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

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 1:15am

martingriff wrote: »

Okay can't get into the first but no where can I see anything about SAM missiles in the second. So no proof yet.

Did i not just post an interview from her confirming there was?

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 1:16am

martingriff wrote: »

Okay post #84 it was my reply to yours where you talked about something completely different then or other post. In that post I bolded some "facts of yours start with that

I not able to get to all of them tonight, but I will later.

martingriff · 18-04-2018 1:17am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Last one for tonight.

Daniel Lewin the Israeli spy. Served for four years in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as an officer in Sayeret Matkal, one of the IDF's special forces units Lewin earned the rank of captain. Was involved in hostage and terrorism rescue.

I not post images for this since one poster can't see them

He was on board flight 11.

Proof he was about flight easy 1 for you

mcmoustache · 18-04-2018 1:18am

I'm not sure why this is still up for debate. After all the reports and theories put forward, it's pretty clear that Russia was behind it.

According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service...

September 11, 2001 was directly rooted in a joint Soviet/Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operation conceived in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. The object of this joint operation was to repair Moscow's prestige by turning the Islamic world against Israel and by creating a rabid and violent hatred for its main supporter, the United States. The strategy was to portray the US, this land of freedom, as a Nazi-style "imperial-Zionist country" financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious "Council of the Elders of Zion" (the Kremlin's epithet for the US Congress), the aim of which was allegedly to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. In other words, the heart of the joint plan was to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States. We threw many millions of dollars at this gigantic task, which involved whole armies of intelligence officers.

This would sow the seeds. But of course, how do you connect that to the planes that crashed.

From Konstantin Preobrazhensky, former Lt. Colonel in the KGB in his book, Russia and Islam are not Separate: Why Russia backs Al-Qaeda says

Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, five months before the attack. But Iraqi intelligence was just a client of Russia's intelligence service. It brings a new understanding to the fact that President Putin was the first foreign President to call President Bush on 9/11. One may conjecture that he knew in advance what was to happen.

Suspicious, don't you think?

martingriff · 18-04-2018 1:18am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not able to get to all of them tonight, but I will later.

Fair enough it is late after all

martingriff · 18-04-2018 1:20am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have just posted an interview with a Pentagon employee who confirmed what I said. Ask someone else for the image of the interview. Not my problem your internet sucks.

What post was that. On my mobile so maybe not showing up will look tomorrow after work

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 1:20am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes but in fairness you have made quite a few unbacked assertions and claims in this thread

For example, the most recent

Simple research

The "max speed" of a 757-223 shows us 571 mph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

The plane allegedly hit the Pentagon doing approx 530 mph

You've also claimed that a plane will break-up doing that speed on approach, what is that assertion based on?

A quick search brings up this thread (this is a pilots forum)
https://www.pprune.org/questions/465642-boeing-767-max-speed-sea-level.html
It's about a 767, but they mention other planes like the 757 and their max speed capabilities, speed based on dives and how altitude affects them

If you are trying to cast doubt on a plane hitting the pentagon, then you must answer questions as to what you believe did hit the pentagon with supporting evidence

Their newer models of the aircraft go that fast. Years ago I researched this and found the exact model of Flight 77 and it's maxed speed. I found the specifications and plane manual. I debated years ago on another forum but I haven't since. I should be able to find the information on there again just a pain to go through all those posts again.

A commercial airliner is not designed to travel at that speed low to the ground, it is at high altitudes. I did calculations on this in that other forum from the fuselage to the ground it crazy anyone could have done this, the way the government describes. Remember the plane hit the first floor, low to the ground almost touching the grass. I look at those calculations again and talk about them on here!

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 1:23am

martingriff wrote: »

What post was that. On my mobile so maybe not showing up will look tomorrow after work

Post 89 check that? If it doesn't show up for you either Tomorrow I upload the images again.

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2018 1:50am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Their newer models of the aircraft go that fast. Years ago I researched this and found the exact model of Flight 77 and it's maxed speed. I found the specifications and plane manual. I debated years ago on another forum but I haven't since. I should be able to find the information on there again just a pain to go through all those posts again.

A commercial airliner is not designed to travel at that speed low to the ground, it is at high altitudes. I did calculations on this in that other forum from the fuselage to the ground it crazy anyone could have done this, the way the government describes. Remember the plane hit the first floor, low to the ground almost touching the grass. I look at those calculations again and talk about them on here!

1. What is the max speed of a 757 223? (with sources)
1a) It should be kept in mind that max speed is max safe speed, planes can go beyond these speeds

2. Flight 175 hit at 590 mph at low altitude

3. The flights have been replicated on simulators

When you claim that flight 77 as being next to impossible, are you claiming it didn't happen and no plane hit the Pentagon? (here's a guy with minimal experience pulling it off in a simulator - note how the engines become over-stressed at the end, replicating the smoke plumes that happened during it's final descent)

If flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?

King Mob · 18-04-2018 2:04am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

I'm done. You cannot provide a source as you are lying. No SAM sites existed at the Pentagon.

I have just posted an interview with a Pentagon employee who confirmed what I said. Ask someone else for the image of the interview. Not my problem your internet sucks.

Edit: (FYI, I checked your post when I got access to a computer, the picture is still unavailable. The problem is on your end. So you have not posted anything to support your claims at all)

What did she say exactly?
How do you know she's an authority? How do you know she's being accurately being quoted in the image you posted?

