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

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

This forum is nuts. So confrontational.

Because people believe this made-up conspiracy stuff. Which is all harmless until it isn't. The Tsarnaev brothers who killed people at the Boston marathon believed in 911 conspiracy theories. So whether it's anti-vax loons helping eradicated diseases make a come back or people harassing victims of attacks.. none of this should be left unchallenged.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

Okay. I will reject the missile idea. As I said I was only thinking aloud as I figured things didn't add up.

Now. So can we come around to the aircraft flight path and the downed poles.
The data log is there for all to see. I see the argument re inaccuracies etc but I'm certainly not buying that. The eye witness accounts and the flight data match and amazingly the so called faulty data positions the aircraft 100 percent correctly at the Pentagon.
Now, which is logical - the multiple accounts of people on the ground together with the flight data or the argument that puts the plane somewhere else entirely?

But again, we run into a plot hole for the conspiracy.

Why would they say the plane came from a different direction?
Why would they half ass trying to fake evidence for that when that makes it obvious it's a conspiracy?
Why not just say the plane came from whatever direction it supposedly did.

There is no benefit for trying to say it came from a different direction than it did. There is no reason to do so and it only exposes the conspiracy.

Can you think of a single possible sensible reason for them to do this?
If not, why then entertain a conspiracy explanation when it can't explain anything?

Further, why would they release the flight data when it proves there's a conspiracy?
Why not fake it, alter it or just make it vanish?
If it was a conspiracy, the last thing they'd do would be to hand out this data cause people asked for it.
Again, a major plot hole in the conspiracy that you are totally fine with...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Why would they say the plane came from a different direction?

Exactly why did the place the plane South Westbound? Let us speculate why?

We have four different sources now the plane hit the building from NE direction

Eyewitnesses saw the plane NE
FAA animation has the plane located NE
Gopher 6 pilot saw the plane NE
NTSB animation has the plane located NE

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Exactly why did the place the plane South Westbound? Let us speculate why?

This doesn't answer any of the questions

If a plane is going to hit the Pentagon, why would they fake that it comes from a slightly different direction?

What benefit is it to them to claim it came from a slightly different direction?

Same end product

Even when you personally choose to go with the "easiest" conspiracy to defend, it still makes no sense. It's like trying really hard to make a conspiracy out of something just for the sake of trying to make a conspiracy

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Exactly why did the place the plane South Westbound? Let us speculate why?

Yes, I'm still looking for an answer.
It makes no sense.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This doesn't answer any of the questions

If a plane is going to hit the Pentagon, why would they fake that it comes from a slightly different direction?

What benefit is it to them to claim it came from a slightly different direction?

Same end product

Even when you personally choose to go with the "easiest" conspiracy to defend, it still makes no sense. It's like trying really hard to make a conspiracy out of something just for the sake of trying to make a conspiracy

Is my hypothesis there had to be another event besides the plane crashing? So there trying to cover up another event inside the building? What they could be covering up is an inside job. Construction looking people came in and rigged the columns, wedges, walls to explode on 9/11?

The bomb damage had to be explained away by a plane heading in that other direction? Could C hole be a hollow charge blast?

I don't see how the US government can claim the plane was heading South West when the animation from FAA and NTSB has the plane North East of the Pentagon.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Is my hypothesis there had to be another event besides the plane crashing?

Or maybe there was aliens in there!?!

Either way, doesn't explain why they would claim the plan would come from a different direction.

Also your specific argument doesn't work as you've claimed that the damage could only possibly be caused from a plane heading in the government's claimed direction. (This being after you claimed for a fact that it couldn't be caused by a 757.)
And again, it's a contradiction because the only reason you are aware of this supposed cover up is because they tried to cover it up.

Likewise, there's no reason why they would need or want to plant bombs in the building. They could just fly a plane into it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Or maybe there was aliens in there!?!

Either way, doesn't explain why they would claim the plan would come from a different direction.

Yes, it does because a plane going straight in will travel a different path inside the Pentagon. The path is different if came in at an angle from SW it takes out different Pentagon offices there.

