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

Options
1…457910…95

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Which parts precisely?

    And just to confirm, the evidence that it was an a3-Skywarrior and not any other aircraft was based on these parts?



    I only count two witnesses reporting a small jet or corporate jet, is that number correct?

    How many reported a military jet?



    This is vague. I mean a standard timeline - time of take-off, from where, basic movements.

    Who flew it? a person? why would they go on a suicide mission?

    If it was remote controlled - how do we know it was remote controlled? what is the tech behind? and what evidence was there for it?

    Also, when you have time, if a military jet struck the Pentagon, what happened to flight 77, what were it's movements?

    You ask a lot of questions I start with some of the parts first.

    448670.png


    This matches perfectly with Praxair Fanhub. Above part, the blades are broken off. The fanhub when I researched this was larger in 757

    448671.png


    Have you another engine part you want me to look at takes time to cut and crop pictures for the site it's a pain to do all at once.


  • Options
    #183
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You'll have to be honest with me

    Are you just getting this info from this blog?

    http://www.rense.com/general70/jt.htm


  • Options
    #184
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You'll have to be honest with me

    Are you just getting this info from this blog?

    http://www.rense.com/general70/jt.htm

    No some of the images I posted were taken by German Photographers at the scene and some of the images are official photographs I just cropped them down to highlight a point, for discussion why?


  • Options
    #185
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    And either way it doesn't matter where you find information as long they provide footnotes to trace the source of where they found the information.

    You and Kingmob still have not answered a single question of mine, I have to wonder about your agenda? Are you here to debunk, have a serious discussion, what?


  • Options
    #186
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    No some of the images I posted were taken by German Photographers at the scene and some of the images are official photographs I just cropped them down to highlight a point, for discussion why?

    I presume you didn't look at the photos and match them to a particular engine yourself? Can you provide for the source for this comparison?

    As an example, here's a source of that particular engine piece complete with analysis

    contrailscience.com_skitch_skitched_20130103_151957.png
    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I presume you didn't look at the photos and match them to a particular engine yourself? Can you provide for the source for this comparison?

    As an example, here's a source of that particular engine piece complete with analysis

    contrailscience.com_skitch_skitched_20130103_151957.png
    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

    Why don't you and your friend answer one of mine ( i listed inconsistencies) and I reply to you then?


  • Options
    #188
    bohsman
    Registered Users Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    64 people on board: only two calls attempted and none of those calls can be verified. Why did 57 passengers not try to ring home or contact someone?



    Why do the pilots not follow hijacking procedures?

    How did the hijackers get to the pilots, if the cabin doors are locked?

    It was 2001, not everybody had phones glued to their hands 24/7, radio signals went nuts when you got a text message even. Most people would not have drawn attention to themselves by trying to make phonecalls.
    Pre 2001 hijacking did not lead to instant death, procedures would have involved figuring out where to land to start negotiations.
    Not the first or last ever plane to be hijacked, how has any plane anywhere ever been hijacked?


  • Options
    #189
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Why don't you and your friend answer one of mine ( i listed inconsistencies) and I reply to you then?

    The thread is about your claim of a false flag plot. You've made it abundantly clear you believe the theory of an airliner hitting the Pentagon is weak, so logic dictates that you must have a stronger theory

    It's only natural that readers will want to know your theory and ask about it

    If you have a stronger theory, back it up. Otherwise it's just a pantomime of one person subjectively rejecting everything they are presented with, whilst being obtuse about their own theory


  • Options
    #190
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    bohsman wrote: »
    It was 2001, not everybody had phones glued to their hands 24/7, radio signals went nuts when you got a text message even. Most people would not have drawn attention to themselves by trying to make phonecalls.
    Pre 2001 hijacking did not lead to instant death, procedures would have involved figuring out where to land to start negotiations.
    Not the first or last ever plane to be hijacked, how has any plane anywhere ever been hijacked?

    757 plane in 2001 had back seat phones installed. They were analogue with a better signal compared to digital ones. A call was made by Barbara Olson (CNN reporter) using this phone she called her husband office ( Ted Olson was United States Solicitor General and friend of the Bush family) This was after the hijacking had taken place, this was claimed by the FBI. She was not scheduled to fly on this flight, she just caught this flight to go meet a friend earlier. So how was she able to make a call freely and none of the 57 passengers did? She is how we know what the hijackers used on 9/11 for weapons. She described box cutters as the weapons of choice. This could be a planted story for the media we just don't know?