If the Pentagon did have a Sam site, it would be easy to show this for a fact.
Instead you have to rely on what I'm going to guess is either a fabrication or a out of context quote.

If this Sam site existed you could post pictures of it. News reports that mention it. You're pretending to be familiar with flight rules, so surely they'd get a mention in some regulations. Especially since there is an airport in what you claimed was the no fly zone.

So again, no pictures, no unsourced images with unverifiable quotes. Just type out the words of your own argument yourself.

Why do you believe there was a Sam site at the Pentagon?

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2018 2:17am

Just to give a heads-up about this technique - gish gallop

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

""Gish gallop" is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

The term was coined by Eugenie C. Scott and named after the creationist Duane T. Gish, who used the technique frequently against science-based opponents on the topic of evolution."

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 3:21pm

King Mob wrote: »

Edit: (FYI, I checked your post when I got access to a computer, the picture is still unavailable. The problem is on your end. So you have not posted anything to support your claims at all)

What did she say exactly?
How do you know she's an authority? How do you know she's being accurately being quoted in the image you posted?

If the Pentagon did have a Sam site, it would be easy to show this for a fact.
Instead you have to rely on what I'm going to guess is either a fabrication or a out of context quote.

If this Sam site existed you could post pictures of it. News reports that mention it. You're pretending to be familiar with flight rules, so surely they'd get a mention in some regulations. Especially since there is an airport in what you claimed was the no fly zone

So again, no pictures, no unsourced images with unverifiable quotes. Just type out the words of your own argument yourself.

Why do you believe there was a Sam site at the Pentagon?

You don't make the rules here. I post the information I got.

The person I am quoting she is Army administrative specialist inside the Pentagon. Apparently, she was given a tour of those defences when she worked there? You can be sued for damages for misquoting someone in a publication. It would not be easy to show where defences are, it's a need to know thing to stop the enemy knowing where they are located, it called compartmentation, look it up.

Pictured on 9/11 outside the Pentagon building.

Here she asked by an interviewer why the plane was not shot down?

The Pentagon sits inside the P-56-A restricted airspace section that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, and that activated air defences from a joint FAA/Secret Service radar and air traffic control at Langley, VA for many years prior to 9/11. Interceptor fighter jets in that area, which is separate from and more restricted than FAA commercial airspace, as well as much better defended, were regularly scrambled when small or commercial planes went off course or were not on scheduled routes within a larger Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that extends 50 miles out to give time for the response. Andrews Air Force Base, within 10 miles of the city as well as the 113th Air Wing of the National Guard at Anacostia NAS have provided consistent scramble-ready defences for the P-56 sector, which protects the most important government buildings

King Mob · 18-04-2018 3:49pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The person I am quoting she is Army administrative specialist inside the Pentagon. Apparently, she was given a tour of those defences when she worked there?

Even if we accept that this person was an army administrative specialist, and actually said what is in the picture, both of which you're going to have to substantiate before I will buy, so what?
How would this mean she knows the nature of the air defenses of the pentagon?
She got a tour of these sites? When? According to who?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It would not be easy to show where defences are, it's a need to know thing to stop the enemy knowing where they are located, it called compartmentation, look it up.

Yet, you then also claim you know for a fact they exist and their capabilities. This is a contradiction.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Here she asked by an interviewer why the plane was not shot down?

No where there does she say there are SAM sites at the pentagon on 9/11.

So after all of that the only sliver of evidence you had does not actually say what you said it did.
I am utterly shocked...

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Pentagon sits inside the P-56-A restricted airspace section that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument, and that activated air defences from a joint FAA/Secret Service radar and air traffic control at Langley, VA for many years prior to 9/11. Interceptor fighter jets in that area, which is separate from and more restricted than FAA commercial airspace, as well as much better defended, were regularly scrambled when small or commercial planes went off course or were not on scheduled routes within a larger Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that extends 50 miles out to give time for the response. Andrews Air Force Base, within 10 miles of the city as well as the 113th Air Wing of the National Guard at Anacostia NAS have provided consistent scramble-ready defences for the P-56 sector, which protects the most important government buildings

Where did you copy paste this from?
Also notice how it also does not refer to any SAM sites?
Also notice how it contradicts the claimed words of your expert which stated that the planes should be shot down immediately?
Which should we believe?

So how does this gel with the fact there's an airport right next to the Pentagon? You keep ignoring that small detail.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 3:53pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

1. What is the max speed of a 757 223? (with sources)
1a) It should be kept in mind that max speed is max safe speed, planes can go beyond these speeds

2. Flight 175 hit at 590 mph at low altitude

3. The flights have been replicated on simulators

When you claim that flight 77 as being next to impossible, are you claiming it didn't happen and no plane hit the Pentagon? (here's a guy with minimal experience pulling it off in a simulator - note how the engines become over-stressed at the end, replicating the smoke plumes that happened during it's final descent)[/URL

If flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?

That's not true going over Max Speed the plane starts to crumble and fatigue and break apart. Nobody has flown a plane a commercial airline just feet from the ground at 530mph hour. Imagine trying to control a plane at that speed when you're not experienced.

This is one month before 9/11 Hani Hanjour was flying a Cessna plane at about 180knots about a third of the speed he was going at on 9/11 when he approached the Pentagon for the crash.

The instructor said just a few weeks before 9/11
Quote "Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloguing 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

Is the same Hani who was able to control and handle a bigger commercial airliner with precision on 9/11? If he has difficulty handling a Cessna why do we believe he could handle a commercial jet like an experienced pilot?

