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

1676870727395

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 81,114 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Proved my point again.

    Just here to troll and go off topic. Will never ever give a straight answer and its very sad.

    And that’s a month ban for ignoring your prior warning. That is unless in your next post you clearly define Speed, Acceleration, Velocity, and the differences between them, as best you understand it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Proved my point again.

    Just here to troll and go off topic. Will never ever give a straight answer and its very sad.
    But that is a straight answer.
    You asked for an example of one of your many many lies.
    I gave one relevant to the point I was discussing and you are trying to run away from.

    I gave others in the other thread. You ran away from those also.

    And you deflect again. You still refuse to define the most basic thing in physics. Because you can't.
    Your deflection only makes that clearer.

    Again, the quickest way to stop this point dead is to just give the super easy definitions.
    Literally 3 lines.

    Or...
    You can man up and be honest and just admit you can't do it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    And that’s a month ban for ignoring your prior warning. That is unless in your next post you clearly define Speed, Acceleration, Velocity, and the differences between them, as best you understand it.

    :) Whatever mate.

    Demand your pal Kingmob answers some questions and i think about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,114 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    CheerfulSpring2 banned for 30 days.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,338 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Overheal wrote: »
    CheerfulSpring2 banned for 30 days.

    He will wear it as a badge of honour. He probably thinks he was bullied, rather than what actually happened.
    He really pushed the envelope and was shown great patience IMO.
    Will be interesting to see what happens on the 3/9 with the report.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    banie01 wrote: »
    He will wear it as a badge of honour. He probably thinks he was bullied, rather than what actually happened.
    He really pushed the envelope and was shown great patience IMO.
    Will be interesting to see what happens on the 3/9 with the report.

    And seriously though.
    Change in position over time.
    Change in position over time in a specific direction.
    Change in velocity over time.

    Literally 10 seconds to type.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,400 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    TBF if you look at his posts over the last few days they're total and utter nonsense. Pointless clutter.

    This Hulsey report should be a laugh. Have my postcards sent and everything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,338 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The Nal wrote: »
    TBF if you look at his posts over the last few days they're total and utter nonsense. Pointless clutter.

    I reckon he was trying to earn a ban TBH.
    Now he can scuttle off to whatever forum fuels his nonsense and claim that the skeptics are so rattled by his truth and banned him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 347 ✭✭Barney224


    New study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) just out about Building 7 not collapsing due to Fire...

    https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7?fbclid=IwAR0T0mYZLrb5AlB0M0f0yOz4mSeD2L0IDQYyB2d7IvRLn0Qb0pH4Q3b91iA


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,400 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Barney224 wrote: »
    New study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) just out about Building 7 not collapsing due to Fire...

    https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7?fbclid=IwAR0T0mYZLrb5AlB0M0f0yOz4mSeD2L0IDQYyB2d7IvRLn0Qb0pH4Q3b91iA

    And here it is quickly torn apart

    https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report-analysis.t10890/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,338 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Barney224 wrote: »
    New study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) just out about Building 7 not collapsing due to Fire...

    https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7?fbclid=IwAR0T0mYZLrb5AlB0M0f0yOz4mSeD2L0IDQYyB2d7IvRLn0Qb0pH4Q3b91iA
    The Nal wrote: »

    Beat me to it Nal ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    Have you read that thread? I wouldn't say it's been remotely ripped apart.

    I'm not on either side here so no interest in discussing it really

    Seems full of red flags to me
    • The study was wholly funded by a conspiracy theory group
    • The same group which upon discovering a steel framed building had collapsed somewhere else in the world due to fire, released their own "study" after one month, with no access to the site or anything, suggesting that it was an "inside job"
    • It was conducted by only one man with two assistants (later one assistant dropped)
    • It was originally stated that the study would refute other investigations before it was even started (they quickly removed that part)
    • The entire study is oddly constructed around proving a negative (unscientific approach)
    • Full transparency was promised, not delivered
    • The study was repeatedly delayed
    • Flaws and faults were found with what little information was released
    • There is no sign of the report being peer reviewed as promised
    • It's full of truther talking points
    • Certain "simulations" are eerily like basic animations
    • Some of the figures contained in the study appear to be directly from a truther by the name of Tony Szamboti

    And so on

    It's all part of this bizarre smokescreen from a 911 conspiracy theorist group who insist the buildings were blown up (but haven't provide a single scrap of sound evidence to support that) all the while the money keeps flowing via subscriptions.

    If it walks and quacks like psuedo-scientific fraud..


