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

King Mob wrote: »

And by that same token we know then that this issue is not solved by concluding that it's a government cover up.
It's not possible that the government said the plane went one direction when it in fact went another because there is no rational, plausible or sane reason for them to do so.

So even if we accept that scenario two is true and this guy is telling the truth, we still know there isn't a conspiracy here as you can't explain how it works or why it exists.
So there must be some other explanation.

Why you imagine this line of thought of yours qualifies as a valid reason for there not being a conspiracy or false flag event (as specified in the thread title), is mystifying.

It is absurd to claim that there is no conspiracy because somebody cannot give YOU a reason for it that satisfies YOU.

You are so very wrong.

If Lloyde England told the truth, then the official story is a lie.

That is basic binary logic. Either / or.

Both absolutely cannot co-exist.

The fact that Donald Rumsfeld's personal bodyguard was involved with Lloyde England in the Jason Ingersoll photo shoot, within 12 minutes of the explosion, cannot be explained away. This alone is proof of premeditation and therefore of a government conspiracy, and there are many more such details.

We know Lloyde England was telling the truth.
His testimonies were extremely detailed, and many mocked Lloyde's account, claiming that he had invented these unbelievable stories.
But as it happens, every single detail is supported by videos and photos which nobody had ever checked before.

This has always seemed to me to be the most direct means of checking on witness testimonies. If someone said he was in a certain position at a particular time, and saw such-and-such, then can this be verified in the video record? Others almost never approached the situation from this angle. One exception is Sergeant William Lagasse shown on video at the Citgo gas station, which supports his verbal and written testimonies.

Citizen Investigation Team unfortunately dismissed the testimonies of several eyewitnesses, but I have found evidence on videos and photos which prove that CIT was wrong about them. These videos were spontaneous and fortuitous. Sadly we have very few from the Pentagon and some are of poor quality, unlike New York, where abundant excellent quality footage was taken.

However, the evidence is there, enough to prove that there WAS a conspiracy, because certain individuals can be seen participating in it.

As I mentioned before, in addition to Lloyde England ... Joel Sucherman, Father Stephen McGraw, Eugenio Hernandez, Vin Narayanan, Mary Ann Owens, Steve Riskus, Tony Terronez, Cheryl Ryefield, Christine Peterson and State Trooper Myrlin Wimbish all can be proven as North-of-Citgo eyewitnesses by the video and photo evidence. This pictorial evidence matches their verbal and written testimonies.

King Mob wrote: »

It's not possible that the government said the plane went one direction when it in fact went another because there is no rational, plausible or sane reason for them to do so.

Again ... This is ludicrous!
Do you imagine the USA owes you a rational, plausible and sane reason for everything they do?

The government said the plane flew over the bridge, and they even paved over the lawn with those memorial seats in lines parallel to the alleged flightpath, to reinforce this in everybody's mind. They demolished many buildings since 2001 (which were landmarks against which the plane's trajectory could be plotted), ostensibly for an extension to the Arlington Cemetery, which still has not occurred. Basically it seems they were erasing recognisable topography that proved their story was false.

But the plane did not fly across the bridge, and nobody can prove it did.

You have not even tried to prove it.
You need to try to find somebody who was a witness to the plane flying across the bridge, because you need a lesson in how logical critical thinking works.

It goes like this.

"If there was no government conspiracy, then the plane flew across the bridge as they claimed.

"Therefore, everybody who saw the plane must have seen it on that trajectory, and we must be able to find MANY witnesses who can describe this.

"There CANNOT possibly be any eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly east of the Potomac, or over the Navy Annex, or North of the Citgo, or across the Cemetery parking lot, or banking right, or flying perpendicular to the west wall, or flying so high above Route 27 that it was impossible for it to hit the ground floor."

If you cannot find some of those plane-over-bridge eyewitnesses who (according to the no-conspiracy theory) abound, then you need to find some other thread to post in, because your personal opinion is trumped here by the truth of Lloyde England's true testimony.

