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

Cheerful Spring

FAA animation matches up with my compass analysis. On the Northside on a 70-degree bearing heading will take the plane into the third ring roundabout near the Pentagon. The plane would just bank right in last second or two to hit the Pentagon.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I realised then it made sense a plane did hit the Pentagon but from the other side of the Navy Annex.

Except that it doesn't make sense as you can't explain why this happened in regards to the conspiracy.

So in what way does it make sense?

That it was easier and less silly to argue than your previous position?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Except that it doesn't make sense as you can't explain why this happened in regards to the conspiracy.

So in what way does it make sense?

That it was easier and less silly to argue than your previous position?

You have chosen to ignore the 13 eyewitnesses who saw the plane on the North side of the Navy Annex. You have ignored the FAA and FDR data ( even though earlier in this thread) you guys were claiming the FDR is prove a plane crashed! So is the FDR data useless now? I even mapped out both flight paths to highlight a point. You have done nothing in this thread to prove the 9/11 commission report is correct about the flight path.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have chosen to ignore the 13 eyewitnesses who saw the plane on the North side of the Navy Annex. You have ignored the FAA and FDR data ( even though earlier in this thread) you guys were claiming the FDR is prove a plane crashed! So is the FDR data useless now? I even mapped out both flight paths to highlight a point. You have done nothing in this thread to prove the 9/11 commission report is correct about the flight path.

Again, I'm not rejecting them.
I'm rejecting your interpretation of them.
I think that you are either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting what these eyewitnesses and reports say.

You have shown yourself to be completely untrustworthy in reporting this stuff, as previously you have claimed people said things they did not say.

You have no credibilty.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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.

How many times do I have to tell you when I started this thread I thought the plane was only seen on the side the official version claimed it to be. That's why I argued the damage could not be caused by a 757 plane if you don't get that I don't know what to tell you?

Everything I thought changed when I saw the FAA animation and FDR files and data. When I listened to the eyewitness accounts I suddenly realised the damage made more sense. When I did my own analysis of the flight paths it made even more sense the official version was wrong.

This is a conspiracy forum the Skeptic forum is the place for you if you want to ignore evidence!

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I'm not rejecting them.
I'm rejecting your interpretation of them.
I think that you are either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting what these eyewitnesses and reports say.

You have shown yourself to be completely untrustworthy in reporting this stuff, as previously you have claimed people said things they did not say.

You have no credibilty.

Wrong on all points.

I posted the FAA animation and FDR animation unfiltered and untouched by me but you obviously did not even watch those videos?

I even posted the video of the eyewitnesses accounts for you to watch but obviously again you did not bother to watch.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Everything I thought changed when I saw the FAA animation and FDR files and data. When I listened to the eyewitness accounts I suddenly realised the damage made more sense. When I did my own analysis of the flight paths it made even more sense the official version was wrong.

But again, you decided that the damage was impossible for a 757. You had no reason for this. You had no evidence for this.
It's the same now you've changed your tune.

You saying that you personally think that the damage is inconsistent with the official story isn't worth anything.
It wasn't worth anything at the start of the thread when you stated as an absolute fact that it couldn't have been a 757.

And again, how can it make sense when you can't actually offer an explanation?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Wrong on all points.

I posted the FAA animation and FDR animation unfiltered and untouched by me but you obviously did not even watch those videos?

I even posted the video of the eyewitnesses accounts for you to watch but obviously again you did not bother to watch.

Again, your interpretation of these things is what is suspect.
You've even had trouble accurately recalling what you yourself have said.

Cheerful Spring

I even post the video again for you to watch because you're claiming I lying about where they saw the plane.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But again, you decided that the damage was impossible for a 757. You had no reason for this. You had no evidence for this.
It's the same now you've changed your tune.

You saying that you personally think that the damage is inconsistent with the official story isn't worth anything.
It wasn't worth anything at the start of the thread when you stated as an absolute fact that it couldn't have been a 757.

And again, how can it make sense when you can't actually offer an explanation?