This is specifications for flight 77
https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-757_N674AN_american-airlines_495.html

This is why truther are upset they know camera footage is likely hidden because we know on the freeway/highway near the Pentagon this camera existed

There is a camera located just on the top of the roof looking down at the Pentagon where the plane crashed.

I can't upload the picture but you can see where the security cameras are located.

http://tinypic.com/02/1/11793/0506/63ax9xg

Actually, it never replicated people have tried using pilot simulators a home and they think that's the same as flying a plane. It so stupid. You not experiencing weight, you experiencing lift, you not experiencing drag, you not experiencing thrust, you not experiencing conditions around you in real time.

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2018 4:10pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's not true going over Max Speed the plane starts to crumble and fatigue and break apart.

Sources for this (non-conspiracy please)

Please provide sources for the max speed of the type of plane that hit the Pentagon

This is specifications for flight 77
https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-757_N674AN_american-airlines_495.html

I can't find the specs on this link?

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 4:15pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sources for this (non-conspiracy please)

Please provide sources for the max speed of the type of plane that hit the Pentagon

I can't find the specs on this link?

Press show more the specs will show up for you then!

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 4:22pm

King Mob wrote: »

Even if we accept that this person was an army administrative specialist, and actually said what is in the picture, both of which you're going to have to substantiate before I will buy, so what?
How would this mean she knows the nature of the air defenses of the pentagon?
She got a tour of these sites? When? According to who?

Yet, you then also claim you know for a fact they exist and their capabilities. This is a contradiction.

No where there does she say there are SAM sites at the pentagon on 9/11.

So after all of that the only sliver of evidence you had does not actually say what you said it did.
I am utterly shocked...

Where did you copy paste this from?
Also notice how it also does not refer to any SAM sites?
Also notice how it contradicts the claimed words of your expert which stated that the planes should be shot down immediately?
Which should we believe?

So how does this gel with the fact there's an airport right next to the Pentagon? You keep ignoring that small detail.

I provided you with enough evidence it's down to you know to debunk what she said. Have you proofed she lying what is your source for this? She was featured as an employee of the Pentagon on 9/11 in Washington post and Guardian news articles, are you denying her job? She talking about anti-air defences did not engage the plane. People you don't like have researched this topic and claim anti air missiles exist, since this information you don't want to hear we move on. The area around Washington is definitely a no-fly zone for hijacked planes. Was their any fighter craft nearby at the military base?

.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 4:29pm

This a photograph how low the aircraft had to get to hit the Pentagon.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 4:39pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sources for this (non-conspiracy please)

The plenty of flying forums online pilots posting they describe the effects of a plane exceed it's a max speed

I just posted this video this it is a conspiracy video but the guy trying it had experience flying and the guy who was involved was a real airline pilot. This simulator would be a better way to test if this can be done! If you have got a better example to disprove this post it?

The plane started tumbling and breaking apart at those speeds.

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

King Mob · 18-04-2018 4:42pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I provided you with enough evidence it's down to you know to debunk what she said. Have you proofed she lying what is your source for this?

You have not provided any evidence.
You have provided a picture.
We don't know where you got the picture, who is the author, whether or not it's accurately quoting who they said it's quoting.
And even then, your evidence comes down to one sentence from that.
And that sentence does not say what you claim it does.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She was featured as an employee of the Pentagon on 9/11 in Washington post and Guardian news articles, are you denying her job?

I am skeptical that she is the one being quoted in the unsourced picture you posted.

Her being an employee of the Pentagon does not mean that she knows whether or not there are SAM sites on the building.

And again: She does not say that there were SAM sites on the building.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She talking about anti-air defences did not engage the plane.

You might need to read it again as she does not say anything about whether or not there were SAM sites on the premises.
No where does she say anything of the sort.
She refers to the idea of such things existing after 9/11, but there's no way she'd know that, and it contradicts the information you copy pasted and plagerised from somewhere.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

People you don't like have researched this topic and claim anti air missiles exist, since this information you don't want to hear we move on.

What people? Was all they found this one scrap of evidence?
Surely if it's true and they did research this information you'd be able to provide something more solid than this.

Please point to this research. Please outline the research you did to verify it was all sound and accurate.

But I don't think you will.

No one did this research and you never verified anything.
A conspiracy video made up the claim and you swallowed it without thinking. Now you are grasping at straws to pretend you've actually done more than watch youtube videos.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The area around Washington is definitely a no-fly zone for hijacked planes.

Ok, you've ignored it again.
Do you not agree there is an Airport right next to the Pentagon?

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2018 4:46pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Press show more the specs will show up for you then!

"Max" speed of 757-200 series 530+ mph
https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-boeing-757-200-ar91760.html
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757
http://www.b757.info/boeing-757-200-specifications/
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/boeing-757-200/101
http://www.modernairliners.com/https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/boeing-757-200

Reportedly planes can also exceed their max safe speeds but I will go into that once we confirm the max speed of the aircraft

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 4:50pm

King Mob wrote: »

You have not provided any evidence.
You have provided a picture.
We don't know where you got the picture, who is the author, whether or not it's accurately quoting who they said it's quoting.
And even then, your evidence comes down to one sentence from that.
And that sentence does not say what you claim it does.

I am skeptical that she is the one being quoted in the unsourced picture you posted.

Her being an employee of the Pentagon does not mean that she knows whether or not there are SAM sites on the building.

And again: She does not say that there were SAM sites on the building.

