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

mickdw · 26-09-2018 5:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

Sure.

Ok well at least we are getting somewhere

King Mob wrote: »

Assuming that it was pointing in the right direction.
The operative word being "Assuming."

Ok, but its not an outlandish assumption.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, it's possible. But it's also just as possible, probably more possible that the cameras weren't in the right position with the right frame rates and the right resolution.

Really, we wouldn't need excellent frame rate, resolution and positioning. Probably one of those being 'good' would result in footage of the plane.
So crap camera pointing in the direction of travel would result in footage of plane.
High frame rate across the flight path would result in footage of plane
High resolution from a distant business pointing generally towards the pentagon would result in footage of the plane.

King Mob wrote: »

Possible is very, very far from "must."

I will give you that

King Mob wrote: »

Sure. But again, this doesn't help the conspiracy at all though.
The conspiracy theorists are claiming that it does, as the only possible explanation for that is the government used a missile or some such and are trying to hide that.

Do you think that claim is reasonable, or worth entertaining?

My points have been in relation to lack of footage and my belief that additional footage would be very likely to exist.
I did originally find it very suspicious that no footage was available and entertained the idea of a missile for that very reason. The multiple eye witness accounts seem to put the idea of a missile hitting to bed so Im talking only about lack of footage and my belief that more footage is very likely to exist.
If multiple eye witnesses saw a plane hitting the pentagon, then im happy with that. I am not however happy to accept that no further footage of the plane exists todays. In the fullness of time, Im sure we will see many more images of the plane.

We seem to be in agreement that there is possibly additional footage that government have chosen to keep for public release.

King Mob · 26-09-2018 11:58pm

Yup, bit I would say possible, but not probable as I can't see, nor can anyone seemingly provide a reason why they would withhold clearer footage than they have already released.

Cheerful Spring · 10-02-2019 5:18pm

Interesting new thread on the Let's roll forums.

A poster has introduced new evidence Lloyd Taxi cab was moved to the bridge where the light poles were knocked down. The only issue with this new theory is the security video, not overly clear. But you can definitely see cars and tow truck parked near the cemetery wall. This a good distance from where the Taxi cab was photographed on the bridge later.

Some new conspirators also observed and picked out. One of them is pictured walking with Rumsfield later in the day.

It fits where Lloyd said he was at the time and were the eyewitnesses saw the plane (northside)

It new evidence, but not 100 per cent verification yet.

http://letsrollforums.com//lloyde-england-vindicated-new-t32464.html

Dohnjoe · 11-02-2019 1:28pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Interesting new thread on the Let's roll forums.

A poster has introduced new evidence

They are 911 truthers posting in a 911 truther echo chamber. They are preying on some old witness who doesn't remember being there despite being there (obviously has dementia).

Cheerful Spring · 11-02-2019 1:53pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They are 911 truthers posting in a 911 truther echo chamber. They are preying on some old witness who doesn't remember being there despite being there (obviously has dementia).

If you had read the thread, you notice the poster attacked the CIT guys for criticizing Lloyd.

It interesting info. We did know before now how they moved the car from the cemetery wall (north side) to the bridge at the Southside.

Now we do. What they did was close down the road, both sides. Got a tow truck, put the Taxi on it and moved it to this area. And then photographs were taken of the cab on the bridge near the lamp posts.

He got security footage of the tow truck and Lloyd Taxi at the Cemetery wall. near the Exit sign on the Northside. Lloyd was confused because the incident occurred at the Cemetery wall, not on the bridge.

That why Lloyd let out when he thought the camera was off we came across the highway together.

Dohnjoe · 11-02-2019 2:01pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It interesting info. We did know before now how they moved the car from the cemetery wall (north side) to the bridge at the Southside.

Now we do. What they did was close down the road, both sides. Got a tow truck, put the Taxi on it and moved it to this area. And then photographs were taken of the cab on the bridge near the lamp posts.

He got security footage of the tow truck and Lloyd Taxi at the Cemetery wall. near the Exit sign on the Northside. Lloyd was confused because the incident occurred at the Cemetery wall, not on the bridge.

That why Lloyd let out when he thought the camera was off we came across the highway together.

Nope its a bunch of people stitching random crap together to make it look like something nefarious happened on a forum for 911 theories, chemtrails, HAARP and other assorted nonsense

Cheerful Spring · 11-02-2019 2:08pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope its a bunch of people stitching random crap together to make it look like something nefarious happened on a forum for 911 theories, chemtrails, HAARP and other assorted nonsense

If you took the time to watch the CIT video, Lloyd told him where exactly the incident happened. It happened at the Cemetery wall.