Again, your interpretation of these things is what is suspect.
You've even had trouble accurately recalling what you yourself have said.

I said the damage was impossible from a Southside approach. I was disagreeing with the official 9/11 commission flight path. You whataboutery does not work with me.

If you don't believe in my interpretation stop talking to me then I not forcing you to reply to me.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I even post the video again for you to watch because you're claiming I lying about where they saw the plane.

So which witnesses state for a fact the plane is where you say it was?
What do they say exactly? Please name them and quote them directly as well as where their testimony was recorded.

I have no interest in trawling through an hours long youtube video only to find you've yet again lied.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I said the damage was impossible from a Southside approach.

It was also impossible for a 757 to cause.

Maybe if you were wrong about that...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

It was also impossible for a 757 to cause.

Maybe if you were wrong about that...

Yes from a south side approach the damage made no sense. How many times do I have to tell you that?

What your interpretation of the FAA and FDR data? What your interpretation of the eyewitness accounts? Have you plotted the flight paths on your own?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I have no interest in trawling through an hours long youtube video only to find you've yet again lied.

Hope everyone reading this notices how lazy skeptics are. They spend all day on a forum debunking and writing but can't be bothered to watch a video with the eyewitnesses describing what they saw.

Video evidence is the best evidence.

JenovaProject

King Mob wrote: »

It was also impossible for a 757 to cause.

Maybe if you were wrong about that...

Maybe if the 9/11 commission was wrong calling South maybe they are wrong about other stuff too.

You cant have it both ways kingmob.

You wouldnt accept that from a conspiracy side but its ok for you to say it???

Your posts are nothing but snide put downs a vaguely hidden personal insults.

Disgusting debating tactic!

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Hope everyone reading this notices how lazy skeptics are. They spend all day on a forum debunking and writing but can't be bothered to watch a video with the eyewitnesses describing what they saw.

Video evidence is the best evidence.

Ah stop now, you are well known for posting multiple you tube videos as "evidence" and expect people to.watch then all.

You once posted 14 hours of video in the 8th referendum thread as evidence that you were right.... 14 fecking HOURS!!!!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes from a south side approach the damage made no sense. How many times do I have to tell you that?

Until you can explain why anyone should take that statement anymore seriously than when you claimed it was impossible for a 757.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What your interpretation of the FAA and FDR data? What your interpretation of the eyewitness accounts? Have you plotted the flight paths on your own?

Dohnjoe posted a good thread that explained this many pages back.
I don't believe that the eyewitnesses say what you think they did, as you've a habit of twisting words and filling in gaps to suit yourself. For example, when after pages of chasing you down on it, your proof for the existence of SAM sites at the pentagon turned out to be the testimony of some random person who had no evidence or authority on the matter. And then it turned out that she never actually said anything about SAM sites at all.

I think this is the case here.
And it's why you're throwing out hours long youtube videos instead of providing direct quotes.

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ah stop now, you are well known for posting multiple you tube videos as "evidence" and expect people to.watch then all.

You once posted 14 hours of video in the 8th referendum thread as evidence that you were right.... 14 fecking HOURS!!!!

I posted a video of Pentagon Eyewitnesses. If I was lying that would be proven immediately by just watching the video surely

I posted a 14-hour video in 8th referendum thread. No, I didn't even post on that thread

King Mob

JenovaProject wrote: »

Maybe if the 9/11 commission was wrong calling South maybe they are wrong about other stuff too.

Sure, but we've yet to establish that they were wrong.

But lets pretend they were.
How does them being wrong in this case help to prove the conspiracy?

Why would they claim that the plane came from a different direction than it did, then do a hilariously lazy job to cover this up?

Even if the official story is wrong in this case, the conspiracy explanation is still worthless, hollow nonsense.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I posted a video of Pentagon Eyewitnesses. If I was lying that would be proven immediately by just watching the video surely

I posted a 14-hour video in 8th referendum thread. No, I didn't even post on that thread

My apologies I mixed you up with another poster

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Until you can explain why anyone should take that statement anymore seriously than when you claimed it was impossible for a 757.