You might need to read it again as she does not say anything about whether or not there were SAM sites on the premises.
No where does she say anything of the sort.
She refers to the idea of such things existing after 9/11, but there's no way she'd know that, and it contradicts the information you copy pasted and plagerised from somewhere.

What people? Was all they found this one scrap of evidence?
Surely if it's true and they did this information you'd be able to provide something more solid than this.

Please point to this research. Please outline the research you did to verify it was all sound and accurate.

Ok, you've ignored it again.
Do you not agree there is an Airport right next to the Pentagon?

Well you doubt everything so maybe you'll answer my questions then since your so sure of the government version? Where is the security camera and freeway footage why has this not got released (source for why this does not exist I don't want an excuse the cameras are offline or the footage doesn't exist)

Why was Hani a better pilot on the day when instructors claim he was a crappy pilot and could not a handle a light plane empty of passengers?

Was there no aircraft at all in Washington that could have engaged the aircraft on 9/11

If you can successfully answer those questions we are getting somewhere then.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 4:55pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Max" speed of 757-200 series 530+ mph
https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-boeing-757-200-ar91760.html
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757
http://www.b757.info/boeing-757-200-specifications/
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/boeing-757-200/101
http://www.modernairliners.com/https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts/boeing-757-200

It's 2018 your looking up models after 9/11. Flight 11 757-200 series had a max speed of 493mph in 2001. The link I provided even lists the correct engine used below the wings on a 757 in 2001.

King Mob · 18-04-2018 4:56pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Will you doubt everything so maybe you'll answer my questions then since your so sure o the government version? .

No, I am not going to answer your questions. You have been constantly dodging mine then tried to throw out more random factoids when you get cornered.
You are now trying to deflect from the fact this claim is falling apart.

You've claimed that there were SAM sites at the pentagon.
Provide the research you claim exists.
You said people have researched the SAM sites at the pentagon.
Which people and what research?
Please provide the evidence they produced.

Or admit that you cannot provide this research and that you cannot support your claim.
Then maybe we can move on to another of the dozens of false claims, half truths and other nonsense you've regurgitated, if you want.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 4:58pm

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/boeing-757-200/101 even your own link confirms what I said look at the performance part!

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 5:01pm

King Mob wrote: »

No, I am not going to answer your questions. You have been constantly dodging mine then tried to throw out more random factoids when you get cornered.
You are now trying to deflect from the fact this claim is falling apart.

You've claimed that there were SAM sites at the pentagon.
Provide the research you claim exists.
You said people have researched the SAM sites at the pentagon.
Which people and what research?
Please provide the evidence they produced.

Or admit that you cannot provide this research and that you cannot support your claim.
Then maybe we can move on to another of the dozens of false claims, half truths and other nonsense you've regurgitated, if you want.

This how you skeptics work you don't want to answer anything because you got no answers. I provided you information your turn.

I not dodging your questions, you have said you don't want to hear what truthers claim. It not like official media is going to be covering a 9/11 coverup, so not sure what you're looking for exactly as reliable?

Truthers have found out things the mainstream press will not cover. You clearly see in photographs camera were pointing at the site of the crash so were is the footage now? In your mainstream opinion what you think happened there? And what your take on Hani experience as a pilot is the truthers reporting false info?

King Mob · 18-04-2018 5:11pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This how you skeptics work you don't want to answer anything because you got no answers. I provided you information your turn.

I have explained in detail why what you provided is worthless.

First and formost, it is relying on a picture of a supposed interview with a supposed person who supposedly worked at the pentagon.

YOU HAVE NOT VERIFIED ANY OF THESE THINGS!

Where did this interview come from? Who did it and when? Provide a link that details these things.
Otherwise, for all you know, it's entirely fictional.

Secondly:
THE PERSON DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY THERE WERE SAM SITES AT THE PENTAGON!
Nowhere in your badly cropped, unsourced picture does the person actually claim that there were SAM sites.
You are inferring this from a very odd interpretation of one sentence.

Again, you've claimed people have researched this topic.
What other evidence beyond this one pathetic, laughable scrap do you have to support your claim?

Or is that all you have?

I will move on to another topic only when you engage and settle this topic.

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 5:28pm

King Mob wrote: »

I have explained in detail why what you provided is worthless.

First and formost, it is relying on a picture of a supposed interview with a supposed person who supposedly worked at the pentagon.

YOU HAVE NOT VERIFIED ANY OF THESE THINGS!

Where did this interview come from? Who did it and when? Provide a link that details these things.
Otherwise, for all you know, it's entirely fictional.

Secondly:
THE PERSON DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY THERE WERE SAM SITES AT THE PENTAGON!
Nowhere in your badly cropped, unsourced picture does the person actually claim that there were SAM sites.
You are inferring this from a very odd interpretation of one sentence.

Again, you've claimed people have researched this topic.
What other evidence beyond this one pathetic, laughable scrap do you have to support your claim?

Or is that all you have?

I will move on to another topic only when you engage and settle this topic.

John Judge
https://www.washingtonpost.com/

I took information from his book about 9/11 that answer your question on this. He said he spoke with April Gallop.

Can you answer my questions now?

King Mob · 18-04-2018 5:37pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

John Judge
Can you answer my questions now?

No, because we have not finished with this topic.
Also you have ignored more of my questions yet again.

So when did John Judge do this interview?
Please link to a transcript.
You keep linking to the Washington Post, but this link does not go to any interview and a google search shows no connection between John Judge and this newspaper.