Pentagon cops and multiple eyewitnesses saw a large plane coming in also from the northside.

The official account of a plane striking the Pentagon from the Southside is wrong.

The Nal · 11-02-2019 2:49pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The official account of a plane striking the Pentagon from the Southside is wrong.

lol.

What about all the witnesses? Over a 100 people saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Half a dozen where nearly hit by the plane.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Pentagon cops and multiple eyewitnesses saw a large plane coming in also from the northside.

Who are they?

Cheerful Spring · 11-02-2019 3:27pm

The Nal wrote: »

lol.

What about all the witnesses? Over a 100 people saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Half a dozen where nearly hit by the plane.

Who are they?

100 witnesses saw the plane hit is not true. Eyewitnesses saw a plane maybe two planes in the near vicinity of the Pentagon.

Where it's confusing the eyewitnesses claim the plane hit the Pentagon coming in from the Northeast. The official version is flight 77 hit the Pentagon at an angle coming in from the South West.

Was it a decoy plane- no passengers or real plane with passengers that hit the Pentagon?

CIT interviewed them on Youtube. They were asked where the plane came in and they all pointed to the north. There definitely something fishy about the official account. The plane was supposedly coming in over 500mph an hour near ground level ( beyond max speed for the plane) about 10 to 20 feet off the grass. If there was a car on the road the jet wash alone would have sent things hurling everywhere, car windows would break.

There not enough information to truly prove a conspiracy at the Pentagon.

WTC7 you can show there was a cover-up there.

Some of the eyewitnesses interviewed the 20-minute mark.

The Nal · 11-02-2019 3:51pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

100 witnesses saw the plane hit is not true.

You're right, its actually 104 people. They all must be mistaken or in on it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was it a decoy plane- no passengers or real plane with passengers that hit the Pentagon?

What happened to the real Flight 77, passengers and crew then?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Some of the eyewitnesses interviewed the 20-minute mark.

Terrible

banie01 · 11-02-2019 7:59pm

The Nal wrote: »

You're right, its actually 104 people. They all must be mistaken or in on it.

What happened to the real Flight 77, passengers and crew then?

Terrible

One of Cheerfuls more hilarious moments regarding the pentagon impact was that it was actually an A3 Skywarrior that hit the Pentagon via a different flightpath.
Clearly he's right and all the witnesses are subject to either being members of the conspiracy or a mandala effect!

Dohnjoe · 11-02-2019 10:43pm

banie01 wrote: »

One of Cheerfuls more hilarious moments regarding the pentagon impact was that it was actually an A3 Skywarrior that hit the Pentagon via a different flightpath.
Clearly he's right and all the witnesses are subject to either being members of the conspiracy or a mandala effect!

Look it doesn't matter if it was a missile, a jet, a different airliner, an airliner from a different angle, an airliner which pulled up at the last second as a fake explosion went off - it just has to be a conspiracy

The Nal · 12-02-2019 10:18am

banie01 wrote: »

One of Cheerfuls more hilarious moments regarding the pentagon impact was that it was actually an A3 Skywarrior that hit the Pentagon via a different flightpath.
Clearly he's right and all the witnesses are subject to either being members of the conspiracy or a mandala effect!

My favourite theory is that Flight 77 was diverted elsewhere and they were all either killed when they landed or put into some sort of witness protection type program.

Cheerful Spring · 12-02-2019 2:36pm

banie01 wrote: »

Clearly he's right and all the witnesses are subject to either being members of the conspiracy or a mandala effect!

Not true. I not certain about what happened at the Pentagon. I open it was Flight 77 that crashed at the Pentagon. There was a plane seen there no doubt about that.

Was it really Hani Hanjour flying the plane? One instructor in the summer of 2001 took Hani up gave him the Cessna plane to fly and he not could control or handle it. Yet they believe this same guy was controlling a heavy Boeing aircraft low to the ground at 400mph and 500mph.

The lack of security footage is troubling, to say the least. The roofline where the plane crashed had three cameras. Are really going to believe they ran out of tape on 9/11. What about freeway/highway cameras no tape either? It doesn't add up.

I think something else hit or bomb went off inside the Pentagon before the plane hit. All the clocks found stopped at exactly 9.31am, 6 minutes before flight 77 is alleged to have smashed against the west wall of the Pentagon.

King Mob · 12-02-2019 2:52pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I think something else hit or bomb went off inside the Pentagon before the plane hit.

Again, to destroy paperwork in the Pentagon.
Which they couldn't just shred.
Cause that would be too noticeable.