What your theory so. Are FAA and NTSB releasing fraudulent data? Where the eyewitnesses blind and mistaken they saw a plane heading NE. Was Gopher 6 (military transport plane) did the pilot make a mistake too?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, it does because a plane going straight in will travel a different path inside the Pentagon. The path is different if came in at an angle from SW it takes out different Pentagon offices there.

So then even your random made up fantasy version doesn't work as an explanation.

If the damage showed it came from the government's direction, then you might have a point, but then it would be evidence against the plane coming from your direction.
And this can't be the case cause you argued that the damage could only possibly be caused by a 757 coming from your direction. (again, after you were 100% sure it was impossible a 757 could cause the damage at all.)

If the damage came from the direction you think it did, you're back to square one because there'd be no reason for the government to contradict that.

And this is before we come to the fact that this new conspiracy theory in a conspiracy theory is completely imaginary and without evidence.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So then even your random made up fantasy version doesn't work as an explanation.

If the damage showed it came from the government's direction, then you might have a point, but then it would be evidence against the plane coming from your direction.
And this can't be the case cause you argued that the damage could only possibly be caused by a 757 coming from your direction. (again, after you were 100% sure it was impossible a 757 could cause the damage at all.)

If the damage came from the direction you think it did, you're back to square one because there'd be no reason for the government to contradict that.

And this is before we come to the fact that this new conspiracy theory in a conspiracy theory is completely imaginary and without evidence.

I love how you just sidestep my questions again. Theories evolve would you prefer I just said a different plane crashed into the Pentagon, would that make you feel better?

Tell me why the NTSB and FAA animations are wrong? Give me your best answer

Why are all the witnesses wrong, give me your best answer

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I love how you just sidestep my questions again.

So you have no explanation for why the government would claim the plane would come from a different direction.

It's a massive plot hole in your conspiracy theory that you just ignore.

Cheerful Spring

Listen to the two Pentagon police officers and the talk about where the plane was.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So you have no explanation for why the government would claim the plane would come from a different direction.

It's a massive plot hole in your conspiracy theory that you just ignore.

What your explanation then? If the plane did not hit 5 light poles they knocked them down for some reason? Has to be another event.


Let us not forget the clocks stopped at 9.31am 6 minutes before the plane hit and some eyewitnesses reported a blast at 9.31am and the Pentagon security tape the timestamp and date were removed. There lot of suspicious activity.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What your explanation then?

Why would I need to give one when there's no viable alternative?
Even if all of your claims were true and accurate and held up, then that wouldn't prove anything. The conspiracy would be nonsensical and the official story would be the only viable explanation.

Why would I give one when it won't convince you. You still cling onto the conspiracy even though it doesn't make sense and doesn't actually explain anything.
You don't believe the conspiracy for rational reasons, otherwise you'd reject it entirely like you do with the official story.

You just prefer the conspiracy theory. I can't change that and it's not worth the effort to try.
You won't even admit how nonsensical it is when it staring you in the face.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Let us not forget the clocks stopped at 9.31am 6 minutes before the plane hit and some eyewitnesses reported a blast at 9.31am and the Pentagon security tape the timestamp and date were removed. There lot of suspicious activity.

But then they forgot to take care of that pesky flight data. Whoopies.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Is my hypothesis there had to be another event besides the plane crashing? So there trying to cover up another event inside the building? What they could be covering up is an inside job. Construction looking people came in and rigged the columns, wedges, walls to explode on 9/11?

Now you're conjuring up a conspiracy out of thin air to try to explain a conspiracy

mickdw

So let me get this straight.
People believe that the eyewitness reports on the day are wrong and also believe that the flight data log is riddled with errors. . Both possible individually I guess.
Now when you put them together and see the the eye witnesses put the plane on the exact track as shown by the flight data log, the only logical conclusion is that the flight data and witnesses on the day are accurate.
I'm expecting the response querying why why why but for once maybe someone would acknowledge that all the concrete evidence placing the aircraft away from the downed light pole is at least suspicious and at worst, a complete cover up.

