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

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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)

Again, I have detailed this several times.
Now in addition to lying, ignoring and dreaming up entire people and wings to conspiracy, you are feigning amnesia.

Why would the conspirators produce or allow data that contradicted them to be made public?
You've already claimed that one such group was in their pocket and faked evidence. There's no reason why they couldn't do the same with other groups.

Why, if they'd go to so much trouble, would they not just fly the plane in the direction you think it did?

These are just the most recent two. This doesn't count the dozens of others your theory entails and the dozens more back when you were claiming with 100% certainty it was a missile.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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?

Yes, but the principles signatories included Donald Rumsfield. The man who controlled the US military response to events on 9/11 and had complete control. It well known now Rumsfield went missing for an hour on 9/11 and did not talk to the President till the event was over. 9/11 commissioners believed there was a deception about the response to these attacks and the slow reaction puzzled them, they called for a new enquiry about this.

I think 3000 people dead is not important they US military killed hundreds of thousands of people post 9/11. Achieving War aims in the Middle East and making billions of dollars is more important to neocon fanatics like Rumsfield.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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"

Also I'm sure that they wrote: "Lol lets also leave a ton of easy to find clues so it's super obvious we're doing it because it's funny. And lets do it in the most complex and ridiculous way possible, again, for funsies. Also we should totally print this in a publicly available document."

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I have detailed this several times.
Now in addition to lying, ignoring and dreaming up entire people and wings to conspiracy, you are feigning amnesia.

Why would the conspirators produce or allow data that contradicted them to be made public?
You've already claimed that one such group was in their pocket and faked evidence. There's no reason why they couldn't do the same with other groups.

Why, if they'd go to so much trouble, would they not just fly the plane in the direction you think it did?

These are just the most recent two. This doesn't count the dozens of others your theory entails and the dozens more back when you were claiming with 100% certainty it was a missile.

Again your sidestepping. Detail your evidence the NTSB and FAA animations are not accurate? Multiple eyewitnesses described seeing a plane head North East of the Cisco Station, so they were mistaken, what do you think?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Again your sidestepping. Detail your evidence the NTSB and FAA animations are not accurate? Multiple eyewitnesses described seeing a plane head North East of the Cisco Station, so they were mistaken, what do you think?

I'm not side stepping. I'm just not interested in going into these points with you.

You however are side stepping. You've dodged the plotholes again.
You asked me to reiterate them, so I did.

You have no answer.

I'm going to leave it there, cause you're just going to go around in circles.
But we both know that you can't address the problems with the conspiracy theory, but you believe it anyway because you position is neither rational or honest.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not side stepping. I'm just not interested in going into these points with you.

You however are side stepping. You've dodged the plotholes again.
You asked me to reiterate them, so I did.

You have no answer.

I'm going to leave it there, cause you're just going to go around in circles.
But we both know that you can't address the problems with the conspiracy theory, but you believe it anyway.

Yes, you are sidestepping you still ignoring questions I have asked. If you don't believe the multiple eyewitnesses, and NTSB and FAA animations are accurate, then write out your alternative explanation, a sceptical viewpoint why they got it wrong? What plotholes are you talking about?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What plotholes are you talking about?

Lol. This is why I've no interest in going into any of the points or chasing you down for explanations you don't have.

On top of the dodging and lies and ignoring, you don't see to be even reading what people are posting.

I outline these plot holes two posts ago...

I know you can't explain them, but pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. This is why I've no interest in going into any of the points or chasing you down for explanations you don't have.

On top of the dodging and lies and ignoring, you don't see to be even reading what people are posting.

I outline these plot holes two posts ago...

I know you can't explain them, but pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away.

I talked about this already read the thread again. I gave you my theory what happened and why they said the plane came in from South Westbound path. Still sidestepping my questions I see. Anyway no point continuing if you not going to answer.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I talked about this already read the thread again. I gave you my theory what happened and why they said the plane came in from South Westbound path.

Yes, you stated that, but didn't explain it or how it filled in the plot hole or answered anything or how you knew it was the case or where the evidence of it was or how it addressed the follow on plot holes that it itself had.
It was a half baked nonsense idea that you know was silly, but had to pull out of thin air anyway.