  • Registered Users Posts: 654 ✭✭✭Gonad


    The tower 7 video looks 100 % like a controlled demolition. I often wonder if United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania was actually supposed to be a 3rd plane to crash into the World trade complex to take out tower 7. That flight actually got delayed by 40 mins when taking off from Newark so that delay would have caused the terrorists to panic as they would have known the twin towers were probably already hit

    Then when the passengers fought back and crashed the plane into the field in Pennsylvania they had no choice but to drop tower 7 without a plane hitting it and then had to use the fire story however silly that would sound . They couldn't have left the explosives in that building as that whole thing would have been exposed .

    Just a theory I have always had .


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Gonad wrote: »
    The tower 7 video looks 100 % like a controlled demolition.
    Only superficially though. It only looks like a controlled demolition in that the building fell down.
    In many other ways, it lacks things a controlled demoliton would have, in particular a very loud very noticeable sequence of rapid explosions immediatly before the start of the collapse.

    Regarding the rest of your theory, if they planned to crash a plane into WTC7 why would they also have explosives in the building? (Same for the other buildings.) Why not just fly planes into the buildings?

    If something did go wrong why would they then also set off those explosives if it would so obvious? Why not just not set off the explosives and quitely remove them later?


  • Registered Users Posts: 654 ✭✭✭Gonad


    King Mob wrote: »
    Only superficially though. It only looks like a controlled demolition in that the building fell down.
    In many other ways, it lacks things a controlled demoliton would have, in particular a very loud very noticeable sequence of rapid explosions immediatly before the start of the collapse.

    Regarding the rest of your theory, if they planned to crash a plane into WTC7 why would they also have explosives in the building? (Same for the other buildings.) Why not just fly planes into the buildings?

    If something did go wrong why would they then also set off those explosives if it would so obvious? Why not just not set off the explosives and quitely remove them later?

    Well buildings don’t usually fall from fire so no point in just flying planes into them as then it would just be planes flying into building and then maybe a few hundred people would die .

    The only way to get the buildings to fall was to crash planes into them and then to actually drop them with explosives . You plant the seed with the planes and then people don’t actually question when they fall because planes have flown into them.

    The fact that a 3rd building actually fell without being hit by a aeroplane would have people question the real story which is why the normal person on the street doesn’t actually know about building 7. The media actually tried to cover that story up and it was never really ever talked about . Even most people from New York were not aware of this 3rd building falling the way it did .

    If you question the story and believe something else was going on you have to wonder then why did a 3rd skyscraper fall without being hit . Then you think about flight 93 which was due to take off from Newark right around the time the first plane hit but it was actually delayed and didn’t get into the air until 30 mins or so after first plane hit . That plane could well have been planned to smash into the building 7 area which wound then have been reported as the reason that building also dropped . But because of the delay on take off the passengers had time to hear about what was happening in New York and the commotion on the plane probably had the terrorists on board doubting if they should try take control of the plane and in the end when they did the passengers knew their faith and fought them and the crash happened .

    The only thing then was to drop the building 7 and try cover it up . Eventually when people started questioning how it could fall they had to say it was one of the only times in history a skyscraper had fell for fire.

    It was either that or they left the explosives in the building did nothing which when discovered would have blown their whole evil plan apart . They had to drop the building and hope people were stupid enough not to question it.


    Edit

    Also just to ad there are plenty of videos that show firefighters talking about hearing load explosives going off . Even a video of a firefighter explains the explosives as “boom boom boom boom “ like a controlled demolition sound .

    The planes were for visual propaganda and the explosives were to hammer the final nail . The American public would have supported anything there government decided to do after seeing that .

    Looked very calculated to me . But I’m just a simple man and maybe it was a few terrorists that wanted to fly a few planes into buildings and i could be over thinking it all and not one person in security from the most secure country in the world suspected anything .


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Gonad wrote: »
    Well buildings don’t usually fall from fire.
    There are many examples of buildings, including buildings of the same type of construction, that have fallen or partially fallen due to fire.

    There have never been any examples of any buildings being demolished by secretly planted explosives after being hit by planes/having had flaming skyscapers collapse next to them. Does this fact make controlled demolition impossible?
    Gonad wrote: »
    The only way to get the buildings to fall was to crash planes into them and then to actually drop them with explosives .
    How do you know this for a fact?

    If it is so obviously a fact that even laypeople with no training in enginneering or architecture can tell its impossible, why would they attempt it?
    Gonad wrote: »
    The only thing then was to drop the building 7 and try cover it up . Eventually when people started questioning how it could fall they had to say it was one of the only times in history a skyscraper had fell for fire.