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

The FDR recorded flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However when analysing the data with an absolute second-by-second fine comb there are discrepancies which have been painfully explained

Conspiracy theorists are not interested in these explanations - anything that isn't 100% to them is a conspiracy

Likewise with witnesses. The majority of witnesses describe events as they happened. There are one or two witnesses who may have said something different at a later stage, again conspiracy theorists take this as the witnesses aren't 100% - therefore there's a conspiracy

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Why would I need to give one when there's no viable alternative?
Even if all of your claims were true and accurate and held up, then that wouldn't prove anything. The conspiracy would be nonsensical and the official story would be the only viable explanation.

Why would I give one when it won't convince you. You still cling onto the conspiracy even though it doesn't make sense and doesn't actually explain anything.
You don't believe the conspiracy for rational reasons, otherwise you'd reject it entirely like you do with the official story.

You just prefer the conspiracy theory. I can't change that and it's not worth the effort to try.
You won't even admit how nonsensical it is when it staring you in the face.


But then they forgot to take care of that pesky flight data. Whoopies.

What nonsense are you typing? A plane that hit the Pentagon from an NE position does not prove a conspiracy? What the hell are you forgetting there are 5 light poles knocked down by a plane according to the official story?

I don't prefer the conspiracy theory have you noticed I changed my position and I believe a 757 plane did crash the Pentagon.

It, not a conspiracy when a dozen eyewitnesses saw a plane heading NE. A pilot in the air saw the plane NE. Even the NTSB and FAA animation prove the plane was NE. You people prefer to ignore that just believe in a flight path that does not match up with the evidence.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The FDR recorded flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However when analysing the data with an absolute second-by-second fine comb there are discrepancies which have been painfully explained

Conspiracy theorists are not interested in these explanations - anything that isn't 100% to them is a conspiracy

Likewise with witnesses. The majority of witnesses describe events as they happened. There are one or two witnesses who may have said something different at a later stage, again conspiracy theorists take this as the witnesses aren't 100% - therefore there's a conspiracy

Wrong because both animations are based on different data.

NTSB data is from FDR flight 77
FAA data is based on radar returns from Reagan airport. Impossible both animations are wrong. And the animations was released seven years after 9/11, any errors would be noticeable after this amount of time.

Most of the eyewitnesses saw a plane NE the two police officers said 100 percent they saw the plane heading NE they said no way they saw the plane heading Southwest of the Cisco petrol station.

When you got animations backing up the eyewitnesses accounts you can't ignore that.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Now you're conjuring up a conspiracy out of thin air to try to explain a conspiracy

A conspiracy makes perfect sense if you understand what the Neocons proposed in 1997, four years before 9/11. Neocons openly discussed regime change in Iraq pre 9/11 and taking out other hostile regimes in the region and around the world. This was only possible if America was attacked by so-called Terrorists. They even had the slogan ready on 9/11 this was a war on terror. It obvious 9/11 was a preplanned neo-con event.

15 of the Hijackers are Saudi and two were from UAE both regimes are long-term allies of the US government. Bin Laden denied he was involved in this attack days after 9/11 happened

Statement here Sep 17th 2001
DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A conspiracy makes perfect sense if

If you try hard enough to discredit the truth in order to promote it

It's no different from how Alex Jones peddles it

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

So let me get this straight.
People believe that the eyewitness reports on the day are wrong and also believe that the flight data log is riddled with errors. . Both possible individually I guess.
Now when you put them together and see the the eye witnesses put the plane on the exact track as shown by the flight data log, the only logical conclusion is that the flight data and witnesses on the day are accurate.

Assuming this is all true for the moment, the logical conclusion must be that there is no conspiracy.
Logically, there's no reason for the conspirators to claim that the plane came from a different direction than it did.
Logically, there's no reason why they would hand over unaltered flight data if it exposes the conspiracy.
Logically, there's no reason they would produce animations that contradict their claims.

mickdw wrote: »

I'm expecting the response querying why why why but for once maybe someone would acknowledge that all the concrete evidence placing the aircraft away from the downed light pole is at least suspicious and at worst, a complete cover up.

It's funny you demand this, but you're dodging the point and you don't want to admit the obvious.

You cannot explain these plot holes in the conspiracy.
They are big gaping plot holes that make the conspiracy silly and obviously not true.

