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

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

No, I wouldn't agree with that where did the plane go then? It was clearly seen by eyewitnesses on the Northside seconds from crashing. I do think there was a second event though involving explosives though inside the building. The Pentagon damage does match a northside approach I differ from them on that. I also think they did not pay attention to Lloyd England interview correctly.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No, I wouldn't agree with that where did the plane go then?

You tell us, you are borrowing their theory

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You tell us, you are borrowing their theory

I listening to Pentagon eyewitnesses accounts of a Northside approach. CIT believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon is a different theory altogether. Where did the plane go then when arrived near the Pentagon?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

CIT believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon is a different theory altogether

You're literally using their diagrams..

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I listening to Pentagon eyewitnesses accounts of a Northside approach. CIT believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon is a different theory altogether. Where did the plane go then when arrived near the Pentagon?

So why do they use the exact same evidence you do to prove something so silly and obviously wrong?

Why do you trust their graphic and reporting even though they are clearly incompetent?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So why do they use the exact same evidence you do to prove something so silly and obviously wrong?

Why do you trust their graphic and reporting even though they are clearly incompetent?

The graphic does not belong to them. The directional lines are new that's all they just used this to illustrate where their eyewitnesses saw the plane.

Where the plane was seen and when it crashed 9.37 are two separate events.

CIT crowd believes a plane diverted and missed the Pentagon.

Me that seems illogical if the eyewitnesses saw 757 plane seconds north of the navy annex and moments away from crashing. Why would the plane not just hit the building?

CIT people are trying to make the conspiracy more bizarre than it needs to be.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You tell us, you are borrowing their theory

I don't want to go there because there no evidence the plane flew off past the Pentagon and heading somewhere else. This highly speculative this what happened. There no eyewitnesses saw this happen.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Yes, they did investigative work but their theories would not matter if they found no Pentagon eyewitnesses supporting a plane flying on the Northside. That they found over 13 eyewitnesses is astounding and I have read online they found 22 people but I have only seen 13 eyewitnesses on video so I stick to this number because we can see on video their version of events is not being misinterpreted by the CIT group.

I don't support the plane did not hit the Pentagon. The evidence I have seen supports a plane on the Northside, not Southside where the 9/11 commission report findings have it.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would the plane not just hit the building?

Lol. I know right? Why believe in a silly conspiracy theory when it can't even answer a basic question like that?
:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. I know right? Why believe in a silly conspiracy theory when it can't even answer a basic question like that?
:rolleyes:

Well, I don't know what they need to make the conspiracy sexier there is enough evidence the plane was flying in the wrong direction to have hit the Pentagon from the southside.

If went passed the Pentagon then you need to find evidence for that and have not seen anything to confirm that. No Eyewitnesses saw a plane go past the Pentagon, there no data to look at it to show where the plane went. FDR data supports a plane crashing at the Pentagon. Even radar data has the plane crash near the Pentagon.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Well, I don't know what they need to make the conspiracy sexier there is enough evidence the plane was flying in the wrong direction to have hit the Pentagon from the southside.

I'll explain the joke to you as you've seemed to miss it.
You are pointing out that the other conspiracy theory is stupid as it have a very large gaping plot hole. i.e. "why wouldn't they just fly the plane into the pentagon."

Your theory also has an equally large gaping plot hole you can't explain.

The fact you are pointing out one as if it's obvious is ironic.
(Especially since you started off this thread fully confident in said theory while also ignoring that very question when it was put to you.)

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If went passed the Pentagon then you need to find evidence for that and have not seen anything to confirm that. No Eyewitnesses saw a plane go past the Pentagon, there no data to look at it to show where the plane went. FDR data supports a plane crashing at the Pentagon. Even radar data has the plane crash near the Pentagon.

Weird, cause early in the thread you said that their theory had all of those things...
Maybe you are not good at judging good evidence from bad evidence...?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I'll explain the joke to you as you've seemed to miss it.
You are pointing out that the other conspiracy theory is stupid as it have a very large gaping plot hole. i.e. "why wouldn't they just fly the plane into the pentagon."

