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

Cheerful Spring

In his six-page declaration, Moore lays out the scope of his team’s PENTTBOM duties, highlights evidence it collected and offers its conclusions about Thumairy and Bayoumi.

“I have read the statements in the 9/11 Commission report that ‘we have not found evidence that Thumairy provided assistance to the two operatives (Hazmi and Mihdhar).’ In light of the proof assembled in our investigation this statement is incorrect. There was clearly evidence that Thumairy provided assistance to Hazmi and Mihdhar,” Moore said in the statement he signed last Sept. 15.


SUSPECTED SAUDI AGENT AND FRIEND TO 9/11 HIJACKERS OMAR AL-BAYOUMI, RIGHT, AND FORMER SAUDI DIPLOMAT AND LOS ANGELES IMAM FAHAD-AL-THUMAIRY

“I also disagree with the statement in the 9/11 Commission Report that Bayoumi is ‘an unlikely candidate for clandestine involvement with Islamist extremists.’ Again, this statement is incorrect. Based on the proof in our investigation, Bayoumi himself was a clandestine agent and associated with radical extremists, including Thumairy.”

Moore said Thumairy was “the primary point of contact” for the two future hijackers. He called Thumairy and Bayoumi “active participants in a terror cell associated with al Qaeda that provided substantial financial and logistical support” to them.

“We learned that the al Qaeda plotters were methodical in their preparations for the attacks and would not have sent Hazmi and Mihdhar to Los Angeles without a support structure in place,” Moore said. “Neither Hazmi nor Mihdhar could speak English. They were completely unfamiliar with life and customs in the United States and lacked even the most basic skills to begin pilot training. They would have had zero chance for success without a support structure.”

Moore said PENTTBOM investigators also found evidence of “extensive” contact between Bayoumi and Thumairy, both by phone and in person at the King Fahad mosque where Thumairy personally directed Bayoumi “regarding the assistance need by Hazmi and Mihdhar.”

The declaration says agents found “substantial evidence” that Bayoumi was “an undercover Saudi intelligence officer.” The statement says that conclusion was based “on numerous witness statements; the fact that he was paid by Saudi Arabia with laundered funds in a manner typical of clandestine arrangements used by a foreign intelligence agency; his regular videotaping of people and events; and the consistent patterns of deception in his dealings.”

“We also learned that Thumairy invited (hijacker) Hazmi to lead the prayers at the King Fahad Mosque where Thumairy was an Imam. We determined that this was a significant and unusual honor for Thumairy to bestow on Hazmi, a young Saudi visitor who was not even a member of the mosque, and showed that Thumairy had an awareness of Hazmi’s mission,” Moore said.

Why no criminal charges?
Agent Moore’s declaration, however, does not address why, given the evidence he says was unearthed, no criminal charges were brought against Thumairy or Bayoumi.

That lack of action may be partly explained, however, by an FBI report obtained by Florida Bulldog last year during ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation. The heavily redacted document was written in October 2012 and describes an active investigation by federal agents and prosecutors in New York targeting a support network for Hazmi and Mihdhar.


9/11 HIJACKERS KHALID AL-MIHDHAR, RIGHT, AND NAWAF AL-HAZMI.

Declassified portions of the report say authorities were exploring filing charges against a suspect for providing material support to the hijackers. The suspect’s name was redacted. The report lists three “main subjects” of the probe, including Thumairy and Bayoumi. The name of the third subject, an apparent superior to Thumairy, was withheld for reasons of national security. (Who was the superior?)

The FBI has declined to comment on the status of that investigation.

Moore’s declaration goes on say it is “noteworthy” that Bayoumi and Thumairy both left the U.S. several weeks before the 9/11 attacks.

“Thumairy returned to the United States on December 24, 2001,” Moore said. “In 2002, we sought to question Thumairy regarding his involvement with Hazmi, Mihdhar and the 9/11 plot but were unable to do so before he left the country.’

Dohnjoe

BloodBath wrote: »

At the very least they lied about the source to implicate Iraq.

