras would have picked up activity on the grounds before the attack, including the helicopter landing at the heliport. Too convenient cameras not working before the attack. The location of the four cameras, they scan the front of the Pentagon grounds. The plane came across the grounds and would be spotted by a low resolution camera. The security footage they released is bad because the cameras were too far way to see the plane. The security box is on a roadway least 200 feet away from the crash site.

Similar stories in Epstein case no cameras working in his cell . Even though there plenty of available evidence his cell had working cameras inside the cell and outside the cell. You have to trust big time. You put lot of trust in people who lied about Iraq WMD and produced fake intelligence at Pentagon briefings. They lied continously after 9/11 and yet you trust them to tell you truth about 9/11?

Overheal · 12-08-2019 08:53PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You just accepted it four cameras were turned off on 9/11. Again i don't buy it. Least two of the cameras would see the plane. Objects that should not be there will be noticeable, blurry or not.

Four cameras would have picked up activity on the grounds before the attack, including the helicopter landing at the heliport. Too convenient cameras not working before the attack. The location of the four cameras, they scan the front of the Pentagon grounds. The plane came across the grounds and would be spotted by a low resolution camera. The security footage they released is bad because the cameras were too far way to see the plane. The security box is on a roadway least 200 feet away from the crash site.

Similar stories in Epstein case no cameras working in his cell . Even though there plenty of available evidence his cell had working cameras inside the cell and outside the cell. You have to trust big time. You put lot of trust in people who lied about Iraq WMD and produced fake intelligence at Pentagon briefings. They lied continously after 9/11 and yet you trust them to tell you truth about 9/11?

Show your math please

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 08:58PM

Overheal wrote: »

Show your math please

So you telling me a Boeing 757 plane with a wingspan of about 124 feet would be invisible to a camera above where the plane nose impacted. All you need here is commonsense not math.

banie01 · 12-08-2019 09:00PM

Overheal wrote: »

Show your math please

The math has already been laid out to CS in painstaking detail.
The speeds of the plane, the distance travelled per frame captured all of it.
He has just rehashed his original position to add a helicopter.

It's frustrating to watch these threads turn into rebuttal, rinse and repeat all on the notions of someone's fairly tenuous grasp of reality.

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 09:03PM

banie01 wrote: »

The math has already been laid out to CS in painstaking detail.
The speeds of the plane, the distance travelled per frame captured all of it.
He has just rehashed his original position to add a helicopter.

It's frustrating to watch these threads turn into rebuttal, rinse and repeat all on the notions of someone's fairly tenuous grasp of reality.

I don't see how a camera on the top of the roof with direct line of sight can miss a big plane coming across the lawn? The camera is sitting on the roof and below it the plane impacted the wall. You going to see an object there end of story.

Dohnjoe · 12-08-2019 09:06PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You just accepted it four cameras were turned off on 9/11.

No I didn't.

Again i don't buy it.

That's because you are dogmatically convinced that a conspiracy that you can't support or even explain must have taken place

banie01 · 12-08-2019 09:07PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't see how a camera on the top of roof with direct line of sight can miss a big plane coming across the lawn. The camera is sitting on the roof and below it the plane crashed. You going to see an object there end of story.

There is a difference between "What you don't see" and what you quite plainly don't understand.
The math has previously been explained in quite detailed and broken down steps.

You not understanding at this point, that's a choice.

Dohnjoe · 12-08-2019 09:08PM

banie01 wrote: »

The math has already been laid out to CS in painstaking detail.
The speeds of the plane, the distance travelled per frame captured all of it.
He has just rehashed his original position to add a helicopter.

It's frustrating to watch these threads turn into rebuttal, rinse and repeat all on the notions of someone's fairly tenuous grasp of reality.

It's a personal thread whereby a half dozen people try to explain something to someone who decides that isn't going to happen

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 09:13PM

banie01 wrote: »

There is a difference between "What you don't see" and what you quite plainly don't understand.
The math has previously been explained in quite detailed and broken down steps.

You not understanding at this point, that's a choice.

You talking about a camera fixed to security gate post 200 feet away from the crash site. I posted a picture of camera on the roof looking down at the lawn and the west wall. Do you think a 757 would just disappear and not be seen on camera

Again there no statement from the Pentagon to why four rooftop cameras would not be recording on 9/11.