  • Options
    #191
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The thread is about your claim of a false flag plot. You've made it abundantly clear you believe the theory of an airliner hitting the Pentagon is weak, so logic dictates that you must have a stronger theory

    It's only natural that readers will want to know your theory and ask about it

    If you have a stronger theory, back it up. Otherwise it's just a pantomime of one person subjectively rejecting everything they are presented with, whilst being obtuse about their own theory

    Actually, I never ruled out an airliner hit the Pentagon. I just not sure it was Flight 77.

    You have to follow the evidence. Eyewitnesses reporting a blast at 9.31am and the clocks found at the Pentagon matching up with that time! Think about it like this how long would take to gather your senses after hearing a blast. Would you not try to find someone ask what just happened, and then file a report with the news station you work for? How long would that take realistically a couple of minutes, five minutes, ten minutes?

    I will address the high-pressure engine now in another post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I presume you didn't look at the photos and match them to a particular engine yourself? Can you provide for the source for this comparison?

    As an example, here's a source of that particular engine piece complete with analysis

    contrailscience.com_skitch_skitched_20130103_151957.png
    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

    A high-pressure system only belongs on a 757, not accurate.

    Similar parts are likely going to be found in the same engine on A3. If you don't agree with this provide research on that?

    448676.png

    Fan hub is likely bigger in this 757 engine? Nobody measuring the fan hub found at the Pentagon, so we can't accurately say if the dimensions match up.

    448677.png


  • Options
    #193
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    If you have a stronger theory, back it up. Otherwise it's just a pantomime of one person subjectively rejecting everything they are presented with, whilst being obtuse about their own theory



    This diagram is the government version of the plane trajectory from Ring E, to Ring D and exiting C.

    Notice the exit points the plane is coming through the wall! There is no exit point/breakage where they claim there is! The walls are still standing.
    448678.png

    I marked in red so you have a better understanding of what I am talking about. The plane has to come out and exit the wall along that red line.

    448679.png


  • Options
    #194
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol another example of your stellar research.
    Try counting the windows.
    The wall you are indicating is on the 3rd of five floors.
    The first two floors of the Pentagon are connected between the individual rings.


  • Options
    #195
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, I'm just trying to see if any of the claims made by conspiracy theorists make sense and stand up to a basic level of questioning and scrutiny.

    They rarely do and yours definitely do not.
    My questions just kinda highlight that.

    That's not true now is it .... If you would have such high standards you should dismiss the NIST report ... But somehow that doesn't fit your narrative so you choose to believe it ... I repeatedly asked you to explain the blatant holes in that report but all you could come up with was your opinion .. Facts only matter to you as long as it fits your narrative ...your debating tactics are getting boring at this stage tbh


  • Options
    #196
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    Similar parts are likely going to be found in the same engine on A3.

    Likely?

    We need something stronger than "it's likely this doodad looks a bit like that piece". Some actual analysis with sources.

    Parts:

    What other parts have been positively identified as being from the particular jet you describe with sources

    You are going to have to do much better than this because you're competing with experts who claim that the parts match a 757

    If you firmly believe the notion of a 757 hitting the Pentagon is bull**** - then you clearly have better sources and analysis - please provide it

    Witnesses:

    How many witnesses saw a military jet hitting?
    vs
    how many saw a type of large airliner hitting?

    Personally I think this is all a charade and it's been plucked from a Rense blog. But maybe I am wrong. if you genuinely think this made-up theory has more merit than the "narrative" then it should be simple to fill in the details


  • Options
    #197
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    For anyone who doesn't know, the NIST report is a culmination of years of work by a large body of experts and specialists. It's been widely accepted and as far as I know no recognised body of experts anywhere (architects, engineers, etc) have found significant fault with the findings of the report. It didn't produce anything dramatic we didn't know and it largely supported the findings of other less intensive reports/investigations - it just went into a lot more depth

    If someone has found an error(s), it's possible, even reports backed by expert consensus aren't totally infallible

    Unfortunately a lot of these so called "holes" in the NIST are raised by

    a) laypeople who don't understand the complexities or have misunderstood
    b) Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones who just want to discredit the NIST purely because it contradicts their narrative
    c) a + b

    If someone doesn't understand something about a report like the NIST then it only makes sense for them to go to an engineering forum or similar and seek out explanations

    Obviously it doesn't make much sense to be going to conspiracy theory forums - it's the equivalent of not understanding something about the process of vaccinations and going to an anti-vax forum