Dohnjoe posted a good thread that explained this many pages back.
I don't believe that the eyewitnesses say what you think they did, as you've a habit of twisting words and filling in gaps to suit yourself. For example, when after pages of chasing you down on it, your proof for the existence of SAM sites at the pentagon turned out to be the testimony of some random person who had no evidence or authority on the matter. And then it turned out that she never actually said anything about SAM sites at all.

I think this is the case here.
And it's why you're throwing out hours long youtube videos instead of providing direct quotes.

Dohnjoe linked to a Skeptic forum and that was it. He did not even read the thread because when I asked him to quote the part that would prove his point he never bothered. He just posted this thread because there were people on there who have similar feelings it was a lazy research. I read the thread and found nothing debunking what I said. I posted three quotes for anti air defences protecting the Pentagon. Back to this argument again i see!

JenovaProject

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, but we've yet to establish that they were wrong.

But lets pretend they were.
How does them being wrong in this case help to prove the conspiracy?

Why would they claim that the plane came from a different direction than it did, then do a hilariously lazy job to cover this up?

Even if the official story is wrong in this case, the conspiracy explanation is still worthless, hollow nonsense.

You avoided the only question I asked and start to waffle on about lets pretend.

Why are you able to disregard a posters ideas because of one time they are "maybe wrong" but you wont disregard the official narrative because of one time they are "maybe wrong"?

Not even the tiniest bit of scepticism about anything official but scorn poured on anyone who dares to stray from it.

Like I said...you cant have it both ways!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I posted three quotes for anti air defences protecting the Pentagon.

See, you can't even get your own posts right.

You posted two.
One of which was not what you said it was and did not mention sam sites at all, nevermind that the person in question had no evidence or authority.
The other was a random throw away line from a paper by a conspiracy theorist who believes that a 757 did not hit the pentagon.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, but we've yet to establish that they were wrong.

But lets pretend they were.
How does them being wrong in this case help to prove the conspiracy?

Why would they claim that the plane came from a different direction than it did, then do a hilariously lazy job to cover this up?

Even if the official story is wrong in this case, the conspiracy explanation is still worthless, hollow nonsense.

Northside approach means no light poles were knocked down by a plane on South approach. If the plane was on the Northside it impossible the official version is correct and therefore we have a conspiracy.

The 9/11 report came out in 2004. That was the final word on it from the US government.

People started noticing holes in the official version when the FAA and FDR data came out in 2007 and 2008 and the Eyewitnesses were interviewed in 2006 2008.

King Mob

JenovaProject wrote: »

You avoided the only question I asked and start to waffle on about lets pretend.

No, I directly answered your question.

Sure, but we've yet to establish that they were wrong.

So yes, if they are wrong about the direction, then they can be wrong about other things.
However, we've not established that they are wrong.

JenovaProject wrote: »

Why are you able to disregard a posters ideas because of one time they are "maybe wrong" but you wont disregard the official narrative because of one time they are "maybe wrong"?

Because the poster in question is basing these ideas solely on their own opinions and authority on the matter of ballistics, aerodynamics and architecture.

If those same opinions and authority lead someone to believe something silly like a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then maybe they aren't very good or accurate...

Shall I take it that you're not going to address my questions then?

JenovaProject

King Mob wrote: »

.
However, we've not established that they are wrong.

How have we not established they are wrong?
Cheerful has posted the FAA FDR recording to show the plane came in a different direction.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

See, you can't even get your own posts right.

You posted two.
One of which was not what you said it was and did not mention sam sites at all, nevermind that the person in question had no evidence or authority.
The other was a random throw away line from a paper by a conspiracy theorist who believes that a 757 did not hit the pentagon.

I posted three quotes from different people actually read the thread again. The News reported even on the day that stingers were used to protect the White house and Pentagon. A stinger is an anti-air defence.