    It was either that or they left the explosives in the building did nothing which when discovered would have blown their whole evil plan apart . They had to drop the building and hope people were stupid enough not to question it.
    But why couldn't they just quietly remove the explosives?
    Gonad wrote: »
    Also just to ad there are plenty of videos that show firefighters talking about hearing load explosives going off
    Of those videos that aren't dishonestly edited, none of those testimonies are consistent with explosive demolition. They report single solitary explosions occuring at random at different places at different times, some hours before the collapse.
    We dont need testimonies though. There are videos of the collapse with sound. They do not contain the sequence of explosions consistant with controlled demolition.
    Gonad wrote: »
    . Even a video of a firefighter explains the explosives as “boom boom boom boom “ like a controlled demolition sound.
    And was this before or after the collapse started?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Gonad wrote: »
    The tower 7 video looks 100 % like a controlled demolition. I often wonder if United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania was actually supposed to be a 3rd plane to crash into the World trade complex to take out tower 7. That flight actually got delayed by 40 mins when taking off from Newark so that delay would have caused the terrorists to panic as they would have known the twin towers were probably already hit

    Then when the passengers fought back and crashed the plane into the field in Pennsylvania they had no choice but to drop tower 7 without a plane hitting it and then had to use the fire story however silly that would sound . They couldn't have left the explosives in that building as that whole thing would have been exposed .

    Just a theory I have always had .

    It's believed the White House was the target.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-was-flight-93-target/


  • Registered Users Posts: 654 ✭✭✭Gonad


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's believed the White House was the target.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-was-flight-93-target/

    Interesting . Kinda funny how out of all the targets the only one not hit was Bush’s gaff.

    Not much of conspiracy theorist but 2 planes hit 2 buildings and 3 buildings fell in what looked like controlled ways .

    A plane hit the pentagon and not one video has been shown of the plane coming into the area from any security cameras in one of the most secure places on earth . All very strange .


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,400 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Gonad wrote: »
    A plane hit the pentagon and not one video has been shown of the plane coming into the area from any security cameras in one of the most secure places on earth . All very strange .

    An enormous amount of eye witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There were plane and body parts all over the place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Gonad wrote: »
    Not much of conspiracy theorist but 2 planes hit 2 buildings and 3 buildings fell in what looked like controlled ways .

    Someone is a conspiracy theorist (or their brain isn't engaged) if they think this building was "blown up"


    A plane hit the pentagon and not one video has been shown of the plane coming into the area from any security cameras in one of the most secure places on earth . All very strange .

    Most cameras were pointed down at foyers, lobbies, parking lots (not at the horizon or sky). Footage has been released of flight 77 striking the Pentagon, it's predictably low quality, because most cameras were low quality and running at around 1 fps. They didn't actually have to release any footage whatsoever, because it wasn't needed


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Gonad wrote: »
    Not much of conspiracy theorist but 2 planes hit 2 buildings and 3 buildings fell in what looked like controlled ways .
    .
    But they only superficially look like they fell down in a controlled way.

    As I've pointed out, the collapses are not preceded by a rapid series of very loud explosions right before the collapse starts.
    Therefore we can exclude the possibility that it was a controlled demolition.

    Why do you say they look like a controlled demolition?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Gonad wrote: »

    A plane hit the pentagon and not one video has been shown of the plane coming into the area from any security cameras in one of the most secure places on earth . All very strange .
    Why is it strange? Why wouldnt they release the video?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Gonad wrote: »
    Kinda funny how out of all the targets the only one not hit was Bush’s gaff.

    So they eliminated targets based on residency inconvenience.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Gonad wrote: »
    The tower 7 video looks 100 % like a controlled demolition. I often wonder if United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania was actually supposed to be a 3rd plane to crash into the World trade complex to take out tower 7. That flight actually got delayed by 40 mins when taking off from Newark so that delay would have caused the terrorists to panic as they would have known the twin towers were probably already hit

    Then when the passengers fought back and crashed the plane into the field in Pennsylvania they had no choice but to drop tower 7 without a plane hitting it and then had to use the fire story however silly that would sound . They couldn't have left the explosives in that building as that whole thing would have been exposed .

    Just a theory I have always had .

    Look up flight 23. Another airplane was delayed on 9/11 and four guys of middle eastern appearance disappeared when the plane got grounded. The passengers and pilots all reported the men got angry when the plane did not take off.  Of course, there was no FBI manhunt to search and capture them, that we know of.

    Later Al Qeada material was discovered in the baggage belonging to the 4 men. There was a bigger operation that partially broke down due to the FAA grounding planes after the second plane hit the tower. 