Again:
The person being interviewed in your picture does not say there were SAM sites at the pentagon on 9/11.
Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

And again:
What other evidence do you have for the existence of the SAM sites beyond this one interview?
Is this one interview the only evidence you have?

Also after reading this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-911-woman-who-was-at-pentagon-remains-skeptical/2011/08/10/gIQAUtQDGK_story.html?utm_term=.6df963972251
April Gallop seems to be of the opinion that there was no plane, something which you have disagreed with...
I guess she's unreliable now?

Cheerful Spring · 18-04-2018 6:27pm

King Mob wrote: »

No, because we have not finished with this topic.
Also you have ignored more of my questions yet again.

So when did John Judge do this interview?
Please link to a transcript.
You keep linking to the Washington Post, but this link does not go to any interview and a google search shows no connection between John Judge and this newspaper.

Again:
The person being interviewed in your picture does not say there were SAM sites at the pentagon on 9/11.
Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

And again:
What other evidence do you have for the existence of the SAM sites beyond this one interview?
Is this one interview the only evidence you have?

Also after reading this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-911-woman-who-was-at-pentagon-remains-skeptical/2011/08/10/gIQAUtQDGK_story.html?utm_term=.6df963972251
April Gallop seems to be of the opinion that there was no plane, something which you have disagreed with...
I guess she's unreliable now?

John Judge interview was 2006 with April Gallop. She was shown the defences around the Pentagon. Have no clue if you find this info online somewhere on a conspiracy site? I have no scanner at home, to upload the information from the book, I got. Strange you can't find him on the internet I can find him no problem typing in his name?

The other interview I can show you. I found it on this site. Now you have a source!
http://georgewashington.blogspot.ie/2006/07/interview-with-april-gallop.html

She does not claim Sam sites are at the Pentagon, we both agree on that. Did she say no anti-air defences functioned and why they were not activated? What is she referring to here? The interviewer did not drill down on what she meant and information like this highly classified anyhow.

Barbara Honegger worked as a researcher at the Hoover Institution before joining the Ronald Reagan administration as a researcher and policy analyst in 1980, said there are anti-air batteries. I don't know who is telling the truth on this I can't say the speculation exists though hard facts maybe not?

Can you answer some of the questions now genuinely curious to know what your position is on that?

Dr. Bre · 18-04-2018 8:42pm

So frustrating there is no image of plane crashing into the pentagon. It adds to the conspiracy

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2018 11:18pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Flight 11 757-200 series had a max speed of 493mph in 2001.

From my first link

"Year:1982 Make:Boeing Model:757 Engine:Rolls-Royce RB211, Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, or PW2043 Top Speed:530 mph"

I have no idea where you get this notion that somehow 757-200 series models "speed up" over time. They didn't make "turbo" editions as far as I am aware

Also the "top speed", as mentioned, is a manufacturer recommended speed. Planes can go higher than this speed, but they risk damage. When flight 77 hit the Pentagon (at 530 mph) one of it's engines was already over-stressed and smoking

The plane was only pushed to max for about 30 seconds (it's not like the plane was flying for hours at max)
https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_AA77.pdf

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-da...ng-757-200/101 even your own link confirms what I said look at the performance part!

This part?

"Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 850km/h (460kt). Range with P&W engines and 186 passengers 5053km (2728nm), with RR engines 4758km (2569nm). Range at optional max takeoff weight with P&W engines 7277km (3929nm), with RR engines 6888km (3719nm). 757-200PF - Speeds same. Range with 22,680kg payload and P&W engines 7195km (3885nm), with RR engines 6857km (3700nm)."

Max cruising speed = 914km/h = 493 knots = 567,933 mph

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2018 11:37pm

Dr. Bre wrote: »

So frustrating there is no image of plane crashing into the pentagon. It adds to the conspiracy

There are a few, but they are bad quality. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference (consider how much high quality footage exists of the airliners hitting the twin towers and the resulting collapse)

It's also not critical to the case

Air traffic control tracked the flight
The flight data recorder survived
Many witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon
Physical wreckage of the plane was found inside and outside the Pentagon
184 of the 189 who died in the attacks were identified forensically (includes passengers and Pentagon workers)

There are no other credible theories.

King Mob · 19-04-2018 12:08am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She does not claim Sam sites are at the Pentagon, we both agree on that.

Ok, so that was a giant waste of time.
Despite what you claimed eariler, she does not support your claim...
Moving on.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Barbara Honegger worked as a researcher at the Hoover Institution before joining the Ronald Reagan administration as a researcher and policy analyst in 1980, said there are anti-air batteries.

Sorry, I don't believe you. I'm not going to take your word for this. You claimed exactly the same thing with April Gallop and that turned out to be a lie. I think this is another lie.

So first please post a link to where this new person claimed there were SAM sites and quote exactly what they said about them.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't know who is telling the truth on this I can't say the speculation exists though hard facts maybe not?

No you said that there was lots of research on this and acted like I was mad for daring to question the idea. You said there was tons of evidence that the pentagon had SAM sites. Now you are moving the goal posts.

Is the only evidence you have these two interviews? (at least one of which one you now admit doesn't confirm what you said it did.)
Do you have anything else more substantial and solid than you misreading random lines from random people?
Anything at all.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Can you answer some of the questions now genuinely curious to know what your position is on that?

No, because we are still discussing this topic.
And again you've dodged a bunch of my questions, so I'm in no rush to answers yours so you can deflect from how this point is crumbling under a basic level of scrutiny.
I will only answer some of your questions on a different topic after you provide some solid, verifiable proof that the Pentagon had Sam sites, or you admit that you cannot do this.