Not only that they misled the public to go to war with Iraq

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

In his six-page declaration, Moore lays out the scope

You don't seem to understand that by supporting this man's views you are debunking your own views on e.g. WTC7 being blown up

How do you reconcile those contradictory views?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that by supporting this man's views you are debunking your own views on e.g. WTC7 being blown up

How do you reconcile those contradictory views?

It doesn't actually because we don't know deep this rabbit hole goes. FBI just found evidence Saudi Arabia diplomats and agents helped the 9/11 hijackers carry out the attack. Their superior name was withheld for national security reasons meaning whoever this guy is high up in the food chain could be Prince or someone connected to the Saudi Arabian Royal family? Who knows if their superior was in contact with the US side of conspirators pre 9/11?

Cheerful Spring

Bayoumi was a Saudi Arabian Intelligence officer.

Thumairy was a Saudi Diplomat and an Iman

Third unknown guy? But he was higher up than Thumairy.

Cheerful Spring

BloodBath wrote: »

It's a proven conspiracy with the anthrax as well. At the very least they lied about the source to implicate Iraq. That in itself is a conspiracy.

There was definitely a rogue network from Saudi Arabia involved in 9/11. If we can find out about more about their involvement this may shake things lose and then we can find out was involved on Neocon/ Israeli side.

My personal opinion Rumsfield was involved on the American side.

Cheney and Bush I doubt they were involved in 9/11 conspiracy. They just played their part lying for the Iraq War.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It doesn't actually because we don't know deep this rabbit hole goes

You've asserted as fact it was impossible for flight 77 to hit the Pentagon, then asserted that a military plane hit it, then flipflopped and asserted flight 77 hit the Pentagon

Indeed.

Some people have an interest in entertaining conspiracies as a hobby and this is a medium for that. The truth, reason, facts are secondary to that.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You've asserted as fact it was impossible for flight 77 to hit the Pentagon, then asserted that a military plane hit it, then flipflopped and asserted flight 77 hit the Pentagon

Indeed.

Some people have an interest in entertaining conspiracies as a hobby and this is a medium for that. The truth, reason, facts are secondary to that.

Yes, when i started this thread and was only looking at the damage to the west wall of the Pentagon. It didn't make sense to me.

Further investigating I noticed discrepancies in the reports. Once I found the eyewitnesses and watched what they said and reported and watched the animations from the FAA and FDR I then realised the damage made more sense if the plane hit the Pentagon coming from NE direction (straight on) I could not understand where the wings went if the plane hit the wall from SW direction!

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some people have an interest in entertaining conspiracies as a hobby and this is a medium for that. The truth, reason, facts are secondary to that.

Sure whatever you want to believe. I have already proven the 9/11 commission report about the Pentagon attack is flawed only brainless Skeptics are unable to see that.

Cheerful Spring

9/11 commission report is the problem it was done too early with the commissioners not knowing the full facts.

Anyone with a brain can see the SW position for the plane is untenable today.

The evidence clearly places the plane North East of the Navy Annex.

We have three reasons to believe that to be true.

1) The FDR data has the plane at a 60-degree position NE. Even the magnetic compass visually shows the plane 60 degrees NE ( 70 degrees magnetic north)

On it own by itself, this could be an error but this data is further backed up the FAA/ Norad returns animation and they also had the plane flying NE over the Navy Annex towards the Pentagon.

2) You have to discount what the pilot of gofer 6 said he witnessed that day and him seeing the plane rolled out NE on the descent to the Pentagon. When plane was descended it has to be SW (9/11 commission version) it can't be NE

This is the audio transcript
Gofer 6: that, ah traffic for gofer six zero is still in decent now and looks like he rolled out North eastbound.

Regan National Tower controller. ,Alright thank you.

3)You have to ignore multiple eyewitnesses who saw the plane NE of Cisco station and Arlington in Washington.

One reason on its own not enough to refute the 9/11 commission, however, there more evidence than that they got it wrong.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Anyone with a brain can see

only brainless Skeptics are unable to see that.