Also, lol. Now you are going back to the insane idea that "something else" hit the Pentagon.

You are the perfect example of conspiracy thinking. You are the paragon we will all point to...

Cheerful Spring · 12-02-2019 3:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

Again, to destroy paperwork in the Pentagon.
Which they couldn't just shred.
Cause that would be too noticeable.

Also, lol. Now you are going back to the insane idea that "something else" hit the Pentagon.

You are the perfect example of conspiracy thinking. You are the paragon we will all point to...

If the hijacked the plane, then it crashed at the Pentagon. I don't think it was flown somewhere else and passengers were killed.

Plus it was an aircraft belonging to American airlines, it was registered and one of the planes in their inventory. It obviously went missing on 9/11.

Even if Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. It does explain everything. We know the Pentagon is one of most protected buildings in the world. And that plane was up in the air flying around for over 45 minutes after it was known it was hijacked. Are you that naive to believe they could get one fighter jet up to intercept it? God help them if the Russians attacked them.

Why did the Hani Hanjour not just drop the plane on top of the building? He would have killed more killed more people. He attacks the Pentagon at an area where construction was happening, fewer people working there. It was no Al Qaeda terrorist who piloted the plane.

Yes, I believe it because three clocks pulled from the wreckage all stopped around 9.31am. It is weird if Pentagon staff were settings the clocks 6 minutes behind the real time? I firmly believe something else happened at the Pentagon and that's the reason there no clear security footage. The security tape they released had no time stamp (most importantly) and date. We could be looking at 9.31am explosion inside the building if all we know?

King Mob · 12-02-2019 3:16pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If the hijacked the plane, then it crashed at the Pentagon. I don't think it was flown somewhere else and passengers were killed.

Plus it was an aircraft belonging to American airlines, it was registered and one of the planes in their inventory. It obviously went missing on 9/11.

Even if Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. It does explain everything. We know the Pentagon is one of most protected buildings in the world. And that plane was up in the air flying around for over 45 minutes after it was known it was hijacked. Are you that naive to believe they could get one fighter jet up to intercept it? God help them if the Russians attacked them.

Why did the Hani Hanjour not just drop the plane on top of the building? He would have killed more killed more people. He attacks the Pentagon at an area where construction was happening, fewer people working there. It was no Al Qaeda terrorist who piloted the plane.

Yes, I believe it because three clocks pulled from the wreckage all stopped around 9.31am. It is weird if Pentagon staff were settings the clocks 6 minutes behind the real time? I firmly believe something else happened at the Pentagon and that's the reason there no clear security footage. The security tape they released had no time stamp (most importantly) and date. We could be looking at 9.31am explosion inside the building if all we know?

Lol and then when faced with how utterly silly your own theory is, you spew out more debunked conspiracy cliches.

Again, a shining beacon for what conspiracy theorists everywhere strive for.

Cheerful Spring · 12-02-2019 3:21pm

King Mob wrote: »

Lol and then when faced with how utterly silly your own theory is, you spew out more debunked conspiracy cliches.

Again, a shining beacon for what conspiracy theorists everywhere strive for.

Hani did a midair loop in the sky to get around to that area. He could have easily just dropped the plane on the roof hundreds would be killed. The pilot went exactly for the spot that had fewer people working there. Plus they picked the day when America was holding military drills across the country, secret info by the way.. It obvious this was a false flag.

King Mob · 12-02-2019 3:36pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Hani did a midair loop in the sky to get around to that area. He could have easily just dropped the plane on the roof hundreds would be killed. The pilot went exactly for the spot that had fewer people working there. Plus they picked the day when America was holding military drills across the country, secret info by the way.. It obvious this was a false flag.

Like a broken record...

12-02-2019 3:47pm

King Mob wrote: »

Like a broken record...

pot...kettle

King Mob · 12-02-2019 3:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

pot...kettle

Do you believe cheerful's theory that the plane or "something else" was crashed into the Pentagon for the purposes of destroying paperwork since shredding said paperwork would attract too much attention?

Do you have any opinion on the conspiracy theory presented on the thread at all or just here for a drive by comment?

Cheerful Spring · 12-02-2019 4:03pm

King Mob wrote: »

Do you believe cheerful's theory that the plane or "something else" was crashed into the Pentagon for the purposes of destroying paperwork since shredding said paperwork would attract too much attention?

Do you have any opinion on the conspiracy theory presented on the thread at all or just here for a drive by comment?