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 12:22am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

From my first link

"Year:1982 Make:Boeing Model:757 Engine:Rolls-Royce RB211, Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, or PW2043 Top Speed:530 mph"

I have no idea where you get this notion that somehow 757-200 series models "speed up" over time. They didn't make "turbo" editions as far as I am aware

Also the "top speed", as mentioned, is a manufacturer recommended speed. Planes can go higher than this speed, but they risk damage. When flight 77 hit the Pentagon (at 530 mph) one of it's engines was already over-stressed and smoking

The plane was only pushed to max for about 30 seconds (it's not like the plane was flying for hours at max)
https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_AA77.pdf

This part?

"Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 850km/h (460kt). Range with P&W engines and 186 passengers 5053km (2728nm), with RR engines 4758km (2569nm). Range at optional max takeoff weight with P&W engines 7277km (3929nm), with RR engines 6888km (3719nm). 757-200PF - Speeds same. Range with 22,680kg payload and P&W engines 7195km (3885nm), with RR engines 6857km (3700nm)."

Max cruising speed = 914km/h = 493 knots = 567,933 mph

Pentagon plane, when dropped down, and levelled off was 430 knots = 529mph. It exceeded the max of the plane by 39mph. This well-established fact even Skeptics accept this.

A 757-200 series in 2001 was 493mph per hour at max.

The plane is not designed to go at those speeds below anyone who says otherwise is full of it.

There is no evidence the plane was smoking who told you that?

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 12:31am

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so that was a giant waste of time.
Despite what you claimed eariler, she does not support your claim...
Moving on.

Sorry, I don't believe you. I'm not going to take your word for this. You claimed exactly the same thing with April Gallop and that turned out to be a lie. I think this is another lie.

So first please post a link to where this new person claimed there were SAM sites and quote exactly what they said about them.

No you said that there was lots of research on this and acted like I was mad for daring to question the idea. You said there was tons of evidence that the pentagon had SAM sites. Now you are moving the goal posts.

Is the only evidence you have these two interviews? (at least one of which one you now admit doesn't confirm what you said it did.)
Do you have anything else more substantial and solid than you misreading random lines from random people?
Anything at all.

No, because we are still discussing this topic.
And again you've dodged a bunch of my questions, so I'm in no rush to answers yours so you can deflect from how this point is crumbling under a basic level of scrutiny.
I will only answer some of your questions on a different topic after you provide some solid, verifiable proof that the Pentagon had Sam sites, or you admit that you cannot do this.

I have replied to every question of yours and have answered not one question I have asked. A one-sided conversation is pointless maybe your better off talking to someone else who agrees with you? I have already addressed the Sam site question. I not expecting answers from you any way I don't think you have any answers reason your delaying.

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 12:53am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There are a few, but they are bad quality. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference (consider how much high quality footage exists of the airliners hitting the twin towers and the resulting collapse)

It's also not critical to the case
Air traffic control tracked the flight

The flight data recorder survived

Many witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon

Physical wreckage of the plane was found inside and outside the Pentagon

184 of the 189 who died in the attacks were identified forensically (includes passengers and Pentagon workers)

There are no other credible theories.

Air Traffic tracked the flight: false the plane was off radar for 45 minutes it essentially went dark till a blip reappeared flying over Washington (a fact not a conspiracy theory)

Flight Data Recorder survived: was found allegedly but was useless no information was retrieved from it.

Many Witnesses saw the plane hit: this is false also, who was standing watching a plane hit the Pentagon? Eyewitnesses accounts can change based on what they are hearing during the day. Many Eyewitnesses reported a small plane, a small jet, a fighter jet, a military drone who do you believe?

The physical wreckage was found: but that does not mean the wreckage found belonged to Flight 77? An object obviously did strike the building. Where's the security footage and freeway footage tapes? This would clear this up for good.

184 of 189 people were identified: False people were burned to ashes and they found a few bones at most inside the Pentagon, belonging to people. I don't think anyone could be identified on board flight 77?

King Mob · 19-04-2018 12:58am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have replied to every question of yours..

Lol. Nope, that's a lie.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have already addressed the Sam site question.

And another.
You have not supported your claim.

You said you had, then backtracked at the barest level of scrutiny.
You claimed that April Gallop said that there were SAM sites. This turned out to be a lie.
You now claim some one else entirely said there were SAM sites. But you have not provided a link to where they said this. I suspect that this is another lie.

I have also asked you to provide something more substantial than incorrect quotes from random interviews. You claimed there was more evidence because there was lots of research on the topic. This seems to have been a lie as well. You have no other evidence.

So far when you are pinned to one topic you lie, dodge questions and straight up reinvent reality to avoid admitting that maybe you were wrong.

Why would I want to answer a bunch of random questions from you when that's how you will respond?

If you provide some proof for you claim, I will answer some different questions.
Or if you just come clean and admit your claim is unsupported then we can continue.

Otherwise, we're done. I'll just continue to point our your lies, false claims and misinterpretations and just how silly the conspiracy theory is.

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 1:03am

19 hijackers boarded 4 planes at different airports yet we have only got 1 video of 4 hijackers at Dulles boarding a flight. This could easily be a dummy run prior to 9/11 at the same airport?

Where is the rest of the footage showing 15 hijackers boarding flights?