No more of this. Final warning.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

9/11 commission report is the problem it was done too early with the commissioners not knowing the full facts.

Anyone with a brain can see the SW position for the plane is untenable today.

The evidence clearly places the plane North East of the Navy Annex.

We have three reasons to believe that to be true.

1) The FDR data has the plane at a 60-degree position NE. Even the magnetic compass visually shows the plane 60 degrees NE ( 70 degrees magnetic north)

On it own by itself, this could be an error but this data is further backed up the FAA/ Norad returns animation and they also had the plane flying NE over the Navy Annex towards the Pentagon.

2) You have to discount what the pilot of gofer 6 said he witnessed that day and him seeing the plane rolled out NE on the descent to the Pentagon. When plane was descended it has to be SW (9/11 commission version) it can't be NE

This is the audio transcript
Gofer 6: that, ah traffic for gofer six zero is still in decent now and looks like he rolled out North eastbound.

Regan National Tower controller. ,Alright thank you.

3)You have to ignore multiple eyewitnesses who saw the plane NE of Cisco station and Arlington in Washington.

One reason on its own not enough to refute the 9/11 commission, however, there more evidence than that they got it wrong.

Why do you keep saying that the real story says the plane was going south west?
That's just not true.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you keep saying that the real story says the plane was going south west?
That's just not true.

The official story places the plane South of the Navy Annex when completed the turn and descended on its final journey. The other side of the Annex is the North side where I believe the plane was.

You correct in the way I should not be saying the plane was South West.

I using the Navy Annex to fix a directional position for the plane.

Dr. Bre

Don’t forget how silly it seems that these hijackers could steer planes into buildings with such accuracy and at such speed!

Dohnjoe

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Don’t forget how silly it seems that these hijackers could steer planes into buildings with such accuracy and at such speed!

They had hundreds of hours of flight training and several had commercial pilot licenses.

Atta joined him the next month, and the two began to search for flight schools. Al-Shehhi posed as a body guard of Atta, who was also posing as a "Saudi Arabian royal family member" while the two of them took flying lessons in Venice, Florida. They logged hundreds of hours on a Boeing 727 flight simulator. They received their licenses by December 2000. Their expenses were paid for by Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. On either 26 or 27 December, Atta and Marwan abandoned a Piper Cherokee that had stalled on the runway of Miami International Airport. On 29 December, Atta and Marwan went to the Opa-Locka Airport and practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator. Al-Shehhi began to take "surveillance flights" in the summer of 2001, watching the operations of flight crews and making final preparations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_al-Shehhi

Anyone responding to this claiming "it's not possible", needs to explain why and how those planes flew into the buildings with reasonable evidence

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They had hundreds of hours of flight training and several had commercial pilot licenses.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_al-Shehhi

Anyone responding to this claiming "it's not possible", needs to explain why and how those planes flew into the buildings with reasonable evidence

And explain why the conspirators couldn't have found people who had "adequate" training and skills, or failing that, why they could just fake evidence to that effect.

However, I'm sensing just more unsourced and unsupported claims stated as fact along with out of context quotes with likewise no reference.

Cheerful Spring

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Don’t forget how silly it seems that these hijackers could steer planes into buildings with such accuracy and at such speed!

Twin Towers are not small targets though, a capable pilot should be able to hit them on a bright sunny day. Pentagon attack needed an expert pilot to do it.

It a big problem there are only two videos of hijackers supposedly boarding planes on 9/11

Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari were caught on security tape at Portland Maine at 5.45 am in the morning. The took a flight from there to Logan International Airport. Big problem after this though no footage has ever got released showing them in Logan airport or boarding a plane or checking in at security at this airport!

The last video released by the American government was allegedly from a security tape in Dulles airport, where the Flight 77 hijackers boarded a plane. Yes, we can see the hijackers at this airport. However, the time stamp and date are removed so they could be boarding a flight on another day if all we know?

Overheal

"Big problem after this though no footage has ever got released showing them in Logan airport or boarding a plane or checking in at security at this airport!"