Dohnjoe · 12-08-2019 09:19PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Again there no statement from the Pentagon to why four rooftop cameras would not be recording on 9/11.

Doesn't need to be. They didn't even need to release that previous footage, it wasn't required. The case is closed years ago.

Overheal · 12-08-2019 09:28PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

So you telling me a Boeing 757 plane with a wingspan of about 124 feet would be invisible to a camera above where the plane nose impacted. All you need here is commonsense not math.

No, what you need is math. A 500 mph aka 700+ feet per second object zooming past a camera cone of view which at best captures 1 frame a second on top of a 71’ tall roof aimed at the ground with at most a 90 degree FOV and more commonly less

banie01 · 12-08-2019 09:40PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You talking about a camera fixed to security gate post 200 feet away from the crash site. I posted a picture of camera on the roof looking down at the lawn and the west wall. Do you think a 757 would just disappear and not be seen on camera

Again there no statement from the Pentagon to why four rooftop cameras would not be recording on 9/11.

Feel free to scroll back and reread the posts where this was all explained to you, in detail.
You are making a deliberate effort to not understand the math, the frame rate and video capture technology limitations.
You are deliberately misunderstanding and indeed misconstruing that understanding to try and support a theory for which there is an absolute dearth of evidence.

Overheal · 12-08-2019 09:51PM

Let's keep a few things in mind:

- Every one of the cameras would be recording on the *same* tick step, because they all store to the same tape deck (2001 tech). So there's no overlap here where 1 camera records a frame the other camera(s) missed. Even modern CCTV networks record on the same tick to the same datafile.
- Regardless of the FOV the likelihood is very much that the cameras were aimed at the Pentagon grounds - they are perimeter security cameras, they are not DOT cameras. The range from the Pentagon to the interstate is less than 200 feet.
- Even if we very generously pretend the cameras were trained on the interstate, that's still only 500 feet.
- The aircraft was in excess of 700 feet per second, and could close the gap of this entire field of few before the cameras could record a single frame.
- The cameras won't be trained to see above the horizon line, period. Sunset and Sunrise glare would render most of the cameras in that situation inert for hours at a time.

And finally.... where are these cameras again? Cheerful posted some super-grainy nonsense earlier but this high resolution image shows no such cameras or where am I supposed to be looking

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Aerial_view_of_the_Pentagon_during_rescue_operations_post-September_11_attack.JPEG

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 09:59PM

banie01 wrote: »

Feel free to scroll back and reread the posts where this was all explained to you, in detail.
You are making a deliberate effort to not understand the math, the frame rate and video capture technology limitations.
You are deliberately misunderstanding and indeed misconstruing that understanding to try and support a theory for which there is an absolute dearth of evidence.

I can see with my own eyes your wrong,. The camera fixed to at security post facing forward picked up a smoke trail and i think its showing a rudder belonging to a plane? There no sense of what direction the plane came in from the camera too far away. I searching info to see if the cameras at the security stop are the same as the cameras on the roof? They look like high tech cameras on the roof and they watching the grounds. Just based on the security footage alone- the plane would have got spotted, the security camera fairly decent up to about 70 feet ahead and picked up details of object coming in was blurry due to distance. A camera looking down at the crash site and the lawn would have spotted an object approaching.

I also located more cameras at the firehouse right next to the west wall. I guess they are off too on 9/11.

Overheal · 12-08-2019 10:06PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I can see with my own eyes your wrong,. The camera fixed to at security post facing forward picked up a smoke trail and i think its showing a rudder belonging to a plane? There no sense of what direction the plane came in from the camera too far away. I searching info to see if the cameras at the security stop are the same as the cameras on the roof? They look like high tech cameras on the roof and they watching the grounds. Just based on the security footage alone- the plane would have got spotted, the security camera fairly decent up to about 70 feet ahead and picked up details of object coming in was blurry due to distance. A camera looking down at the crash site and the lawn would have spotted an object approaching.

"High Tech" meaning what, exactly? They're still 2001-era CCTV, everything was analog, and as you can see from the security booth video, quite grainy. Hell if anything you're pointing out they're those compact little black-orb style cameras which tend to favor form factor and panning ability vs. fidelity.