Ruby gray wrote: »

It is absurd to claim that there is no conspiracy because somebody cannot give YOU a reason for it that satisfies YOU.

But you have not given any reason at all.
No conspiracy theorist has given a reason that stands up to a moment of critical thought.

You can't give a reason because:
1. There isn't one that actually makes sense.
2. You've never actually thought critically about your own belief.

Ruby gray wrote: »

You are so very wrong.

If Lloyde England told the truth, then the official story is a lie.

That is basic binary logic. Either / or.

Both absolutely cannot co-exist

But it can't be a lie as there's no plausible reason for them to lie about the direction of the plane.

So there must be another explanation.

Ruby gray wrote: »

Again ... This is ludicrous!

The government said the plane flew over the bridge

Ok. Why did they say this?
Lying about it just seems to give the whole game away for no benefit. And they seemed to need a lot of preplanning to try to sell this lie.

Why not just say the plane flew along the path it did?

Ruby gray wrote: »

If you cannot find some of those plane-over-bridge eyewitnesses who (according to the no-conspiracy theory) abound, then you need to find some other thread to post in, because your personal opinion is trumped here by the truth of Lloyde England's true testimony.

So then by your logic we can also conclude that plane did not fly over and away from the pentagon as no eyewitnesses claim that.

So your theory is impossible.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The Yellow lines in this screenshot is where the eyewitnesses CIT interviewed said the saw this large plane and it matches the FDR data. Someone is telling lies here and looks like its the US government.

No. It's you.

You previously said:

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The US government says the plane flying Southwest towards the Pentagon, just seconds before crashing.
The FDR data shows plus multiple eyewitnesses on video say no thats not right, i saw the large plane flying Northeast towards the Pentagon building.

If the plane was flying southwest on the blue line in your diagram, then it would be flying away from the pentagon.
That's not what the government claims.

You are claiming that the government said the plane came from the complete opposite side of the pentagon.

I think this is because you are once again confused by basic technical terms you don't understand.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Flight 77

You didn't provide any conspiracy explanations

You just discredit everything, including your own theory that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon

So which is it, did the plane hit the Pentagon or not?

Ruby gray wrote: »

HARRIET ANDERSON was working in an office on the east side of the Potomac, in D.C, when they were given the news that the Pentagon was on fire.

She said that a plane then flew very low, so close to her building that the windows were almost knocked out.

This is an example of a testimony that has been suppressed, to the point that almost nobody ever heard about it.
Why?
Because it sounds like the testimony of a flyover witness, and nobody is allowed to hear about that!

I found a brief mention of this testimony in a forum written about 14 years ago. At that time, the poster who shared it said that it had been purged from the internet.

She is a real person. That much is verifiable. She really did work in politics in D.C. in 2001.

CIT pointed out that in New York city, 9-11 calls were published and in the public domain, whereas at the Pentagon, all such calls were sequestered. Nobody can access them.

What are they hiding?

So perhaps the flyover plane headed east of the Potomac again.

"Again"???

Yes, because it was reported as being several miles south-EAST of the White House by Air Traffic Controllers, as revealed on a live recording. They breathed a sigh of relief when this plane then turned away fro its apparent collision course with the White House, thinking it must have been a friendly military plane.

But the government story says it approached from the south-WEST, then made a wide 360 degree loop before making its final straight approach.

ATC Danielle O'Brien then stated that the LOST RADAR CONTACT with this plane, which was UNIDENTIFIED ... "We literally had A BLIP, AND NOTHING MORE."

When the plane turned back again, Lt Colonel Steve O'Brien, flying a C-130 from Andrews Air Force Base to Minnesota, was asked by ATC to follow the plane and report on it.

He had already seen the plane. He had just flown northwest from Andrews AFB, above the Washington Mall, and the plane appeared on his left, then BANKED from 30 -45 degrees right as it passed to the front of the C-130.

William Middleton (ANC), ATC Sean Boger and Jackie Kidd (Heliport Tower), and Steve Anderson USA TODAY building, 2 miles north of the Pentagon) ALL reported that they had seen or heard the plane which later crashed, as it approached "the first time" and made a loop across the Potomac and over Washington.