Nor does it address the other plot hole I just pointed to and you are pretending doesn't exist.

Who exactly do you think you are fooling with this?

You can't explain these plotholes because there is no conspiracy.
You have to ignore them and pretend they don't exist because you prefer believing in the conspiracy theory and you are not honest enough to just admit "No, I cannot explain these problems."

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I gave you my theory what happened

No you haven't.

You half claimed a military jet hit, abandoned that then essentially claimed "lol I think Rumsfeld is involved or something and the plane came from a diff angle" - that's literally it

How did they do it? who was involved? what happened with the Twin Towers? did they work with the terrorists? if so how? names, dates, times, suspects, evidence

Otherwise it's just another exercise in bad creative thinking

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, you stated that, but didn't explain it or how it filled in the plot hole or answered anything or how you knew it was the case or where the evidence of it was or how it addressed the follow on plot holes that it itself had.
It was a half baked nonsense idea that you know was silly, but had to pull out of thin air anyway.

Nor does it address the other plot hole I just pointed to and you are pretending doesn't exist.

Who exactly do you think you are fooling with this?

You can't explain these plotholes because there is no conspiracy.
You have to ignore them and pretend they don't exist because you prefer believing in the conspiracy theory and you are not honest enough to just admit "No, I cannot explain these problems."

If there was no conspiracy there would be no holes in the official narrative to find.

Problems and you need to need to answer and have so far failed to.

1) Hani Hanjour lack of experience verified as such just a few weeks before 9/11. How can a guy who can't control and handle at Cessna up to 130knots, just weeks later fly a plane like an experienced pilot fighter at 530knots?

2) Why did Hani decide to do a 330 U-turn in the sky and hit the west wall and area under construction and would avoid killing more people? Pentagon one of largest office buildings in the world impossible to miss on the first try.

3) Why did the US administration not call off the war exercises till all the planes crashed? Did the terrorists have pre-knowledge of these exercises or they just happen to get lucky, something I personally doubt? It well established now the exercises allowed the attacks to go on unchecked and Norad has trouble sorting out real world from exercise on 9/11

4) We can see now no landing gears came through the C hole ring, the landing gear was found inside the Pentagon building underneath the rubble.

5) Why is the FAA and NTSB animation, not the same as to the 9/11 commission animation? Multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane NE again no explanation for this in 9/11 commission report.

These are just 5 there many more holes to find about the Pentagon attack on 9/11

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If there was no conspiracy there would be no holes in the official narrative to find.

Sure there would be. There'd be plenty of oddities for conspiracy theorists like you to pick at, misunderstand and twist.

The difference however the plot holes you cannot fill are not wierd things on the edges, they are central to your explanation of the events.

The fact you cannot explain these plot holes shows the conspiracy is abject nonsense. The fact you keep avoiding this and trying to distract and deflect shows that you are not honest.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Problems and you need to need to answer and have so far failed to.

No thanks. Not interested in chasing you around on these points.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No you haven't.

You half claimed a military jet hit, abandoned that then essentially claimed "lol I think Rumsfeld is involved or something and the plane came from a diff angle" - that's literally it

How did they do it? who was involved? what happened with the Twin Towers? did they work with the terrorists? if so how? names, dates, times, suspects, evidence

Otherwise it's just another exercise in bad creative thinking

WTC7 is the smoking gun because NIST who you support changed their narrative two times since 9/11. Truthers used real science showed NIST the building did fall at free fall speed. NIST denied this for years claiming this wasn’t possible because of the structural resistance of the floors below. In an updated report, they were forced to agree with the truther camp the building did free fall for 2.25 seconds. Freefall is evidence of a controlled demolition when the resistance below is taken out.

Nano thermite was also found in samples, this is a military grade explosive. They were invited to look at this for their own investigation, they declined and ignored the evidence. They also ignored multiple eyewitnesses accounts of finding molten metal in the wreckage.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

WTC7 is the smoking gun because NIST who you support changed their narrative two times since 9/11. Truthers used real science showed NIST the building did fall at free fall speed. NIST denied this for years claiming this wasn’t possible because of the structural resistance of the floors below. In an updated report, they were forced to agree with the truther camp the building did free fall for 2.25 seconds. Freefall is evidence of a controlled demolition when the resistance below is taken out.