:pac: Does he have to have an opinion about 9/11? He just highlighting you're are broken record also. Accept who you are;)

12-02-2019 4:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

Do you believe cheerful's theory that the plane or "something else" was crashed into the Pentagon for the purposes of destroying paperwork since shredding said paperwork would attract too much attention?

Do you have any opinion on the conspiracy theory presented on the thread at all or just here for a drive by comment?

I find it possible and think that it is more plausible than there being no clear and definite footage of the plane crashing into one of the most secure buildings that exists.

King Mob · 12-02-2019 4:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it possible and think that it is more plausible than there being no clear and definite footage of the plane crashing into one of the most secure buildings that exists.

So you think it's possible that to destroy paper work, in the Pentagon, the only possible way to do it was to have a secret explosion followed by a plane crash?

That is a reasonable explanation to you?

12-02-2019 4:16pm

King Mob wrote: »

So you think it's possible that to destroy paper work, in the Pentagon, the only possible way to do it was to have a secret explosion followed by a plane crash?

That is a reasonable explanation to you?

No, but I think that it is could have been a happy consequence of a false flag for other reasons.

Not saying that it was, but also would not absolutely rule it out.

King Mob · 12-02-2019 4:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

No,

So then you disagree with Cheerful Spring's conspiracy theory.

Do you believe that the conspirators paid off some random taxi driver to lie about what he saw on the day?
Do you believe that is a reasonable theory?

Deleted User wrote: »

but I think that it is could have been a happy consequence of a false flag for other reasons.

Not saying that it was, but also would not absolutely rule it out.

So then, why exactly did they not release the video of the plane hitting the video?
If it's not possible for the real explanation to be true, what's the alternative?

Cheerful Spring · 12-02-2019 4:29pm

King Mob wrote: »

So you think it's possible that to destroy paper work, in the Pentagon, the only possible way to do it was to have a secret explosion followed by a plane crash?

That is a reasonable explanation to you?

It's possible because the plane is made of aluminium. Have you ever seen a bird strike against a plane? The aluminium deforms and bends. By the way its the kinetic energy that does the damage, not the plane itself. We know the west wall of the Pentagon had been upgraded with reinforced concrete to resist a terrorist attack (car bombs and truck bombs and plane strikes)

The blast penetrated three different wedges in the Pentagon wall and took out multiple floors. Plus the conspirators needed a military target to convince the world they are under attack and prepare their people for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

12-02-2019 4:46pm

King Mob wrote: »

So then you disagree with Cheerful Spring's conspiracy theory.

No. The way you phrased the question was asking if I thought that an explosion followed by a plane crash was the only way to destroy paperwork. I don't think that was the only way.

I neither agree or disagree with Cheerful's theory. But I do like hearing them. That's why I come to conspiracy theory forums.

I don't believe in the teachings of the catholic church but I wouldn't go on the Christianity forum to berate people for having opinions that they can't back up conclusively.

I just think you are being unnecessarily confrontational. I would hate an echo chamber and absolutely encourage debate from both sides but there is a way of disagreeing without coming across as a pedant or looking to insult someone.

King Mob · 12-02-2019 4:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

No. The way you phrased the question was asking if I thought that an explosion followed by a plane crash was the only way to destroy paperwork. I don't think that was the only way.

Ok then.
In that cause you are saying that the idea of people opting to use secret explosives followed by a fake plane crash instead of say a paper shredder is a reasonable explanation for events.
Because that is Cheerful's theory.

If you think it's not reasonable, then you don't believe cheerful's theory.
If you think it is reasonable, then you should at least try to understand why no one takes conspiracy theories and theorists seriously.

Deleted User wrote: »

I neither agree or disagree with Cheerful's theory. But I do like hearing them. That's why I come to conspiracy theory forums.

That's a cop out answer tbh.

Deleted User wrote: »

I just think you are being unnecessarily confrontational. I would hate an echo chamber and absolutely encourage debate from both sides but there is a way of disagreeing without coming across as a pedant or looking to insult someone.

Sure. But you are butting into a debate that has been going on for dozens of pages. And I use "debate" loosely. Had you been reading any thread in which cheerful posts, you would see that word doesn't really apply.

Was there anything confrontational about the very simple and direct questions I asked you?
If you would like, then maybe we can have a discussion about the topic at hand.
It can begin by going back and answering those questions in a direct and honest way.

If not, maybe heed your own posts and not post something like:
"Pot, kettle"

mikekerry · 12-02-2019 5:14pm

He is not "butting into a debate " , he is allowed put up posts in the forum.
that's what a forum is for.
you are always on the attack!

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

Comments