If you'd like we could actually dig into the real explanations for the discrepancies, but first you have to acknowledge that there is no conspiracy explanation for them.
Otherwise, I'd just be wasting my breath.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't prefer the conspiracy theory ...

Then why do you believe it when there's these big giant plot holes you cannot explain?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Then why do you believe it when there's these big giant plot holes you cannot explain?

I tell you why one eyewitness maybe even two can be wrong, but multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane heading for the Pentagon NE of the Cisco fueling station.

Two animations released be wrong? NTSB animation has the place NE. FAA data has the plane NE. What is the skeptics' explantation for this f**k up. Both animations are not using similar data. FAA tracked the plane using radar at Reagan airport.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I tell you why one eyewitness maybe even two can be wrong, but multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane heading for the Pentagon NE of the Cisco fueling station.

Two animations released be wrong? NTSB animation has the place NE. FAA data has the plane NE. What is the skeptics' explantation for this f**k up. Both animations are not using similar data. FAA tracked the plane using radar at Reagan airport.

But why would the conspiracy allow these eyewitnesses to claim this?
Why would they allow animations to contradict them?
Why would they release this data in the first place?

Why not just say the plane flew in the direction you think it did.

There's no conspiracy explanation for this.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But why would the conspiracy allow these eyewitnesses to claim this?
Why would they allow animations to contradict them?
Why would they release this data in the first place?

Why not just say the plane flew in the direction you think it did.

There's no conspiracy explanation for this.

No need they have skeptics online and media doing the work for them to bash the truth movement.

Killing eyewitnesses I doubt they get away with that.

They used the 9/11 commission report to satisfy a certain section of the public. Even though we know years later some of the people on the panel of 9/11 commission felt there was a cover up a deception and officials involved lied to the commission and the 9/11 commissioners recommended a new enquiry it never happened. The 9/11 commission report was a cover-up to hide the truth.

They obviously are covering up another event if the 9/11 commission claiming a plane hit the building from a South West direction?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No need they have skeptics online and media doing the work for them to bash the truth movement.

Killing eyewitnesses I doubt they get away with that.

They used the 9/11 commission report to satisfy a certain section of the public. Even though we know years later some of the people on the panel of 9/11 commission felt there was a cover up a deception and officials involved lied to the commission and the 9/11 commissioners recommended a new enquiry it never happened. The 9/11 commission report was a cover-up to hide the truth.

None of these address the problems with any of the plot holes.
They only open a lot more.

Lets focus on one:
Can you think of a single reason why they wouldn't just alter or destroy the data that contradicts them?
If not, why would they release it to the public?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They obviously are covering up another event if the 9/11 commission claiming a plane hit the building from a South West direction?

So if they were obviously covering up something, please explain what and how and how coming from a different angle helps cover this up?
Then also explain the plot hole that arises from this: why would they try to cover something up by drawing attention to it?

You've not provided any explanations for any of the plot holes.
Do you not thing they exist?

Cheerful Spring

This what the damage would look like if the plane came straight in from NE direction.


The 9/11 commission said the plane came in at an angle. If the plane was like this you see the plane sideways.

Something like this. Would wings not break off at this angle be found on the grass?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This what the damage would look like if the plane came straight in from NE direction.

The 9/11 commission said the plane came in at an angle. If the plane was like this you see the plane sideways.

Something like this. Would wings not break off at this angle be found on the grass?

You were also arguing for a fact that those same images showed it was impossible that a 757 crashed into it.

Maybe you're wrong here too?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

None of these address the problems with any of the plot holes.
They only open a lot more.

Lets focus on one:
Can you think of a single reason why they wouldn't just alter or destroy the data that contradicts them?
If not, why would they release it to the public?

So if they were obviously covering up something, please explain what and how and how coming from a different angle helps cover this up?
Then also explain the plot hole that arises from this: why would they try to cover something up by drawing attention to it?

You've not provided any explanations for any of the plot holes.
Do you not thing they exist?

It, not a plot involving everyone who works for US government. If they tried faking the data would this not expose the conspiracy to people working in those agencies? That kind of conspiracy would be massive and hard to keep quiet. Rumsfield left office in 2006 and I think he is one of conspirators neo-cons involved. The animations came out in 2007 and believe the FAA one in 2008.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You were also arguing for a fact that those same images showed it was impossible that a 757 crashed into it.