Nano thermite was also found in samples, this is a military grade explosive. They were invited to look at this for their own investigation, they declined and ignored the evidence. They also ignored multiple eyewitnesses accounts of finding molten metal in the wreckage.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lawyers for 9/11 families have filed a new petition in the New York district court to kick-start a new 9/11 investigation.

Court documents and evidence presented to the court for review.
https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Lawyers for 9/11 families have filed a new petition in the New York district court to kick-start a new 9/11 investigation.

Court documents and evidence presented to the court for review.
https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/

Are you just copy pasting links now?

Perhaps you should start a blog. There are least people wouldn't be asking pesky questions and pointing out all the untrue things you've been spewing.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Sure there would be. There'd be plenty of oddities for conspiracy theorists like you to pick at, misunderstand and twist.

The difference however the plot holes you cannot fill are not wierd things on the edges, they are central to your explanation of the events.

The fact you cannot explain these plot holes shows the conspiracy is abject nonsense. The fact you keep avoiding this and trying to distract and deflect shows that you are not honest.

No thanks. Not interested in chasing you around on these points.

You can't answer them that's why a 9/11 conspiracy will never go away.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Are you just copy pasting links now?

Perhaps you should start a blog. There are least people wouldn't be asking pesky questions and pointing out all the untrue things you've been spewing.

Skeptics like you are just a hindrance to finding the truth.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can't answer them that's why a 9/11 conspiracy will never go away.

Sure I can. It just requires effort that I'm not willing to expend.
Because so far, you have shown that even if I do explain one of them, you'll just ignore it and move on to another dozen or so untrue claims.

The reason why the conspiracy theories won't go away is for the same reason there are people who still believe we didn't go to the moon or that the world is flat.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Skeptics like you are just a hindrance to finding the truth.

But given that your your version of the "truth" relies on abject lies and misinformation, and that you have ignore things like basic logic and obvious plot holes...

Tell me, if you weren't forced to look at the obvious evidence and logic on this thread, would you still believe that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon?
Remember you came in here 100% sure that was the absolute truth and you fought for that truth tooth and nail.

Is it possible that maybe some or perhaps all of your other assumptions and conceptions about 9/11 are like that?

Why do so many truthers claim as a fact that no 757 hit the pentagon? Why do they claim it was a missile or an A3 like you had absolute faith in previously?
Why do they promote it as true when it's not?

Wouldn't truthers using lies like that not do more damage to your cause?

But that was be questioning the gospel truth. And they don't like that.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Sure I can. It just requires effort that I'm not willing to expend.
Because so far, you have shown that even if I do explain one of them, you'll just ignore it and move on to another dozen or so untrue claims.

The reason why the conspiracy theories won't go away is for the same reason there are people who still believe we didn't go to the moon or that the world is flat.

But given that your your version of the "truth" relies on abject lies and misinformation, and that you have ignore things like basic logic and obvious plot holes...

So you not here for a discussion got ya. You're a liar because I have attempted in this thread to answer you. There some things I can't answer because it requires me to have direct inside knowledge. 5 things I listed above can be answered and alternative reasoning can be postulated by you?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So you not here for a discussion got ya. You're a liar because I have attempted in this thread to answer you.

No, that's not true. When you did get pinned down for an answer, usually after being asked five or six times, you just stated something as fact with no sources or evidence or reasoning, with no explanation or details or even a reason for how it answers the question in the first place.

Then you went right back to ignoring any questions and points you can't answer.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There some things I can't answer because it requires me to have direct inside knowledge.

None of the questions require you to have inside knowledge. You can speculate or make logical deductions.

But again, you can't answer, because there is no logical reasoning.

If you were honest, you could just admit that.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

5 things I listed above can be answered and alternative reasoning can be postulated by you?

Sure, but again, it'd take effort I'd just be pissing in the wind.

You're still refusing to acknowledge the fact you can't give any explanations yourself.
Until you do that, I see no reason to waste my time.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, that's not true. When you did get pinned down for an answer, usually after being asked five or six times, you just stated something as fact with no sources or evidence or reasoning, with no explanation or details or even a reason for how it answers the question in the first place.

Then you went right back to ignoring any questions and points you can't answer.