The Atta video is irrelevant because it only shows him with one other guy at an airport in Maine, not the airport the took off from and where they hijacked the plane.

Dohnjoe · 19-04-2018 1:14am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A 757-200 series in 2001 was 493mph per hour at max.

According to one link you've provided (which could easily be a mistake)

I've already provided sources - here are more

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_7572_en.php
Speed 982 km/h 530 kts
610 mph
Mach 0.8 = approx 613 mph
Production Range 1982-2005

The Boeing site itself gives mach 0.8
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/historical/757_passenger.pdf

Boeing 757-200 and 757-300 can fly at a maximum cruise speed of 980km/h.
https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing757/

580 mph (935 km/h)
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/

Cruising speed:
876 km/h (544 mph)
https://www.icelandair.com/about/our-fleet/boeing-757-200/

Cruise speed of 570mph
http://www.titan-airways.com/fleet/boeing-757-200-standard-class.html

Planes can exceed these speeds (it's just unwise to do so as the plane can start to suffer structural and engine damage

e.g. this plane exceed it's mach limit in a period of approx a minute and then recovered
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979)
(Full doc here for anyone interested - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=JYHfrk6EVHU)

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 1:17am

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. Nope, that's a lie.

And another.
You have not supported your claim.

You said you had, then backtracked at the barest level of scrutiny.
You claimed that April Gallop said that there were SAM sites. This turned out to be a lie.
You now claim some one else entirely said there were SAM sites. But you have not provided a link to where they said this. I suspect that this is another lie.

I have also asked you to provide something more substantial than incorrect quotes from random interviews. You claimed there was more evidence because there was lots of research on the topic. This seems to have been a lie as well. You have no other evidence.

So far when you are pinned to one topic you lie, dodge questions and straight up reinvent reality to avoid admitting that maybe you were wrong.

Why would I want to answer a bunch of random questions from you when that's how you will respond?

If you provide some proof for you claim, I will answer some different questions.
Or if you just come clean and admit your claim is unsupported then we can continue.

Otherwise, we're done. I'll just continue to point our your lies, false claims and misinterpretations and just how silly the conspiracy theory is.

She talked about anti-air defences were available on 9/11. What are anti-air defences (missile batteries and attack aircraft) I already told she was quoted saying she was given a tour of the Pentagon and shown the defences? What defences at the Pentagon what do you think she talking about? Barbara Honegger worked in the White House (have you?) she said there was anti-air defence in place on 9/11. It was reported by the Telegraph the Secret service had stinger missiles to protect the white house on 9/11. If you don't believe this why don't you contact those people by email and ask for information about it? I quoting these people who were in positions to know about this.

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 1:24am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to one link you've provided (which could easily be a mistake)

I've already provided sources - here are more

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_7572_en.php
Speed 982 km/h 530 kts
610 mph
Mach 0.8 = approx 613 mph
Production Range 1982-2005

The Boeing site itself gives mach 0.8
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/historical/757_passenger.pdf

Boeing 757-200 and 757-300 can fly at a maximum cruise speed of 980km/h.
https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing757/

580 mph (935 km/h)
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/

Cruising speed:
876 km/h (544 mph)
https://www.icelandair.com/about/our-fleet/boeing-757-200/

Cruise speed of 570mph
http://www.titan-airways.com/fleet/boeing-757-200-standard-class.html

Planes can exceed these speeds (it's just unwise to do so as the plane can start to suffer structural and engine damage

e.g. this plane exceed it's mach limit in a period of approx a minute and then recovered
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979)
(Full doc here for anyone interested - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=JYHfrk6EVHU)

It not a mistake, that link I provided is the specification for that type of plane in 2001. Did you not notice the picture resembles Flight 77? Has the same engine size? 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. I don't mind if I am wrong, but all your links are showing newer models of 757 after 2001 planes go faster as technology develops.

King Mob · 19-04-2018 1:43am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

She talked about anti-air defences were available on 9/11. What are anti-air defences (missile batteries and attack aircraft)

You claimed she said there were SAM sites.
She did not say anything about SAM sites.

She does not support your claim.

Also, she seems to believe that no plane was present at the Pentagon, contradicting your earlier claim. Should we not believe her when she says this?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Barbara Honegger worked in the White House (have you?) she said there was anti-air defence in place on 9/11.

What did she say and where did she say it? Please provide a link to where you are getting this information and then quote her directly when she refers to SAM sites.
You claimed this for April Gallop as well, but that turned out to be a big fat lie, so you are going to have to provide a source.

I will not just take your word for it.

Please assume from now on that if you are going to claim some one said something, I will ask you to show where they said this and to show exactly what they said.
It would save a lot of effort if you extend some basic courtesy and provide references to what you are claiming.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It was reported by the Telegraph the Secret service had stinger missiles to protect the white house on 9/11.

Link please.
Also irrelevant to your claim about SAM sites being present at the Pentagon.

Also again you have ignored the question: what evidence do you have beyond random lines from random interviews?
At these two pieces all you have?
If you ignore the question again I will assume this means that you have no other evidence.

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 1:49am

This here is why the truthers doubt a plane hit the building. When the plane hit pretty much vapourised in a fireball, but something blew through 3 rings of reinforced concrete and blew out a massive hole in the wall in C ring. Remember the nose, wings and shell of the plane are gone once the plane hits the wall.

You see from this photogaph the damage at the front.