King Mob

JenovaProject wrote: »

How have we not established they are wrong?
Cheerful has posted the FAA FDR recording to show the plane came in a different direction.

No, as I've said, I don't accept his interpretation of this data. And a more rational, educated explanation was supplied earlier in the thread.

Ok. So what's the conspiracy explanation for this?
Why do they claim it came from a different direction?
Why could they not fake or alter the data?

The conspiracy explanation so far has made no sense, so there's got to be another explanation.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, as I've said, I don't accept his interpretation of this data. And a more rational, educated explanation was supplied earlier in the thread.

Ok. So what's the conspiracy explanation for this?
Why do they claim it came from a different direction?
Why could they not fake or alter the data?

The conspiracy explanation so far has made no sense, so there's got to be another explanation.

You never read that explanation so how you know it was rational and educated.

Skeptics have wrongly speculated the FDR data is showing a magnetic heading is not. I made that mistake too. I only noticed this mistake when I plotted the official flight paths using True north, True bearing and using Magnetic declination.

The NTSB animation is actually using a standard a 360-degree compass on a google lined map. That's why the plane was 70- degrees on a true position heading North of the Navy Annex. It was 80.7 degrees on a Magnetic heading. There was no need to mess around with the data.

Skeptics have speculated the reason the plane was on the North side was the NTSB had not adjusted for true position in the Washington DC area. So it believed the plane was actually on the Southside on 61.5-degree heading ( 72.2 degrees is the Magnetic heading)

Washington DC today has 10.8 magnetic + heading West. It declines by 0.01 every year. 9/11 was probably 10.7. 61.5+ 10.7= 72.2 Magnetic North heading.

61.5 degrees does not line up with the official flight path. 68 degrees does that means the Magnetic heading was 78.7 heading South that not what the FDR data is showing!

JenovaProject

King Mob wrote: »

The conspiracy explanation so far has made no sense, so there's got to be another explanation.

Once one thing can be proven false the rest can be disregarded.
This is what you are doing.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!

Dohnjoe

JenovaProject wrote: »

Not even the tiniest bit of scepticism about anything official but scorn poured on anyone who dares to stray from it.

It's not skepticism nor is it even close

JenovaProject

What is it then if not scepticism

Dohnjoe

JenovaProject wrote: »

What is it then if not scepticism

Repeatedly distorting, "misunderstanding" and misinterpreting information in order to suggest some sort of vague alternative theory that has no substantiated evidence

That's not skepticism

JenovaProject

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Repeatedly distorting, "misunderstanding" and misinterpreting information in order to suggest some sort of vague alternative theory that has no substantiated evidence

That's not skepticism

You forgot to add in your opinion to the first sentence:)

Not believing the official narrative is scepticism...even you and kingmob cannot twist dictionary definitions

King Mob

JenovaProject wrote: »

Once one thing can be proven false the rest can be disregarded.
This is what you are doing.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!

Well no, that's not my point and it's not what I said.

I'm saying that:
1. If someone is using "cause I say so" as their argument, then it undercuts them when they used that same argument to support something obviously silly and false.
Cheerful's personal opinion about the damage of the pentagon isn't worth much when his opinion was equally that it showed that a 757 couldn't possibly have caused it.

2. That there is no conspiracy explanation for any of the "holes" in the official story and that even if they were actual holes, there's no viable alternative.

I'll just take it that you're not going to answer any of my points.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Repeatedly distorting, "misunderstanding" and misinterpreting information in order to suggest some sort of vague alternative theory that has no substantiated evidence

That's not skepticism

I posted the video of Pentagon eyewitnesses you can listen to their own words yourself. I posted the FAA and FDR animation unchanged.

The FAA/Norad radar returns also place the plane more to the North. The first ring is the Northside. The light poles were knocked down in the second ring. Two animations are wrong is fantasy.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Well no, that's not my point and it's not what I said.