None of the questions require you to have inside knowledge. You can speculate or make logical deductions.

But again, you can't answer, because there is no logical reasoning.

If you were honest, you could just admit that.


Sure, but again, it'd take effort I'd just be pissing in the wind.

You're still refusing to acknowledge the fact you can't give any explanations yourself.
Until you do that, I see no reason to waste my time.

You're making stuff up now and you confuse me with your rambling tirades. This debate is completely one-sided from the very beginning, me answering you. And your refusal to even debate is noted now.

I'm willing to change my mind if evidence provided by you made sense. I changed my mind a 757 plane crashed into the Pentagon when the evidence showed that. That still does not mean the official narrative is correct, actually, it only lead me to ask more questions.Using evidence provided by the FAA and NTSB, the official narrative for the Pentagon attack is wrong. Multiple Eyewitnesses also good enough for me to question the official narrative.


Until you start addressing these concerns I just going to pin you as a debunker whos trying to deflect the thread at every turn. Stopping worrying about me and start debating the subject.

King Mob

Honestly I don't think you've answered a single question in this entire thread...

I certainly know you never answered the original one...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Honestly I don't think you've answered a single question in this entire thread...

I certainly know you never answered the original one...

What is the original one?

Yes, I have answered everything you asked, this thread would be short if I hadn't?

This should not be hard questions for you to have an opinion on.If you answer this we are having an honest debate.

If you can prove to me the NTSB and FAA animations are not accurate, we going places then in this talk. Why do multiple eyewitnesses claim the plane was NE and not SW of Cisco station? Why was Hani Hanjour a better pilot on 9/11 were the flight instructors wrong about him? What made the C hole in your opinion, like provide evidence to back up your explanation?

mickdw

I'm not aware if the flight path produced from radar is primary radar or secondary radar. If it's plotted from primary radar returns, it would be utterly independent of any flight data records.
Can anyone clarify this?

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not aware if the flight path produced from radar is primary radar or secondary radar. If it's plotted from primary radar returns, it would be utterly independent of any flight data records.
Can anyone clarify this?

Decent overview here
http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Losing_Flight_77

"The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further.Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying."

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not aware if the flight path produced from radar is primary radar or secondary radar. If it's plotted from primary radar returns, it would be utterly independent of any flight data records.
Can anyone clarify this?

Of course, FAA data is based on radar returns recorded on screen at Reagan airport has nothing to do with the Flight data recorder found at the Pentagon.

mickdw

Yes but primary radar is the real old fashioned radar as anyone would understand it.
Air traffic control typically use secondary radar now which will take some or all of it data from the actual aircraft systems so it's possible both systems could be pulling info from the same source. One example of this was a craft some years back where a controller had an aircraft showing on his radar screen at 10000 ft. In fact this was incorrect info and was being fed to the controller radar screen from the aircraft itself.
My point here is that if we could rule out secondary radar, a flight path plotted using primary radar and also plotted from aircraft flight data and both plots matching exactly would be as much proof as anyone could possibly need as to the true location of the plane.

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

My point here is that if we could rule out secondary radar, a flight path plotted using primary radar and also plotted from aircraft flight data and both plots matching exactly would be as much proof as anyone could possibly need as to the true location of the plane.

Radar correlates the FDR data (the correct FDR data which accommodates for the 4 second error), which correlates with ATC

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you can prove to me the NTSB and FAA animations are not accurate, we going places then in this talk. Why do multiple eyewitnesses claim the plane was NE and not SW of Cisco station? Why was Hani Hanjour a better pilot on 9/11 were the flight instructors wrong about him? What made the C hole in your opinion, like provide evidence to back up your explanation?

Like I said, no interest in going into detail only to have my points ignored.

However I think it's enough to point out that you can't even answer your own questions in the conspiracy context to your same standards.
What's the conspiracy explanation for any or all of those?
Please provide evidence for your explanations.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Like I said, no interest in going into detail only to have my points ignored.

However I think it's enough to point out that you can't even answer your own questions in the conspiracy context to your same standards.
What's the conspiracy explanation for any or all of those?
Please provide evidence for your explanations.