BRIGADIER GENERAL CLYDE VAUGHN, driving north on I-395 from the Army Navy Country Club, saw a plane flying over Georgetown (over the Potomac, northwest of Washington, in a left bank. This would have been the C-130.

He then saw the plane flying to his left, and over the Navy Annex, on its approach to the Pentagon.

Many other eyewitnesses saw this plane on a flightpath that was very different from the loop to the southwest of the Pentagon.

Charter boat operator Steve Shavings saw the plane approaching from east of the Potomac, cross the river, then turn bsvk towards the Pentagon.

Sergeant Dewey Snavely was driving on Quaker Lane when the plane flew overhead, far south and east of the official flightpath.

Jamal el Kournayti saw the plane flying west to east over the Army Navy Country Club.

Fire Captain Steve McCoy was at Glebe Rd and I-395 when he saw the plane bank sharply to the right, to his north.

A teacher qt Hoffman Elementary, Mrs Hubbard, Verovnica and Cindy Reyes all saw the plane flying approximately over 13th and Poe streets, far from the official flightpath.

No eyewitnesses say they saw the plane making that huge loop 6 miles to the southwest of the Pentagon.

But many saw it flying from a different direction, making its loop over the White House.

A Lieutenant Colonel, a Brigadier General, Air Traffic Controllers, a Fire Captain, a Sergeant - these are credible witnesses whose words (especially those recorded that morning) must be respected.

Somehow, the official story changed the flightpath of the plane, claiming it came from the south WEST, when the audiotape of the Air Traffic Controllers says several times, that it was to the south EAST of the White House.

Over 100 witnesses saw/heard the plane crashing into the Pentagon. If the plane didn't hit, none of them would have been describing that.

You are claiming the plane flew up and over the Pentagon, how many witnesses saw the plane flying over the Pentagon? (I don't believe you have properly addressed this yet)

Again, you are getting into Cheerful's territory of escaping into a world of flight paths and incredulity instead of addressing the simple facts.

On top of that, if the plane didn't crash into the Pentagon then..

1. Explain the plane wreckage inside and out of the Pentagon
2. Explain the remains of passengers/crew/hijackers found inside the Pentagon
3. Explain the damage to the Pentagon
4. Explain all the investigations that all concluded that the plane crashed into the Pentagon

Then you need to address this glaring questions about conspiracy theory itself

1. Why did the plane avoid the Pentagon?
2. Where did the plane go?
3. Where are the passengers/crew?
4. How does it fit into the rest of 9/11, why did those other planes hit their targets and this one didn't?
5. Who ordered this?

You are literally using the same pool of faulty "evidence" (one unreliable eye-witness and attempting to discredit all other witnesses) to claim the plane didn't hit the Pentagon as Cheerful who is claiming it did. What does that tell you.

Ruby gray wrote: »

Why do you endlessly continue posing tedious pointless rhetorical questions rather than addressing the evidence being presented?

Deal with the topic or you will be Ignored.

You are being asked perfectly straightforward and logical questions about the claim you are making on a public forum

Also, as mentioned, "false flag event" is in the topic. This whole thread has been about almost every aspect of the Pentagon attack (as well as veering off into general 9/11 conspiracy stuff)

As for Lloyd George, he's clearly not a reliable witness, the fact that a significant part of the "Flight 77 flying over the Pentagon" theory seems to hinge on his changeable testimony is pretty concerning.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are being asked perfectly straightforward and logical questions about the claim you are making on a public forum

Also, as mentioned, "false flag event" is in the topic. This whole thread has been about almost every aspect of the Pentagon attack (as well as veering off into general 9/11 conspiracy stuff)

As for Lloyd George, he's clearly not a reliable witness, the fact that a significant part of the "Flight 77 flying over the Pentagon" theory seems to hinge on his changeable testimony is pretty concerning.