Given how little footage has been released is this shocking, or confirmation of anything in reality?

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

"Big problem after this though no footage has ever got released showing them in Logan airport or boarding a plane or checking in at security at this airport!"

Given how little footage has been released is this shocking, or confirmation of anything in reality?

After 17 years you expect transparency on this and for research you expect this videos to be released to the public. Same for the Pentagon we know there was a traffic camera located on the Northbound highway that would have captured the plane hitting the Pentagon this footage never got released. There also security cameras overlooking that area where the plane crashed and there was a security camera also placed on the Pentagon Firehouse building that should also have captured the plane.

What the US government released was security checkpoint tape, low resolution, with date and stamp removed. Why they removed the date and stamp have to wonder why they did that?

Cheerful Spring

Found some interesting information about Rumsfield and his reaction to the attacks on 9/11.

Who would react like this when you know America is being attacked?
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is told that a second plane has crashed into the World Trade Center by Vice Admiral Edmund Giambastiani Jr., his senior military assistant, but continues with a routine intelligence briefing

He will still be in his office receiving the briefing at 9:37 a.m. when the Pentagon is attacked

Again this highly suspicious behaviour to ignore events on 9/11 since he was the guy who was in charge to respond to these events!

Victoria Clarke, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, and Larry Di Rita, a special assistant to the secretary of defense, try to persuade Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to cancel his schedule so he can respond to the terrorist attacks, but Rumsfeld refuses to do so and continues with a routine intelligence briefing

So for 33 minutes, he ignored the advice.
Rumsfeld tells the two aides to go to the ESC and wait for him there. Clarke and Di Rita therefore leave the office and head to the ESC (see Shortly After 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001). They will be in the ESC at 9:37 a.m., when the Pentagon is attacked.

Rumsfield leaves his office at 9.38 and goes to look at the crash site. He again removes himself from responding to events and spends another 25 minutes observing the damage.

Cheerful Spring

Rumsfield pretending on video he did know about WTC7 collapse. This guy should be in prison not walking around freely. There is no doubt in my mind he planned 9/11.

Two different times, different interviews, playing the dumb card.

#

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They had hundreds of hours of flight training and several had commercial pilot licenses.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_al-Shehhi

Anyone responding to this claiming "it's not possible", needs to explain why and how those planes flew into the buildings with reasonable evidence

Have you researched any of these flight schools? Many of them are CIA operated. The Venice Flight school mentioned in your quoted post was investigated in a documentary I posted. It was owned by Rudi Dekkers who was broke early in 2001 but when the hijackers arrived he received money from a backer to keep his school open. 9/11 commission claims Dekkers and Atta did not know each other, but when investigated Atta girlfriend and people who knew Atta also said Dekkers and Atta spend time together in pubs and bars in Florida.

Dr. Bre

Here’s a theory maybe none of the planes that were hijacked were actually used in the attacks. Then ya hve to wonder what happened the original flights and the passengers and did they ever exist at all

Cheerful Spring

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Here’s a theory maybe none of the planes that were hijacked were actually used in the attacks. Then ya hve to wonder what happened the original flights and the passengers and did they ever exist at all

My main problem with that theory these planes were used in the past. American Airlines and United Airlines would have to be involved in the scam and I don't think that's likely.

Technology did exist pre 9/11 to take over planes remotely. Not saying this happened, but it could have happened this way? Pilots would be unable to do anything radio in nothing they lose complete control of the plane.

King Mob

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Here’s a theory maybe none of the planes that were hijacked were actually used in the attacks. Then ya hve to wonder what happened the original flights and the passengers and did they ever exist at all

Why would they do this though?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Have you researched any of these flight schools?

You believe these guys flew into the buildings. You might want to question on some level why you are acting suspicious about your own beliefs

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You believe these guys flew into the buildings. You might want to question on some level why you are acting suspicious about your own beliefs

Well, planes obviously hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

What puzzles me the US government only released footage showing 4 of the 19 hijackers on camera that day at an airport where they hijacked a plane.