Your theory also has an equally large gaping plot hole you can't explain.

The fact you are pointing out one as if it's obvious is ironic.
(Especially since you started off this thread fully confident in said theory while also ignoring that very question when it was put to you.)


Weird, cause early in the thread you said that their theory had all of those things...
Maybe you are not good at judging good evidence from bad evidence...?

Actually no I never looked into the FDR stuff till Dohnjoe brought it up as evidence the plane had to have hit the Pentagon as they found the FDR device at the Pentagon. So only then I started to look into it and found the animation and noticed the problems with it. I always thought at the beginning all the eyewitnesses saw the plane on the side the 9/11 commission claimed it was, northside approach did not even compute with me. I was looking at the damage based on the understanding or false understanding the plane was only seen on that side. When I did further research the damage made more sense if the plane struck the building heading straight in. The direction of the plane hitting the wall from the southside confused me endlessly I could not figure out where the wings went and tail ended up going?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Actually no I never looked into the FDR stuff till Dohnjoe brought it up as evidence the plane had to have hit the Pentagon as they found the FDR device at the Pentagon.

That's not entirely true as the experts you held up as infallible, whose theories you supported as gospel truth, use the FDR data as part of their evidence.
You also yourself stated as immovable fact that the FDR data proved that the plane 1) couldn't be a 757 and 2) didn't show the crash and stopped before it.
You tried to argue that the plane flew over, including trying to claim that witnesses saw such a thing.

So either you didn't read through all the "papers" you claimed you'd read... or you're lying now...
Again, you can't really rely on your authority here when you have none. Or any credibility.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So only then I started to look into it and found the animation and noticed the problems with it. I always thought at the beginning all the eyewitnesses saw the plane on the side the 9/11 commission claimed it was a northside approach did not even compute with me. I was looking at the damage based on the understanding or false understanding the plane was only seen on that side. When I did further research the damage made more sense if the plane struck the building heading straight in. The direction of the plane hitting the wall from the southside confused me endlessly I could not figure out where the wings went and tail ended up going?

So why did they not just say the plane came the way it did, thus covering up the conspiracy completely?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

That's not entirely true as the experts you held up as infallible, whose theories you supported as gospel truth, use the FDR data as part of their evidence.

So either you didn't read through all the "papers" you claimed you'd read... or you're lying now...


So why did they not just say the plane came the way it did, thus covering up the conspiracy completely?

I never even talked about FDR data till Dohhjoe brought this up to me and I said I have a look at it and only then I posted images of what I found.

I looked into the FDR data. Then I found videos of eyewitnesses detailing on video where they saw the plane. The crucial part that sealed it for me was the FAA animation that too collaborated the northside eyewitnesses accounts.

FDR data on its own is not good enough but when you got other evidence to back this flight path approach up with there has to be something going on don't you think?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FDR data on its own is not good enough but when you got other evidence to back this flight path approach up with there has to be something going on don't you think?

So why would they not just say the plane flew in the way it did?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So why would they not just say the plane flew in the way it did?

Exactly that's the point isn't it why are they placing the plane on the Southside?

1) Northside approach means it impossible a plane flying there could not have hit and knocked down 5 light poles.

The eyewitnesses FDR data and FAA data has to be all inaccurate for the 9/11 report to correct. This is problematic when the released animation is showing a different flight path that avoids light poles near the bridge.

The only logical conclusion I can come up with the 9/11 commission was given false narratives and they released information on false pretences. Since this report came out in 2004 and the animations came out 3 and 4 years later maybe those governments transport bodies did not realise they be releasing information that would fuel the conspiracy and make people wonder why is radar data returns placing the plane on the wrong side?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I never even talked about FDR data till Dohhjoe brought this up to me and I said I have a look at it and only then I posted images of what I found.