Maybe you're wrong here too?

I argued the South West angle does not explain the damage. The second-floor damage on E ring looks where the plane upper fuselage hit the wall (NE path)

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It, not a plot involving everyone who works for US government. If they tried faking the data would this not expose the conspiracy to people working in those agencies? That kind of conspiracy would be massive and hard to keep quiet. Rumsfield left office in 2006 and I think he is one of conspirators neo-cons involved. The animations came out in 2007 and believe the FAA one in 2008.

But you are arguing that the data does expose the conspiracy.
Your claiming that the data contradicts the official story, so the people producing this data have to be in on it.

Nor does it explain why they couldn't just intercept the data.
Nor does it explain why they couldn't stop it from being released to the public.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But you are arguing that the data does expose the conspiracy.
Your claiming that the data contradicts the official story, so the people producing this data have to be in on it.

Nor does it explain why they couldn't just intercept the data.
Nor does it explain why they couldn't stop it from being released to the public.

Why do normal working people at the FAA and NTSB have to be involved in a conspiracy? There just releasing the data they got from the day. If this information was seen then I doubt they can just cover it up. I'm talking about a covert group was involved a deep state group of maybe only 20 or 40 people know what happened.I don't believe every politician in America is aware of this conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring

All you need is 5 or 10 highly connected people with enough power and money to want to do this to pull this off.

Rumsfield is one of those people.

They then use some black ops operatives they trust to carry this out in secret.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why do normal working people at the FAA and NTSB have to be involved in a conspiracy? There just releasing the data they got from the day. If this information was seen then I doubt they can just cover it up. I'm talking about a covert group was involved a deep state group of maybe only 20 or 40 people know what happened.I don't believe every politician in America is aware of this conspiracy.

But they couldn't stop things like data getting out?

And yes, the people at the FAA and NTSB do have to be involved, otherwise, why do they not support the conspiracy theory?
They've seen the same data you have, so obviously they must know that there's a conspiracy like you do. Remember, these people are experts unlike you, so if you can figure it out, so can they.
So if the data exposed the conspiracy, then the FAA and NTSB would have exposed it, only with more evidence and expertise.

But they don't. It can't be that the conspirators are stopping them, as you've claimed that they can't do that. And if they could, then they'd stop the data from getting out in the first place.

And even then, you still have not explained why they would just say the plane would come from the direction it did.

Also, if it's just 20 people, who was it that took down the light posts?
Donald Rumsfield himself climb up there with a hack saw?

Did the rock up to some random taxi driver wear a fake moustache and tell him to say he saw a plane?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But they couldn't stop things like data getting out?

And yes, the people at the FAA and NTSB do have to be involved, otherwise, why do they not support the conspiracy theory?
They've seen the same data you have, so obviously they must know that there's a conspiracy like you do. Remember, these people are experts unlike you, so if you can figure it out, so can they.
So if the data exposed the conspiracy, then the FAA and NTSB would have exposed it, only with more evidence and expertise.

But they don't. It can't be that the conspirators are stopping them, as you've claimed that they can't do that. And if they could, then they'd stop the data from getting out in the first place.

And even then, you still have not explained why they would just say the plane would come from the direction it did.

Also, if it's just 20 people, who was it that took down the light posts?
Donald Rumsfield himself climb up there with a hack saw?

Did the rock up to some random taxi driver wear a fake moustache and tell him to say he saw a plane?

Maybe the FAA and NTSB did not notice this or care not think of that? They are not researching every fine detail of the event or worrying about a conspiracy, they are just living their lives doing their job and they then go home to their family. What can they do about it, even if they did know? We know officials lied to the 9/11 commission and they got away with lying. There is not a huge incentive to come forward when the system is set up to keep a tight lid on secrets.

I have explained it I said they staged the 5 light poles to cover up another event inside the Pentagon.

Rumsfield was in charge of the US military response to 9/11, on the day. I think the light poles got taken down by people pretending to be construction workers.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Maybe the FAA and NTSB did not notice this or care not think of that?