Where is footage of the other 15 hijackers on 9/11? Airports have cameras in 2001

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well, planes obviously hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

If no "clear" footage shows a plane hitting the Pentagon, then how do you know a plane hit it?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If no "clear" footage shows a plane hitting the Pentagon, then how do you know a plane hit it?

Eyewitness accounts and the wreckage. My biggest complaint before looking into this was the damage was not consistent with a plane hitting the west wall of the Pentagon coming South of the Navy Annex. The angle does make any sense as the wings are 124 feet long (62 feet long on each side) the left wing would be out over the grass when the plane crashed.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Eyewitness accounts and the wreckage. My biggest complaint before looking into this was the damage was not consistent with a plane hitting the west wall of the Pentagon coming South of the Navy Annex. The angle does make any sense as the wings are 124 feet long (62 feet long on each side) the left wing would be out over the grass when the plane crashed.

No, before you "looked into this" you thought that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon at all.
You used the same arguments then.

You also insisted that there was no such wreckage.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Eyewitness accounts and the wreckage.

Exactly, other evidence and circumstantial evidence

So with no video footage, are we completely in the dark about which people were on these planes?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, before you "looked into this" you thought that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon at all.
You used the same arguments then.

That's because I wasn't aware of the eyewitnesses accounts of seeing a commercial airliner north of the Navy Annex. Lloyd England was confused by this as well when asked. The CIT investigation group failed to notice Lloyd was confused by the photographs as well because he remembered being more North of the bridge when this event happened and his car nowhere near the first light pole. He may be telling the truth where he was but the CIT team made the mistake of thinking he was involved in the cover-up I made that mistake too. His car was moved to that area. This is why I think Lloyd was confused about the photographs he was shown his memory was different.

Cheerful Spring

Upon looking into this more Lloyd said he was South on Route 27 between the Heliport and H Road ( North of the Navy Annex side) This about 300 to 400 metres from where his car was photographed on the bridge. This is my opinion is why Lloyd keep telling the CIT team no I wasn't on the bridge when it happened.

So the car was moved to the bridge later?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Upon looking into this more Lloyd said he was South on Route 27 between the Heliport and H Road ( North of the Navy Annex side) This about 300 to 400 metres from where his car was photographed on the bridge. This is my opinion is why Lloyd keep telling the CIT team no I wasn't on the bridge when it happened.

So the car was moved to the bridge later?

He said in an interview he wasn't there, near the Pentagon at all (when he clearly was). He's an old man and appears to have memory issues.

His testimony isn't important because he isn't a sole witness (there were many witnesses)

So why do you think conspiracy theorists (who want 911 to be a conspiracy) are so focused on him? (and not the dozens of other witnesses)

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That's because I wasn't aware ...

And maybe, just maybe you aren't aware of yet more things that likewise lead you to a wrong conclusion?

But regardless, doesn't change the fact you were claiming that the damage was the absolute proof that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon.
Now you are saying it's absolute proof that it could have only hit in a certain way.

You understand why no one will take this claim seriously, right?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Exactly, other evidence and circumstantial evidence

So with no video footage, are we completely in the dark about which people were on these planes?

I plotted out on a map where the eyewitnesses claim the plane was on the North side and the official flight path.

This is where the Northside Eyewitnesses claim the plane flew by. I think the Skeptics are wrong claiming the FDR animation is a magnetic compass because the numbers don't add up on either side of the Navy Annex.

This bearing matches up with the FDR Flight compass 70 degrees (80.5 degrees Magnetic declination) When you flying you have to account for Magnetic declination in the Washington DC area on 9/11. Western declination is about 10.5 degrees


This is the official flight path. I could not match the true course claim for the South of the Navy Annex. They claim the plane was 61.5 degrees that would not match up at all

Shown here I could only match up the flight path when I placed the plane at 68-degree angle on the South side of the Navy Annex. Magnetic declination would be 78.5 degrees.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And maybe, just maybe you aren't aware of yet more things that likewise lead you to a wrong conclusion?