Also just as a reminder: this is what you claimed about the FDR at first:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not a decent post. The flight was never recorded in real time on radar. The flight path is based on a reconstruction using FDR data. This FDR data that was only released in 2007 ( 6 years after 9/11) so the data could have got manipulated at that time or could be fake? We know the plane was only tracked in real time up till 8.50am (contact was lost) and then again at 9.32am, a blip reappeared, and it was not identified as Flight 77. They just tracked a fast moving object entering Washington DC airspace.

The pilots for Truth found a lot of discrepancies in the FDR data if I remember correctly. Just before the impact, even the data stopped recording. So it doesn't record an object striking the building. I have researched this in awhile, but a computer simulation does not prove anything.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Exactly that's the point isn't it why are they placing the plane on the Southside?

Yes, why?
Explanation please.
There's no reason for them to claim the plane came from a different angle.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The only logical conclusion I can come up with the 9/11 commission was given false narratives and they released information on false pretences. Since this report came out in 2004 and the animations came out 3 and 4 years later maybe those governments transport did realise they be realising information that would fuel the conspiracy and make people wonder why is radar data returns placing the plane on the wrong side?

Ok, but then this is you doing exactly what you accuse your formerly infallible experts of.

You have no answer for the very simple question, and you are unnessesarily over complicating the conspiracy for no reason.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Also just as a reminder: this is what you claimed about the FDR at first:

The FDR is a reconstruction and pentagon plane was not tracked in real time for 40 minutes. All true.

Reconstruction can be faked and manipulated, but that pure speculation on my part this is what happened. The Eyewitnesses and FAA animation also backed up the FDR so i changed my mind it probably legitimate. On its own its worthless but if it backed up by others things i trust more.

FDR animation does stop 2 seconds before impact it does not show a plane impacting. I read more about this since this post and from I learned the data for last two seconds was not given or just stopped recording this is speculative of course as nobody truly knows?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The FDR is a reconstruction and pentagon plane was not tracked in real time for 40 minutes. All true.

Reconstruction can be faked and manipulated, but that pure speculation on my part this is what happened. The Eyewitnesses and FAA animation also backed up the FDR so i changed my mind it probably legitimate. On its own its worthless but if it backed up by others things i trust more.

FDR animation does stop 2 seconds before impact it does not show a plane impacting. I read more about this since this post and from I learned the data for last two seconds was not given or just stopped recording this is speculative of course as nobody truly knows?

Lol and you're back onto the idea that it might not be a 757 again?

Wow.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, why?
Explanation please.
There's no reason for them to claim the plane came from a different angle.


Ok, but then this is you doing exactly what you accuse your formerly infallible experts of.

You have no answer for the very simple question, and you are unnessesarily over complicating the conspiracy for no reason.

Nobody placing the plane on the north side with no evidence.

Two separate distinct animations from two US government departments have the plane on the north side. How can truthers manipulate data released by them?

If the plane was on the southside why are eyewitnesses placing the plane on the opposite side? Are they lying confused what your opinion they also seem to dismiss the plane was that far over to the south?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nobody placing the plane on the north side with no evidence.

Two separate distinct animations from two US government departments have the plane on the north side. How can truthers manipulate data released by them?

If the plane was on the southside why are eyewitnesses placing the plane on the opposite side? Are they lying confused what your opinion they also seem to dismiss the plane was that far over to the south?

No, you've dodged the question for the billionth time.
Why would the conspirators say the plane came from a different direction?

If you can't answer it, say you can't answer it.
If you ignore it again, then at least explain why you are ignoring it and how it's different from the same exact question you have for the other conspiracy you've decided you don't like anymore?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol and you're back onto the idea that it might not be a 757 again?

Wow.

No i didn't. I said FDR shuts off before impact it does not show a plane hitting the building. A plane did hit but not on the side the 9/11 commission states it did that my current position. Truthers position is no plane hit or it missed.

When you looking at the evidence at the overall evidence a plane did hit but not in the direction the 9/11 report claims.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, you've dodged the question for the billionth time.
Why would the conspirators say the plane came from a different direction?