    Flight 23 was due takeoff sometime between 8.45am and 9.30am heading from New York to Los Angeles. There may have been other flights, that were going to be used in the attack?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Gonad wrote: »
    Well buildings don’t usually fall from fire so no point in just flying planes into them as then it would just be planes flying into building and then maybe a few hundred people would die .

    The only way to get the buildings to fall was to crash planes into them and then to actually drop them with explosives . You plant the seed with the planes and then people don’t actually question when they fall because planes have flown into them.

    The fact that a 3rd building actually fell without being hit by a aeroplane would have people question the real story which is why the normal person on the street doesn’t actually know about building 7. The media actually tried to cover that story up and it was never really ever talked about . Even most people from New York were not aware of this 3rd building falling the way it did .

    If you question the story and believe something else was going on you have to wonder then why did a 3rd skyscraper fall without being hit . Then you think about flight 93 which was due to take off from Newark right around the time the first plane hit but it was actually delayed and didn’t get into the air until 30 mins or so after first plane hit . That plane could well have been planned to smash into the building 7 area which wound then have been reported as the reason that building also dropped . But because of the delay on take off the passengers had time to hear about what was happening in New York and the commotion on the plane probably had the terrorists on board doubting if they should try take control of the plane and in the end when they did the passengers knew their faith and fought them and the crash happened .

    The only thing then was to drop the building 7 and try cover it up . Eventually when people started questioning how it could fall they had to say it was one of the only times in history a skyscraper had fell for fire.

    It was either that or they left the explosives in the building did nothing which when discovered would have blown their whole evil plan apart . They had to drop the building and hope people were stupid enough not to question it.


    Edit

    Also just to ad there are plenty of videos that show firefighters talking about hearing load explosives going off . Even a video of a firefighter explains the explosives as “boom boom boom boom “ like a controlled demolition sound .

    The planes were for visual propaganda and the explosives were to hammer the final nail . The American public would have supported anything there government decided to do after seeing that .

    Looked very calculated to me . But I’m just a simple man and maybe it was a few terrorists that wanted to fly a few planes into buildings and i could be over thinking it all and not one person in security from the most secure country in the world suspected anything .

    Richard Clarke disclosed the corruption and treason inside the CIA before 9/11. He was asserting the CIA was trying to recruit the 9/11 hijackers inside America to be double agents, however his theory does not rule out individuals inside the government authorized the attack to happen and may used it for other sinister purposes?

    Richard Clark least was sincere, when he spoke he believed there was a cover-up and that there may be alternative reasons as to why the CIA covered up the 9/11 hijackers movements across America.

    Still is one of the most important 9/11 videos you will find online.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Look up flight 23.

    Welcome back

    Yup, could have been a bunch of hijackers who got away
    https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/were-there-other-planes-on-september-11--66308

    Or not. It's just one of 150,000 leads the FBI followed up on that and subsequent days
    https://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/23/inv.investigation.terrorism/


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,400 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Still is one of the most important 9/11 videos you will find online.

    "Some people say", "lets assume", "If we were to presume", "Lets say".

    I love the dark editing and spooky mysterious music though!

    Nearly 20 years now. No evidence that it was an inside job. None.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Gonad wrote: »
    Well buildings don’t usually fall from fire so no point in just flying planes into them as then it would just be planes flying into building and then maybe a few hundred people would die .

    .

    Buildings do fail due to fire, but there no documented history of high rise structural steel framed collapse of a full building prior to 9/11. Partial collapses have occurred , steel connections can fail, but right up to 9/11 it was found to be occurring in a select area of the building. Building seven, the claim is one failure in an specific area of the building, caused a rapid collapse of all steel connections across the entire full width of the building. Never occurred before 9/11 or after 9/11.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Welcome back

    Yup, could have been a bunch of hijackers who got away
    https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/were-there-other-planes-on-september-11--66308

    Or not. It's just one of 150,000 leads the FBI followed up on that and subsequent days
    https://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/23/inv.investigation.terrorism/

    When you find Al Qeada texts and materials in the airport baggage, then it obvious the men were hijackers who fled. Fact we still don't know who the men are, to this today, suggests people inside the government did not want them to be arrested and they inform us about the operation. 


    Info in your link!
    She says high ranking FAA officials and airport managers told her that during a search of United flight 23, box cutters and Al-Qaeda documents were found in unclaimed bags.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,400 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    When you find Al Qeada texts and materials in the airport baggage, then it obvious the men were hijackers who fled. Fact we still don't know who the men are, to this today, suggests people inside the government did not want them to be arrested and they inform us about the operation. 

    Wheres the proof there were Al Qaeda texts and materials in the airport baggage?


Advertisement