But regardless, doesn't change the fact you were claiming that the damage was the absolute proof that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon.
Now you are saying it's absolute proof that it could have only hit in a certain way.

You understand why no one will take this claim seriously, right?

Lloyd England is actually confirming he was Northside Annex witness. The truthers failed to notice what he said. The confusion was always about how his car ended up on the bridge closer to the light poles. Lloyd memory was he was not on the bridge when this happened that why he was so adamant with the CIT team it didn't happen there.

Coming from South of the Navy Annex yes I did not believe a 757 airliner hit from that direction.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Lloyd England is actually confirming he was Northside Annex witness. The truthers failed to notice what he said. The confusion was always about how his car ended up on the bridge closer to the light poles. Lloyd memory was he was not the bridge when this happened that why he was so adamant with the CIT team it didn't happen there.

Coming from South of the Navy Annex yes I did not believe a 757 airliner hit from that direction.

Because you thought that the damage proved this for a fact.

How can you now say that the damage proves the complete the opposite of what you said it proved earlier?

Why is your untrained, ignorant and biased position any better than when it concluded that the damage was impossible for a 757?

Why should anyone take your opinion seriously when you say that the damage shows that the plane can only come from a certain direction?

Why do you take your own opinion seriously when it lead you to such a laughable conclusion that a 757 couldn't have hit the pentagon?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

He said in an interview he wasn't there, near the Pentagon at all (when he clearly was). He's an old man and appears to have memory issues.

His testimony isn't important because he isn't a sole witness (there were many witnesses)

So why do you think conspiracy theorists (who want 911 to be a conspiracy) are so focused on him? (and not the dozens of other witnesses)

South route means his cab was travelling from the North side of the Cisco petrol station. Skeptics wrongly place his cab coming the other way Northbound.

Eyewitnesses mostly just saw a plane. Hardly any of them were asked where exactly they saw the plane in a final few seconds! 13 eyewitnesses who were asked also placed the plane further North of the Navy Annex and North of the Cisco Petrol station.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Because you thought that the damage proved this for a fact.

How can you now say that the damage proves the complete the opposite of what you said it proved earlier?

Why is your untrained, ignorant and biased position any better than when it concluded that the damage was impossible for a 757?

Why should anyone take your opinion seriously when you say that the damage shows that the plane can only come from a certain direction?

Why do you take your own opinion seriously when it lead you to such a laughable conclusion that a 757 couldn't have hit the pentagon?

I did not believe the damage was consistent with the official flight path, the plane coming in from a South approach flying passed the Navy Annex.

The damage to the facade of the West wall of the Pentagon does not match up with a plane hitting from an angle. The plane was coming in at an angle if the official flight path is correct. There is a difference when a plane body is angled and not straight!

Cheerful Spring

The main problems with the South approach

The left wing going to be leaning left at a 270-degree angle to the west and more to the left of the lawn of the Pentagon. The plane coming in straight the wings would just smash against the Pentagon wall and crumble.

The left engine would also be facing more to the west. Plane coming in straight in the engine would smash against the wall.

The nose cone would also impact at a different point on the wall at an angle. Even the back tail will impact differently.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

South route means his cab was travelling

You are straying off again..

It's very simple. Many witnesses confirm the plane. He is one witness. According to him in one interview he wasn't even there (even though he was, he obviously has memory issues)

So the question you should be asking yourself is - why do conspiracy theorists want to focus on him?

The answer to that is the same reason why you want to focus on him

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did not believe the damage was consistent with the official flight path, the plane coming in from a South approach flying passed the Navy Annex.

No, that's not accurate.
You stated as an irrefutable fact that it could not have been a 757.
You stated for a fact that the hole was too small.
You stated for a fact that none of the eye witnesses that reported a 757 could be trusted.

You only changed your mind because you painted yourself into a corner when you decided to cling to the flight data as proof of you fantasies.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The damage to the facade of the wall of the Pentagon does not match up with a plane hitting from an angle.

You also said that it didn't match a 757 at all.
Your opinion is therefore suspect.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are straying off again..