You never had any interest since the start of this thread. You're just on a crusade to debunk, without really debunking anything. Read the thread I discussed what I thought in this 36-page thread. I talked about things I find odd and are not explained by the 9/11 commission report. I outlined the flaws in the Pentagon building report. I outlined who I think could be involved.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You never had any interest since the start of this thread. You're just on a crusade to debunk, without really debunking anything. Read the thread I discussed what I thought in this 36-page thread. I talked about things I find odd and are not explained by the 9/11 commission report. I outlined the flaws in the Pentagon building report. I outlined who I think could be involved.

And notice how your post is devoid of anything approaching an explanation of how the conspiracy answers any of your own points.

This is what happens when you are just regurgitating crap you've watched on YouTube.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Read the thread I discussed what I thought in this 36-page thread.

Indeed. A military jet hit the pentagon, then it didn't. A 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then it did. Sort of.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And notice how your post is devoid of anything approaching an explanation of how the conspiracy answers any of your own points.

This is what happens when you are just regurgitating crap you've watched on YouTube.

Wrong, my points show how stupid the official 9/11 narrative is.

Plane exceeding max speeds at ground level, totally disregarding physics. Office fire brought down a steel building, fairyland stuff. Pilots magically come airforce pilots in 21 days. FAA and NTSB and multiple eyewitnesses showing a plane heading NE not South West, ignored by the 9/11 commission. Unexplainable hole in Pentagon C ring., landing gear nonsense.

American air defences falling apart unable to get planes up to engage hijacked planes for an hour. Nist claiming no sounds were picked up when building seven collapsed ( a lie) there was a loud band heard before the Penthouse collapsed. NIST denying eyewitnesses saw molten metal even though there are dozens of pictures that show molten metal dripping out of the towers before the collapse. NIST denying nano-thermite was found again a lie numerous independent labs found this substance on the damaged WTC7 metal.

I could go on a new investigation is needed not the white wash that was the 9/11 commission report.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed. A military jet hit the pentagon, then it didn't. A 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then it did. Sort of.

A plane hit but it hit the Pentagon at a lower speed then claimed and from an NE direction.

It's impossible to reach speeds of 530 and 560 mph at ground level. Their thing called ground effect and drag well known to pilots if you asked them.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed. A military jet hit the pentagon, then it didn't. A 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then it did. Sort of.

Also there might have been a bomb.
And the government can control every engineer who worked on thw Pentagon's damage and the NIST and NORAD ad well as all military and polices forces, but they can't stop the NTSB or the FAA.

Also their grand cover up amounts to dickk chaney dressing up as a construction worker, cutting down a few lamp posts then telling a random taxi driver to say he saw a plane him them.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Also there might have been a bomb.
And the government can control every engineer who worked on thw Pentagon's damage and the NIST and NORAD ad well as all military and polices forces, but they can't stop the NTSB or the FAA.

Also their grand cover up amounts to dickk chaney dressing up as a construction worker, cutting down a few lamp posts then telling a random taxi driver to say he saw a plane him them.

Some of us just know what the reality is. You think Saudis can just jump on a plane and come to America and not be vetted? 10 of the hijackers got Visas from the CIA office in Jeddah Saudi Arabia. This was exposed in 2012. They tried to silence Mike Springman head of the Visa office in Jeddah. He went through the proper channels to expose this internally but was blocked from doing so, and he decided to go public with this information and media and government tried to stonewall him since.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Some of us just know what the reality is. You think Saudis can just jump on a plane and come to America and not be vetted? 10 of the hijackers got Visas from the CIA office in Jeddah Saudi Arabia. This was exposed in 2012. They tried to silence Mike Springman head of the Visa office in Jeddah. He went through the proper channels to expose this internally but was blocked from doing so, and he decided to go public with this information and media and government tried to stonewall him since.

Those 5 words right there are the reasons I Don't bother with conspiracy theorists anymore, no matter what evidence you show them to disprove their outlandish claims they will come up with another blog or heavily edited YouTube video that "proves" they are right.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Those 5 words right there are the reasons I Don't bother with conspiracy theorists anymore, no matter what evidence you show them to disprove their outlandish claims they will come up with another blog or heavily edited YouTube video that "proves" they are right.

You talking about the official narrative people there.I could show them a missile part and they still believe in this nonsensical story they have got told. Some of us are just more awake and know this 9/11 story is a myth. Some people prefer to live in denial.