    I have no doubt this response will be used as a fulcrum to quickly jump off the whole "Skywarrior" thing and jump into discrediting the NIST (calling it now) - but there's already a thread open on the 911 forum on that, so we'll keep "discussion" of that in there - where we are also eagerly awaiting Dr Hulsey's long overdue final report (and peer review) AKA AE911's neverending attempt to keep screwing conspiracy theorists out of money 17 years after the fact


  • Options
    #198
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Go to a pilot forum or a skeptic forum they tell you that plane on 9/11 max speed was 493mph, with slight headroom to push it a little faster.
    Big, big difference between cruising speed of 450 knots at 30,000 feet versus doing that speed at almost ground level where air density and drag coefficient is much higher.

    Best case scenario would be the plane would be virtual unresponsive to pilot input at near ground altitude that speed. Worst case is the feckin' wings would just shear right off.

    Now let's put someone at the controls who wasn't even rated to fly a Cessna and suddenly he develops almost Tom Cruise Top Gun type skills and pulls off a maneuver that even professional pilots can't recreate in a simulator.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNMakBEECqA

    Do we evaluate the facts and data or keep trying to smash that square peg through a round hole?


  • Options
    #199
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol another example of your stellar research.
    Try counting the windows.
    The wall you are indicating is on the 3rd of five floors.
    The first two floors of the Pentagon are connected between the individual rings.

    The building from the first floor to the top last floor is 77 feet. The first floor is about 14 feet

    The picture here the first floor

    448709.png

    A plane with no landing gear down is 20 feet from the ground to the top of the Fuselage. The plane is flying so space must exist between the engines and ground level if not, the plane would have just hit the ground and exploded on impact. So there had to be about 5 to 10 feet differential between the engine and the lawn outside the Pentagon. The Wingspan is 124 feet wide.

    The US government claiming a plane fit through 14 feet hole when it was about 25 feet in total (plane height plus space need to fly) Reality is the plane had to impact the third floor and come through there.

    This photograph here is proof they are lying. Government claims in their report 8 columns are gone on the first floor but from this photograph, you see on the left a column (t shape) is still standing. Impossibility with a plane with 124 feet wingspan made this hole

    448710.png


  • Options
    #200
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    For anyone who doesn't know, the NIST report is a culmination of years of work by a large body of experts and specialists. It's been widely accepted and as far as I know no recognised body of experts anywhere (architects, engineers, etc) have found significant fault with the findings of the report. It didn't produce anything dramatic we didn't know and it largely supported the findings of other less intensive reports/investigations - it just went into a lot more depth

    If someone has found an error(s), it's possible, even reports backed by expert consensus aren't totally infallible

    Unfortunately a lot of these so called "holes" in the NIST are raised by

    a) laypeople who don't understand the complexities or have misunderstood
    b) Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones who just want to discredit the NIST purely because it contradicts their narrative
    c) a + b

    If someone doesn't understand something about a report like the NIST then it only makes sense for them to go to an engineering forum or similar and seek out explanations

    Obviously it doesn't make much sense to be going to conspiracy theory forums - it's the equivalent of not understanding something about the process of vaccinations and going to an anti-vax forum

    I have no doubt this response will be used as a fulcrum to quickly jump off the whole "Skywarrior" thing and jump into discrediting the NIST (calling it now) - but there's already a thread open on the 911 forum on that, so we'll keep "discussion" of that in there - where we are also eagerly awaiting Dr Hulsey's long overdue final report (and peer review) AKA AE911's neverending attempt to keep screwing conspiracy theorists out of money 17 years after the fact

    ASCE carried out the investigation at the Pentagon, not NIST.

    WTC7, a tower was brought down by an office fire is nonsensical. Twin Towers were hit by airliners loaded with jet fuel and those planes could have cracked the columns on impact?


  • Options
    #201
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    DublinWriter wrote: »

    Now let's put someone at the controls who wasn't even rated to fly a Cessna and suddenly he develops almost Tom Cruise Top Gun type skills and pulls off a maneuver that even professional pilots can't recreate in a simulator.