It's very simple. Many witnesses confirm the plane. He is one witness. According to him in one interview he wasn't even there (even though he was, he obviously has memory issues)

So the question you should be asking yourself is - why do conspiracy theorists want to focus on him?

The answer to that is the same reason why you want to focus on him

Many eyewitnesses confirm the plane sure what the point you're making with that statement? There plenty of eyewitnesses who saw the plane and positioned the plane on the north side of the Navy Annex building. If it's on the North side the plane could be on the South side could it?

They not just focusing on him. Truthers have interviewed many eyewitnesses who the saw the plane and they have been asked what they saw. Lloyd story slightly more interesting because of a pole hitting his taxi cab. Lloyd was travelling South Route then some of those light poles were not knocked down by a plane.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, that's not accurate.
You stated as an irrefutable fact that it could not have been a 757.
You stated for a fact that the hole was too small.
You stated for a fact that none of the eye witnesses that reported a 757 could be trusted.

You only changed your mind because you painted yourself into a corner when you decided to cling to the flight data as proof of you fantasies.


You also said that it didn't match a 757 at all.
Your opinion is therefore suspect.

1) Yes, I did because I was not aware there were eyewitnesses who saw the plane on the North side of the Navy Annex. I realised North path approach would explain the damage. The South approach does not explain the damage at all that your position the plane hit the Pentagon from this side isn't it?. Maybe in your mind, the plane would not impact the Pentagon wall differently?

2) What hole was too small?

3) I said many eyewitnesses reported seeing a white plane, a small jet. I said not all eyewitnesses saw the same thing. I said some of the parts of the plane could belong to another plane which is true.

I changed my mind when I looked things up and researched it unlike you.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

.
I changed my mind when I looked things up and researched it unlike you.

But you are using the exact same arguments that lead you to the incorrect and embarrassing conclusion that a 757 couldn't have hit the Pentagon.

Then you used your ignorant opinion about the size and shape of the hole.
Now you are using your ignorant opinion about the size and shape of the hole.

You claimed that the witnesses supported you when you believed it was a different plane as well, so how can we trust that either?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Lloyd story slightly more interesting

And that's what it's all about.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But you are using the exact same arguments that lead you to the incorrect and embarrassing conclusion that a 757 couldn't have hit the Pentagon.

Then you used your ignorant opinion about the size and shape of the hole.
Now you are using your ignorant opinion about the size and shape of the hole.

You claimed that the witnesses supported you when you believed it was a different plane as well, so how can we trust that either?

Please stop you know damn well a plane hitting from the Northside changes the dimensions of the damage to the west of the Pentagon. If you don't still that's on you not me. I thought it was a small plane that hit a fighter jet even a small airliner when I thought the plane was only seen on the Southside.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And that's what it's all about.

It not what it's all about. I was trying to find out where the plane was seconds before it hit the Pentagon! When I listened to the eyewitnesses accounts I realised then it made sense a plane did hit the Pentagon but from the other side of the Navy Annex. Southside approach never made any sense to me. I even plotted it out with a compass why the skeptics are wrong. The official version is the plane was 61.5 degrees on the Southside. Impossible I plotted the official flight path along that line and was 68 degrees.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Please stop you know damn well a plane hitting from the Northside changes the dimensions of the damage to the west of the Pentagon. If you don't still that's on you not me. I thought it was a small plane that hit a fighter jet even a small airliner when I thought the plane was only seen on the Southside.

But you are claiming something is impossible based on your own authority.
Previously, you claimed that the damage could not have been caused by a 757 based on your own authority.

You stating on your own authority that the damage is one way or the other isn't worth a damn.

You claiming the damage couldn't have been caused by a plane coming from the official direction is no more valid as when you claimed it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

Expecting people to just believe you after you embarrassed yourself like that is just silly.

Likewise, your claims of witnesses supporting you and badly done diagrams and clear inability to accurately comprehend reports are the same as when you thought there was no 757.

If you don't like people pointing to your previous, incorrect claims, then maybe you shouldn't have made them.