So people who's actual job and expertise was to find out which direction the plane was coming from didn't notice which direction the plane was coming from?
Yet, conspiracy theorists like yourself with expertise from Youtube somehow did manage to notice it?

No. That's patently silly.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What can they do about it, even if they did know? We know officials lied to the 9/11 commission and they got away with lying. There is not a huge incentive to come forward when the system is set up to keep a tight lid on secrets.

And the 9/11 commission never bothered to ask the NTSB or FAA anything?
And none of the experts who would have definitely noticed something amiss never brought it up to the commission?

And it can't be that they had the control enough to incentivise keeping quiet. If this was the case, then the data would have never been released.

Again, no. That's silly.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have explained it I said they staged the 5 light poles to cover up another event inside the Pentagon.

You asserted that, but never explained what they would be covering up. Or how having a plane coming from a different direction would do so. Or how they planned on covering something up by making it obvious they were covering it.
Or you know, any sort of evidence you didn't just pull it out of your ass to avoid the fact the conspiracy is full of plot holes.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Rumsfield was in charge of the US military response to 9/11, on the day. I think the light poles got taken down by people pretending to be construction workers.

Right, Rumsfield in a construction worker outfit. Got it.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So people who's actual job and expertise was to find out which direction the plane was coming from didn't notice which direction the plane was coming from?
Yet, conspiracy theorists like yourself with expertise from Youtube somehow did manage to notice it?

No. That's patently silly.


And the 9/11 commission never bothered to ask the NTSB or FAA anything?
And none of the experts who would have definitely noticed something amiss never brought it up?

Again, no. That's silly.

You asserted that, but never explained what they would be covering up. Or how having a plane coming from a different direction would do so. Or how they planned on covering something up by making it obvious they were covering it.
Or you know, any sort of evidence you didn't just pull it out of your ass to avoid the fact the conspiracy is full of plot holes.


Right, Rumsfield in a construction worker outfit. Got it.

It's not their job to be releasing fake data. And not their job to lie. They released the data they had from 9/11 Why is their job to confirm the 9/11 commission path for the plane, this doesn't make sense.

Just to inform since you obviously don't know the 9/11 Commission report was released in 2004. The animations did not come until 2007 and 2008.

King Mob

So your entire conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that the people investigating the flight path of the plane never once bothered to check what the government claimed about the flight path.

That's very silly.

Now notice here:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/

Here we have an organisation specifically saying that the plane came from a different direction than you think it did.
You held this very report up as infallible back when you thought that it was supporting your idea of a 757 not hitting the pentagon.

So what's the deal. Did the government control all of these guys and force them to say that the plane came from a different direction?

How could they government control these guys, but not NTSB?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

All you need is 5 or 10 highly connected people with enough power and money to want to do this to pull this off.

To pull what off? you haven't fleshed out your conspiracy theory yet

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So your entire conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that the people investigating the flight path of the plane never once bothered to check what the government claimed about the flight path.

That's very silly.

Now notice here:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/

Here we have an organisation specifically saying that the plane came from a different direction than you think it did.
You held this very report up as infallible back when you thought that it was supporting your idea of a 757 not hitting the pentagon.

So what's the deal. Did the government control all of these guys and force them to say that the plane came from a different direction?

How could they government control these guys, but not NTSB?

Metabunk is unaware of who the lead the official investigation. ASCE sponsored the Pentagon building report. However, the project leader was Paul Mlakar who was vice president of defence contractor called Jaycor. He is a deep state guy.
Mlakar also filed for a number of patents on explosive containment devices for aircraft pre 9/11. He likely one of the guys brought in to cover up the event.

Amec connection to the renovations and clean up after that attacks is another red flag. The AMEC construction has long-standing ties to Saudi Arabia. Peter Janson close friend of Rumsfield was the CEO of Amec they gained greatly from the attacks afterwards in new contracts to take Iraqi oil and clean up the mess at the Pentagon and Twin Towers. The people controlling the renovation project had for years prior to 9/11 called for a revolution and deposing hostile regimes in the middle east, so you just have to connect the dots.