If you can't answer it, say you can't answer it.
If you ignore it again, then at least explain why you are ignoring it and how it's different from the same exact question you have for the other conspiracy you've decided you don't like anymore?

I don't know that's the confusing part. The light poles are on the Southside. So they had to place the plane there. If and evidence supports this the plane was on the north side the light poles were not knocked down by the plane seen on the northside then there is a conspiracy to cover up something else happening.

This pure speculation I accept there could be a second event happening inside the Pentagon itself. The C hole ring could be that evidence of a blast inside the building? Nobody still can figure out what caused the damage. Skeptics first claimed it was the nose cone of the plane, that theory got debunked, they then formed a new theory it was landing gear this easily debunked too, so there no evidence what caused that blast out of the wall in C ring.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't know that's the confusing part. The light poles are on the Southside. So they had to place the plane there. If and evidence supports this the plane was on the north side the light poles were not knocked down by the plane seen on the northside then there is a conspiracy to cover up something else happening.

So why not just not do the light poles thing?
Again, another simple question you can't answer.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This pure speculation I accept there could be a second event happening inside the Pentagon itself. The C hole ring could be that evidence of a blast inside the building? Nobody still can figure out what caused the damage. Skeptics first claimed it was the nose cone of the plane, that theory got debunked, they then formed a new theory it was landing gear this easily debunked too, so there no evidence what caused that blast out of the wall in C ring.

There is no second event. It's not specualtion, it's fantasy and it explains nothing. It doesn't explain why they would lie about the direction of the plane at all and it is self contradictory.

So what's the difference between you and the conspiracy theorists you disagree with?
You are both overcomplicating the conspiracy why random fantasies that make no sense.

Also, lol again, you are going back to your points about the C hole ring, which earlier you were using to prove for a fact a 757 couldn't have hit the pentagon.
You were wrong then.
Maybe you are just as wrong now?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So why not just not do the light poles thing?
Again, another simple question you can't answer.


There is no second event. It's not specualtion, it's fantasy and it explains nothing. It doesn't explain why they would lie about the direction of the plane at all and it is self contradictory.

So what's the difference between you and the conspiracy theorists you disagree with?
You are both overcomplicating the conspiracy why random fantasies that make no sense.

Also, lol again, you are going back to your points about the C hole ring, which earlier you were using to prove for a fact a 757 couldn't have hit the pentagon.
You were wrong then.
Maybe you are just as wrong now.

It simple as this

This is fantasy for you but this flight path is backed up by FAA and FDR data and Eyewitnesses accounts. You ignoring things that court of law would look at as proof of what happened

Northside plane hitting the Pentagon means there is a conspiracy as not possible for the plane to divert of course that far seconds before impact.

Southside approach is backed up by nothing. As far as I am aware there is only 1 eyewitness who saw the plane on that side. 5 lightpoles supports this flight path nothing else does.

I always stated the C ring had nothing to do with a plane crashing that position never changed. A plane hitting E ring is irrelevant unless you think the plane nose cone or landinggear came through there and made it ways all way to C ring and came through the wall? I don't it nonsensical theories written by skeptics.

Cheerful Spring

911 report was not legitimate. Even 9/11 commissioners are on record saying they believed there was a cover-up. They can only put in this report information they were given at the time.


The fact the leading FBI agent in the investigation of the 9/11 attacks said they 9/11 commission mislead the public should wake you up that you not been given the full facts surrounding this event.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It simple as this

This is fantasy for you

No, the fantasy is your idea that there was a second event.
It's silly.
There's no evidence for such an event.
And if such an event did happen, it would not explain why they would claim the plane came from a different direction. Them doing so offers no benefit to either event.
In fact, it's a detriment, as by claiming that the plane came from a different direction draws attention. It's the only reason you have to speculate about such a second imaginary event.
If they just said the plane came from the direction it did, what would indicate that a second event happened?