Everything I said is verifiable and true. It any wonder the conspiracy continues when the conspirators are able to fool a large section of the public.

Quote
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That's easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Herman Goering

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You talking about the official narrative people there.I could show them a missile part and they still believe in this nonsensical story they have got told. Some of us are just more awake and know this 9/11 story is a myth. Some people prefer to live in denial.

Everything I said is verifiable and true. It any wonder the conspiracy continues when the conspirators are able to fool a large section of the public.

Quote
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That's easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Herman Goering

As you said

"Some of us just know

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

As you said

"Some of us just know

Hijackers secured visas through CIA section of the Jeddah office in Saudi Arabia. Some of the hijackers were trained at secure US bases in the 90's. All known now and true. They were not just some boys from the middle east who got recruited by Bin Laden, this is a myth. They were recruits paid large sums of money to carry out this operation for the Saudi Government on 9/11. This was further backed up by the 29 pages classified section of the 9/11 commission report. Saudi consular officials were regularly meeting the hijackers and paying their expenses in America. Bush administration covered this up for 12 years. FBI officials openly talked about the US administration stonewalling their investigation and blocking leads to investigate Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11.. The system is corrupt and bankrupted.

mcmoustache

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Those 5 words right there are the reasons I Don't bother with conspiracy theorists anymore, no matter what evidence you show them to disprove their outlandish claims they will come up with another blog or heavily edited YouTube video that "proves" they are right.

It follows a clear pattern.

"Here. This video proves that Soros is behind everything"

"No. That's just an old guy in a bikini ranting at ducks"

"OK. Here. Check out this video. It proves that the reptiles control Soros"

"Sorry, but that's just the same old guy from the last video but now he's naked and breathing something from a paper bag and shouting something about Jews"

"OK. How about this video. It proves beyond any doubt that the Saudis are controlling the sale of sunshine to the reptiles."

"Come off it. It's that same old guy again but this time he's covered in poop and eating pennies."

et cetera, et cetera

Dr. Bre

Look at who benefited from 9/11 then you will know it’s an inside job. Some people just wanna believe that it was a coincidental tragedy..

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

the official narrative

There's no "official narrative".

Like everything else it was pieced together with facts, evidence, witnesses, information as the events unfolded and after. Apart from small details, it hasn't changed since 2001

Unlike conspiracy theories which are all over the place because they are based on a belief in conspiracy theories, not on the facts or truth

Dohnjoe

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Look at who benefited from 9/11 then you will know it’s an inside job. Some people just wanna believe that it was a coincidental tragedy..

Incorrect. This is the "appeal to motive fallacy". Dreaming up a list of people who benefit from an event is easy. The evidence is the vital part.

King Mob

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Look at who benefited from 9/11 then you will know it’s an inside job. Some people just wanna believe that it was a coincidental tragedy..

People like Alex Jones have made a mint of this kind of stuff.
So therefore, Alex Jones did 9/11?

Timberrrrrrrr

King Mob wrote: »

People like Alex Jones have made a mint of this kind of stuff.
So therefore, Alex Jones did 9/11?

Blasphemer!!!!!! :pac:

Annd9

Ah 9/11 it's been a while ..... I think the problem is too many theories about certain events on that day while the obvious questions go unanswered.

15 Saudi's attack America so they invade Iraq ,Why ?

According to the transport secretary, Cheney knew a plane was approaching Washington but nothing was done . Why ?

BBC reported wtc7 collapsed before it had . How ?

I'm sure I can think of more but if you are in any way cynical you can see why people are suspicious of all the critical failures that day

King Mob

Annd9 wrote: »

BBC reported wtc7 collapsed before it had . How ?

Again, what's the conspiracy explanation for this?

Did the conspirators tell the BBC before the fact? If so, why? In case they wouldn't notice?
Did they tell every news agency?

Dohnjoe

Annd9 wrote: »

BBC reported wtc7 collapsed before it had . How ?

Apply basic critical thinking

1. It was a live reporting error (there were many on the day)

2. The "powers-that-be" decided to tell a media organisation in another country their "secret inside treasonous plan" to destroy a building and gave an exact time that it would fall.