Then Hani Hanjour crappy pilot skills ( was he the pilot) and the 330 U-turn he did to hit this location where there were fewer people working and where AMEC was carrying out construction pre 9/11.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Metabunk is unaware of who the lead the official investigation. ASCE sponsored the Pentagon building report. However, the project leader was Paul Mlakar who was vice president of defence contractor called Jaycor. He is a deep state guy.
Mlakar also filed for a number of patents on explosive containment devices for aircraft pre 9/11. He likely one of the guys brought in to cover up the event.

Amec connection to the renovations and clean up after that attacks is another red flag. The AMEC construction has long-standing ties to Saudi Arabia. Peter Janson close friend of Rumsfield was the CEO of Amec they gained greatly from the attacks afterwards in new contracts to take Iraqi oil and clean up the mess at the Pentagon and Twin Towers. The people controlling the renovation project had for years prior to 9/11 called for a revolution and deposing hostile regimes in the middle east, so you just have to connect the dots.

Then Hani Hanjour crappy pilot skills ( was he the pilot) and the 330 U-turn he did to hit this location where there were fewer people working and where AMEC was carrying out construction pre 9/11.

Ah, so now on top of not being able to address the gaping plot holes in your conspiracy, you're just making stuff up now.

Fair enough.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, so now on top of not being able to address the gaping plot holes in your conspiracy, you're just making stuff up now.

Fair enough.

No all this is factual just have to research this to find this out.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No all this is factual just have to research this to find this out.

Sure. I believe you, what with all the lying and complete dishonesty you've shown.

And that totally makes the plot holes disappear like they've never existed...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Sure. I believe you, what with all the lying and complete dishonesty you've shown.

And that totally makes the plot holes disappear like they've never existed...

Sure mate. I faked the animations from the FAA and NTSB and multiple eyewitnesses saw the plane NE don't exist.;)

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Sure mate. I faked the animations from the FAA and NTSB and multiple eyewitnesses saw the plane NE don't exist.;)

But you have failed repeatedly how this could work in the conspiracy fantasy land you live it.

You had to decide that the people working on these are complete dumbasses who are in capable of doing their jobs.

And then you invent an entire chain of conspiracy for the other issues.

You can't explain why they would have these animations because the theory is silly and flawed.

You believe it anyway.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But you have failed repeatedly how this could work in the conspiracy fantasy land you live it.

You had to decide that the people working on these are complete dumbasses who are in capable of doing their jobs.

And then you invent an entire chain of conspiracy for the other issues.

You can't explain why they would have these animations because the theory is silly and flawed.

You believe it anyway.

I know what they did it and the plan for it was outlined in the project for New American century in 1997. Rumsfield signed up to those principles. After 9/11 they started to implement these aims with popular support from the American people.

This was said in the Neocon blueprint in 1998

The group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there was "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I know what they did it and the plan for it was outlined in the project for New American century in 1997."

Ok. Bully for you.
But this still doesn't explain the plot holes.

You do realise they are there right?
You've been working very hard to avoid acknowledging them, so this must mean you realise how silly they make your theory look.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Bully for you.
But this still doesn't explain the plot holes.

You do realise they are there right?
You've been working very hard to avoid acknowledging them, so this must mean you realise how silly they make your theory look.

How are they right the Middle East region a mess since 2001?The neocons who did this controlled the damage cleanup and 9/11 investigations later.

What are plot holes exactly? The evidence clearly has a plane hitting the Pentagon NE. You never explained how two sets of flight data are wrong? NTSB data was information taken from the Flight data recorder discovered at the Pentagon. FAA data is based on Reagan Airport radar returns (primary target)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I know what they did it and the plan for it was outlined in the project for New American century in 1997. Rumsfield signed up to those principles. After 9/11 they started to implement these aims with popular support from the American people.

This was said in the Neocon blueprint in 1998

It's a report written by a think tank - here's the line

""Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Yup, I'd agree, it generally takes a catastrophic event to dramatically change things - plenty of examples of this throughout history

Quite a jump between that and "lol let's murder 3,000 Americans in broad daylight with this ridiculously risky and over-the-top treasonous plan"

But that's the jump you've made.. so to ask again, what are the details of your conspiracy theory on this?