    It's been repeated on simulators by amateurs. Pilots (outside of conspiracy forums) have described the maneuver as doable for someone of that skill level

    Reportedly the plane was pushed to its limits for only the final part of it's flight


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    WTC7, a tower was brought down by an office fire is nonsensical.
    I have no doubt this response will be used as a fulcrum to quickly jump off the whole "Skywarrior" thing and jump into discrediting the NIST

    We'll keep this thread on the Pentagon


  • Options
    #203
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Big, big difference between cruising speed of 450 knots at 30,000 feet versus doing that speed at almost ground level where air density and drag coefficient is much higher.

    Best case scenario would be the plane would be virtual unresponsive to pilot input at near ground altitude that speed. Worst case is the feckin' wings would just shear right off.

    Now let's put someone at the controls who wasn't even rated to fly a Cessna and suddenly he develops almost Tom Cruise Top Gun type skills and pulls off a maneuver that even professional pilots can't recreate in a simulator.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNMakBEECqA

    Do we evaluate the facts and data or keep trying to smash that square peg through a round hole?

    But Skeptics don't want to discuss the glaring inconsistencies with the story, you see that from my time spend on here.

    Four weeks before 9/11 a Flight controller said Hani the incredible could not handle or control a light plane and refused to rent him a plane to travel on his own

    Yet 30 days later he flying along over 500mph an hour and kept the plane level about 5 feet or more off the ground. What did he do in that time that made him able to control and handle a commercial airliner on 9/11?


  • Options
    #204
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's been repeated on simulators by amateurs. Pilots (outside of conspiracy forums) have described the maneuver as doable for someone of that skill level

    Reportedly the plane was pushed to its limits for only the final part of it's flight

    No, they haven't I have seen what Skeptics have done. One guy, for example, Mike West (a skeptic) used a home simulator and he tried to pass that off as the real thing. That basically a computer game simulation you try at home. You not experiencing the effects of plane with lift, gravity, drag, weight., speed.


  • Options
    #205
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's been repeated on simulators by amateurs. Pilots (outside of conspiracy forums) have described the maneuver as doable for someone of that skill level
    Any proof/links on that?


  • Options
    #206
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The first floor is 14 ft.
    So two floors is 28 ft.

    You said it needed 25 feet.

    Curses the conspiracy theory is foiled once again by simple math!


  • Options
    #207
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    The first floor is 14 ft.
    So two floors is 28 ft.

    You said it needed 25 feet.

    Curses the conspiracy theory is foiled once again by simple math!

    Where is the damage for that shown on the photograph, genius?


  • Options
    #208
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Any proof/links on that?

    Yup have posted a link in this thread to an amateur trying it on a flight simulator

    Am in work now so will post more links (there are several on youtube)

    I can also post pilot responses on the issue (this question gets asked frequently on pilot specific and aviation forums)


  • Options
    #209
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Kingmob: this is ground floor, notice the red block dots, the government claims all the columns are missing or broken.

    448715.png


  • Options
    #210
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Where is the damage

    A reminder that I have asked for your counter-theory

    You believe a military jet struck the Pentagon

    To repeat the questions -

    1. how many witnesses support this and how many don't?

    2. How many parts were identified as belonging to the particular military jet that you specify? (So far you have provided only one that "looks like" (in your opinion) a part from the military jet. That is not a sufficient answer)

    So far the only information I have from you is that a specific type of jet, flown by unknown, with unknown flight path, unknown details flew into the Pentagon and what happened to the entirity of flight 77 is unknown

    We need much more details on this


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A reminder that I have asked for your counter-theory

    You believe a military jet struck the Pentagon

    To repeat the questions -

    1. how many witnesses support this and how many don't?

    2. How many parts were identified as belonging to the particular military jet that you specify? (So far you have provided only one that "looks like" (in your opinion) a part from the military jet. That is not a sufficient answer)

    So far the only information I have from you is that a specific type of jet, flown by unknown, with unknown flight path, unknown details flew into the Pentagon and what happened to the entirity of flight 77 is unknown

    We need much more details on this

    I remember reading one account, but I have not looked this up in a while. Reports of a small airliner could be a military plane. A3-Skywarrior I described looks like a small airliner for example. It not going to look like a military plane if it was used on 9/11 to attack the Pentagon.

    Planes were suicided in New York before the Pentagon attack. So eyewitness accounts, therefore, may not be reliable. Many of those eyewitnesses had formed a picture in their minds what likely happened at the Pentagon.

    By the way I not ruling out a 757 crashed at the Pentagon. My reservations or doubts I have listed in this thread and many still unanswered by you guys.

    None of the parts I saw at the Pentagon are special items. You find similar items on other planes.


Advertisement