"LLOYD GEORGE"???
Last I heard, that was a variety of raspberry.
Clearly you know very little about LLOYDE ENGLAND AND HIS TAXI CAB, which makes you unqualified to even comment in this thread.

The dearth of appropriate responses here is tragic.

You admit the thread has wandered off topic, thanks to inane remarks posed by people uninterested in dealing with the EVIDENCE of LLOYDE ENGLAND AND all those whose EVIDENCE is related to his.

Do try to get back on track, without hurling wild geese into the discussion.

It is clear that you and your mates are merely employing deflection and derailing tactics in the absence of dealing with this EVIDENCE.

You have never been able to quote a single person who supports the government fiction, out of all those "hundreds or thousands" of people you imagine were there beside the pentagon.

There really were not so many witnesses there, but of all those whose evidence and testimony we have, there is NOT A SINGLE ONE who testified to the plane flying across the bridge.

Your failure to produce these mythical eyewitnesses is a flashing beacon to the transparency of your tactics here.

Ruby gray wrote: »

It is just not that easy to find pilots willing to fly commercial aircraft to their deaths, cool-headedly killing themselves and thousands more in the act.

So why then go through it it if they couldn't find a pilot to do it?
If they couldn't fine a good pilot, why hire a bad pilot and send him to a public flight school where people can see that he's a bad pilot and would comment publicly about it?

And even then, if they could only use a crappy pilot, why have him make such a complicated impossible manuever? Why not just send him on an easier more direct route?

Ruby gray wrote: »

It is clear the the data on the FDR was not merely altered but fabricated.

But this doesn't address the question.
If they could fake or alter the data, why not just fake or alter it in a way that is consistent with what they say?

Why would they need to alter the data anyway? If they just crashed the plane into the pentagon, they wouldn't have had to fake anything.

Ruby gray wrote: »

.
As Cheerful Spring has pointed out, this data could have been produced at another time in a different aircraft,

Cheerful, among other claims has insisted the data was from flight 77 and it couldn't possibly have been altered.

Ruby gray wrote: »

aircraft routinely overflew the Pentagon on their regular schedules. Nobody would have been surprised to have seen a plane fly this route on any other day.

In that case, the only thing that would have had to be changed was the date.

So then where's the rest of the flight in the data?

Ruby gray wrote: »

Try READING these posts for a change, and ADDRESSING the factual evidence presented in them, before going off on another hypothetical timewasting tangent of your imagination.

I asked a few other questions in that post. You edited them out and ignored them.
Why?

King Mob wrote: »

I asked a few other questions in that post. You edited them out and ignored them.
Why?

Time is finite, and you are attempting to derail the discussion of this TOPIC with endless time-wasting hypothetica.


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


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


So far you have not entered into the discussion of the TOPIC, which is not encouraging me to answer you at all.

Ruby gray wrote: »

You admit the thread has wandered off topic

Where did I write that?

I've repeatedly stated it's on topic

It is clear that you and your mates are merely employing deflection and derailing tactics in the absence of dealing with this EVIDENCE.

An unreliable witness is not solid evidence. Two or so witnesses claim they saw a smaller aircraft, like a corporate jet, striking the Pentagon, it doesn't mean that has to be taken seriously, because perhaps they made a mistake. The event happened quickly.

Do you understand the notion that individual witnesses can be mistaken? I've put this to you multiple times and you haven't addressed it yet

There really were not so many witnesses there, but of all those whose evidence and testimony we have, there is NOT A SINGLE ONE who testified to the plane flying across the bridge.

You are using a trick here. You are deliberately changing the parameters, this is because 9/11 truthers know that the flight path is easier to dispute that the Pentagon literally being struck by the aircraft - which is naturally why they do it. Which is bizarre behaviour when you think about it.

I'll repeat. You maintain the plane didn't strike the Pentagon, however you weren't there. Over 100 witnesses, who were there, maintain it did.

You haven't produced any witnesses who claim that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
You haven't produced any explanations for all the other evidence that demonstrates Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon
You have no other credible supporting evidence for the conspiracy theory you keep suggesting