I'm saying that:
1. If someone is using "cause I say so" as their argument, then it undercuts them when they used that same argument to support something obviously silly and false.
Cheerful's personal opinion about the damage of the pentagon isn't worth much when his opinion was equally that it showed that a 757 couldn't possibly have caused it.

2. That there is no conspiracy explanation for any of the "holes" in the official story and that even if they were actual holes, there's no viable alternative.

I'll just take it that you're not going to answer any of my points.

Why should we believe the official version when eyewitnesses accounts are different and FDR and FAA data shows the plane on the northside? I don't get why you're holding onto this position when it's you who is wrong?

Dohnjoe

JenovaProject wrote: »

Not believing the official narrative is scepticism...

"Belief" and "narratives" shouldn't come into it.

It's down to investigation, scientific method, facts, evidence and so on.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why should we believe the official version when eyewitnesses accounts are different and FDR and FAA data shows the plane on the northside

That's your personal interpretation. This info has been reasonably covered earlier in the thread but you rejected it.

It's the same as your interpretation that it was impossible for flight 77 to hit the Pentagon

You've merely chosen a (P4T) theory that is "slightly" easier to defend than the military jet theory

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't get why you're holding onto this position when it's you who is wrong?

Because you also said that the eye witnesses and flight data proved that a 757 didn't crash into the pentagon.

This is no different.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Belief" and "narratives" shouldn't come into it.

It's down to investigation, scientific method, facts, evidence and so on.

You have got a clue what you looking that's the problem

The FAA data places the plane on the North of the Cisco Petrol station. The lighter red line is the tracking of the plane going through the first ring. The Northside eyewitnesses accounts line up with this track.

The darker blob of red is where the 9/11 commission claims the light poles were knocked by a plane.

Cheerful Spring

Now the FDR animation. Notice where the plane is placed? It's in the first ring on Northside. Remember light poles are knocked down in the rings below.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The FAA data places the plane

You are rehashing the P4T line. That's fine, that's up to you. It's been exhaustively addressed. If you want to maintain that the plane hit a few degrees off that's up to you

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are rehashing the P4T line. That's fine, that's up to you. It's been exhaustively addressed. If you want to maintain that the plane hit a few degrees off that's up to you

How can two different animations from two different US government bodies be wrong?

5 degrees off means the plane was 300 to 400 metres or more away from hitting 5 lightpoles.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How can two different animations from two different US government bodies be wrong?

It's all been explained

If one source claims X

And 15 sources claim Y, the consensus of experts and investigators shows Y, the recorded data (when correctly interpreted) shows Y, and all circumstantial evidence supports Y

You've demonstrated in this thread you will defend X against all reason and evidence

Then flipflop on it later

It's not up to anyone in this thread to explain anything to you - simply to provide the information. And the information has been provided.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's all been explained in plain english

If one source claims X

And 15 sources claim Y, the consensus of experts and investigators claims Y, the recorded data (when correctly interpreted) claims Y, and all circumstantial evidence supports Y

You've demonstrated in this thread you will defend X against all reason and evidence

Then flipflop on it later

It's not up to anyone in this thread to explain anything to you - simply to provide the information. And the information has been provided.

Yes, the FAA and FDR data and eyewitnesses all place the plane on the north side.

Southside. I found nothing to confirm that route for the plane.

Cheerful Spring

This graphic will be better for people to understand the differences between a North and South flight path. The Citgo station is also there to the left of the graphic.


The yellow line is Northside. The darkened red is the official flight path (southside) Yellow lines matches the FAA, FDR data. White dots are the knocked down light poles

Cheerful Spring

This is the direction the Pentagon police officer placed the plane. Again it heading North through the first ring. The second ring is where light poles got hit.


Marked in red Where the first and second light posts got taken down.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This graphic

Which site are you getting this stuff from?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which site are you getting this stuff from?

That graphic from CIT they just matched this up with the ASCE photographs and the layout of the 5 light poles.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That graphic from CIT they just matched this up with the ASCE photographs and the layout of the 5 light poles.

So you back the CIT theory that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?