I also located more cameras at the firehouse right next to the west wall. I guess they are off too on 9/11.

Because the camera there has a different job - probably fixated at something on the side of that structure. The only reason the guard booth caught a glimpse of anything was because where it is trained is specifically so it can see the coming and going of vehicles through the checkpoint.

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 10:09PM

Overheal wrote: »

Let's keep a few things in mind:

And finally.... where are these cameras again? Cheerful posted some super-grainy nonsense earlier but this high resolution image shows no such cameras or where am I supposed to be looking

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Aerial_view_of_the_Pentagon_during_rescue_operations_post-September_11_attack.JPEG

The picture was taken too far away bad resolution.

Dohnjoe · 12-08-2019 10:10PM

Overheal wrote: »

"High Tech" meaning what, exactly? They're still 2001-era CCTV, everything was analog, and as you can see from the security booth video, quite grainy.

Yup like this footage from a FOIA request

Because the camera there has a different job - probably fixated at something on the side of that structure. The only reason the guard booth caught a glimpse of anything was because where it is trained is specifically so it can see the coming and going of vehicles through the checkpoint.

Indeed, similar this footage from another FOIA request

TLDW; CCTV footage was BAD in 2001. The footage the Pent released is probably the clearest stuff they have.

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 10:11PM

Overheal wrote: »

"High Tech" meaning what, exactly? They're still 2001-era CCTV, everything was analog, and as you can see from the security booth video, quite grainy. Hell if anything you're pointing out they're those compact little black-orb style cameras which tend to favor form factor and panning ability vs. fidelity.

Because the camera there has a different job - probably fixated at something on the side of that structure. The only reason the guard booth caught a glimpse of anything was because where it is trained is specifically so it can see the coming and going of vehicles through the checkpoint.

There three cameras on the firestation wall. You can see one to the right of the doorway. You trying to make out they used to some cheap retail **** camera to watch over sites at the Pentagon.

Overheal · 12-08-2019 10:12PM

Yeah so that's one of those black orb style cameras, great for panning around and stuff but they do not have the best image quality.

In fact because it's a panning unit there's no ability to confirm it was even pointed at the impact trajectory at the time. And I highly, highly doubt the Pentagon will release a bunch of CCTV footage from the Pentagon just to satisfy conspiracy theorists, given the obvious security issues of disclosing how any part of the security system works, needlessly.

Overheal · 12-08-2019 10:18PM

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There three cameras on the firestation wall. You can see one to the right of the doorway. You trying to make out they used to some cheap retail **** camera to watch over sites at the Pentagon.

They used what was available at the time, yes. And even if they used some magic, super high def, X-Ray, thermal imaging, Gamma Radiation vision camera, they were still saving to tape at 1 frame per second. In the fantastically remote possibility they did: they would *never* release the footage confirming that either way.

You wanna tell me though the camera for the grass had WonderVision but the security booth camera was so grainy it can barely read a license plate? Go away with that!

Dohnjoe · 12-08-2019 10:33PM

Again, what an absurd take on an event. There have been hundreds of plane crashes where we have determined exactly what happened, personally I've watched dozens of air-crash investigation documentaries, I don't recall a single one where "CCTV" was a critical component, or even required. Flight 77 and all it's passengers hit the Pentagon, the evidence for that is beyond any doubt. Trying really hard "not to get it" isn't changing the facts.

Cheerful Spring2 · 12-08-2019 11:45PM

Overheal wrote: »

They used what was available at the time, yes. And even if they used some magic, super high def, X-Ray, thermal imaging, Gamma Radiation vision camera, they were still saving to tape at 1 frame per second. In the fantastically remote possibility they did: they would *never* release the footage confirming that either way.

You wanna tell me though the camera for the grass had WonderVision but the security booth camera was so grainy it can barely read a license plate? Go away with that!

Pentagon is a high security facility and very likely they used state of the art 24/7 cameras. No Tapes you guys can claim they hide nothing and that always the problem with conspiracies gaining access to new information. The man at the bottom can’t find out if government agencies are lying to us. But everyone can see there was seven cameras close enough to the crash site to record something on video. You think its unlikely but i can't be certain as you, having not seen the footage.

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

Comments