Dohnjoe · 19-04-2018 1:50am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Air Traffic tracked the flight: false the plane was off radar for 45 minutes it essentially went dark till a blip reappeared flying over Washington

Didn't mention it was tracked the entire time, the hijackers turned off the transponder. There is also a diff between ATC tracking and radar tracking
http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Losing_Flight_77#Tracked_or_not_tracked

"While FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off, this information was not available to controllers at Indianapolis Center, for technical reasons. The result was that Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around and head back toward Washington. The plane traveled undetected for 36 minutes."
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1962742

Flight Data Recorder survived: was found allegedly but was useless no information was retrieved from it.

The cockpit voice recorder was found but the data was destroyed. The flight data recorder was found and the data was recovered
https://web.archive.org/web/20121010093205/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/AAL77_fdr.pdf

The data survived

Many Witnesses saw the plane hit: this is false also

Semantics and wordplay raises it's ugly head. The overwhelming majority of witnesses saw/heard an airplane
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.pdf

The physical wreckage was found: but that does not mean the wreckage found belonged to Flight 77?

A google image search shows the wreckage

184 of 189 people were identified: False people were burned to ashes and they found a few bones at most inside the Pentagon, belonging to people. I don't think anyone could be identified on board flight 77?

184 people were identified

"What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology played a major role in Operation Nobel Eagle investigations, officials said. AFIP is an executive agency of the Army surgeon general.

Many of the Pentagon casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital; the rest were killed on site. For some victims, only pieces of tissue could be found.

AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for more than two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Md., to identify victims of the attack."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/afip_pentvictimid.htm

Dohnjoe · 19-04-2018 1:58am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not a mistake, that link I provided is the specification for that type of plane in 2001.

Plane was built in 1991. Provide sources to back up your claim.

I have provided multiple sources to the max speed of the 757 200 series (covering the different engines)

planes go faster as technology develops.

The 757 200 series sped up? back this claim up thanks

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 1:59am

King Mob wrote: »

You claimed she said there were SAM sites.
She did not say anything about SAM sites.

She does not support your claim.

Also, she seems to believe that no plane was present at the Pentagon, contradicting your earlier claim. Should we not believe her when she says this?

What did she say and where did she say it? Please provide a link to where you are getting this information and then quote her directly when she refers to SAM sites.
You claimed this for April Gallop as well, but that turned out to be a big fat lie, so you are going to have to provide a source.

I will not just take your word for it.

Please assume from now on that if you are going to claim some one said something, I will ask you to show where they said this and to show exactly what they said.
It would save a lot of effort if you extend some basic courtesy and provide references to what you are claiming.

Link please.
Also irrelevant to your claim about SAM sites being present at the Pentagon.

Also again you have ignored the question: what evidence do you have beyond random lines from random interviews?
At these two pieces all you have?
If you ignore the question again I will assume this means that you have no other evidence.

I have provided links and sources and images. I just going to move on from this silly back and forth with you. You can't even answer one questioned I asked but you expect me to be a lap dog for you not happening best we don't talk anymore. I continue a real debate with Dohnjoe, he is least trying to have a real debate on this subject.

King Mob · 19-04-2018 2:10am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have provided links and sources and images.

This is a lie.
You have not provided any sources for anything.
The one time you did, it showed that you were telling fibs about what the person said.
Now again you are reinventing reality.

Where have you provided a link to Barbara Honeggers quote?
Why not just post it so we can move on.

Notice how easily dohnjoe is able to back up his claims by just posting a link?

Also you've dodged the question again, so it's clear that you have exactly zero evidence that there were SAM sites at the Pentagon.

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 2:13am

King Mob wrote: »

This is a lie.
You have not provided any sources for anything.
The one time you did, it showed that you were telling fibs about what the person said.
Now again you are reinventing reality.

Where have you provided a link to Barbara Honeggers quote?
Why not just post it so we can move on.

Notice how easily dohnjoe is able to back up his claims by just posting a link?

Also you've dodged the question again, so it's clear that you have exactly zero evidence that there were SAM sites at the Pentagon.

Thing invented by people called the internet use it to find that quote:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring · 19-04-2018 2:19am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Didn't mention it was tracked the entire time, the hijackers turned off the transponder. There is also a diff between ATC tracking and radar tracking
http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Losing_Flight_77#Tracked_or_not_tracked

"While FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off, this information was not available to controllers at Indianapolis Center, for technical reasons. The result was that Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around and head back toward Washington. The plane traveled undetected for 36 minutes."
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1962742

The cockpit voice recorder was found but the data was destroyed. The flight data recorder was found and the data was recovered
https://web.archive.org/web/20121010093205/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/AAL77_fdr.pdf

The data survived

Semantics and wordplay raises it's ugly head. The overwhelming majority of witnesses saw/heard an airplane
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.pdf

A google image search shows the wreckage

184 people were identified

"What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology played a major role in Operation Nobel Eagle investigations, officials said. AFIP is an executive agency of the Army surgeon general.

Many of the Pentagon casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital; the rest were killed on site. For some victims, only pieces of tissue could be found.

AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for more than two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Md., to identify victims of the attack."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/afip_pentvictimid.htm

It was 38 minutes they lost contact at 8.50am and reappeared again at 9.32, as a primary target over Washington. We both agree at least, the plane whereabouts was not known for a considerable period of time. In my view, the plane could have flown off to other destination.

Flight Data recorder data was manipulated I will address that tomorrow in another post too late now for the long-winded post it's bedtime. I will address all your information tomorrow when I have more time to post.

Was 42 minutes just an edit on that point.

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

Comments