Additionally, your insistence makes the conspiracy theory silly and childish.
You are suggesting that they went to the bother of trying to cover up a second event. However, the only thing they did to support this was knock over a few light poles and tell one taxi driver to say he saw a plane.
That's silly. It's something a child would think of.
And then on top of that, your theory doesn't hold water as if they were able and willing to cover up a second event from investigators, then they would be able to alter the evidence you are using to expose the conspiracy.
If you are going to suggest they were unable to do this, then they would not be able to cover up the second event. You can't have it both ways, as it would be contradictory.
If you are going to suggest they were lax or lazy or incompetent in covering it up, then it makes no sense for them to go to the bother of claiming the plane came from another direction in the first place.

And all of this is before we get into the silly logistics that would need to happen to make your fantasy a reality.
And then all that would be before you could even suggest what this second fantasy event actually was.

So in short, you have no answer to the question.
It's exactly the same as the question you asked of the conspiracy theorists you don't like anymore.
(And in reality, you yourself were asked when you supported that version of the conspiracy theory, and you completely ignored.)

So not only is it ironic for you to ask such a question, it's deeply hypocritical.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, the fantasy is your idea that there was a second event.
It's silly.
There's no evidence for such an event.
And if such an event did happen, it would not explain why they would claim the plane came from a different direction. Them doing so offers no benefit to either event.
In fact, it's a detriment, as by claiming that the plane came from a different direction draws attention. It's the only reason you have to speculate about such a second imaginary event.
If they just said the plane came from the direction it did, what would indicate that a second event happened?

Additionally, your insistence makes the conspiracy theory silly and childish.
You are suggesting that they went to the bother of trying to cover up a second event. However, the only thing they did to support this was knock over a few light poles and tell one taxi driver to say he saw a plane.
That's silly. It's something a child would think of.
And then on top of that, your theory doesn't hold water as if they were able and willing to cover up a second event from investigators, then they would be able to alter the evidence you are using to expose the conspiracy.
If you are going to suggest they were unable to do this, then they would not be able to cover up the second event. You can't have it both ways, as it would be contradictory.
If you are going to suggest they were lax or lazy or incompetent in covering it up, then it makes no sense for them to go to the bother of claiming the plane came from another direction in the first place.

And all of this is before we get into the silly logistics that would need to happen to make your fantasy a reality.
And then all that would be before you could even suggest what this second fantasy event actually was.

So in short, you have no answer to the question.
It's exactly the same as the question you asked of the conspiracy theorists you don't like anymore.
(And in reality, you yourself were asked when you supported that version of the conspiracy theory, and you completely ignored.)

So not only is it ironic for you to ask such a question, it's deeply hypocritical.

It not silly because if a plane hit the Pentagon from the north side the light poles were staged for some reason to cover up something else. Then we find the C hole that can't be explained. Skeptics have come up with ridiculous theories to explain it like the nose cone of the plane came through there. Anyone with a brain knew the first thing to go on a plane would be the nose cone it's the weakest part of the plane and would vaporise in the first impact. The rest of the plane would vapourise going through in the first ring E and D nothing would be left of the plane by the time it reached the C ring that's why they came out with the landing gear theory actually it was theory put out there by popular mechanics that was not supported by the evidence. No landing gear was ever found at the exit of C ring. The landing gear found was pictured underneath heavy rubble inside the Pentagon and nowhere near C ring.

Depends where the bombs were placed and went off in the building. The plane coming in a northside would not have not caused the C hole ring and this would expose the conspiracy inside the building? C ring hole is very important if you believe this plane damage was from a plane impacting the wall on the southside. The light poles would have to be staged to account for this flight path.

Cheerful Spring

What logistics Amec construction was doing renovations for years in that exact area. New walls and new refurnishments occurred for years in that exact area. AMEC construction has long-standing ties with Saudi Arabia and Neocon politicians. It would actually be been very easy to get bombs into the building during the construction phase that was still ongoing even on 9/11. This another thing that were fishy Hani Hanjour ( if he was the pilot) directed his plane to that location where the construction was ongoing. He even did a u360 in the sky to hit that spot.

Cheerful Spring

Actually, the cleanup and wreckage removal was done by Amec construction. No outsiders were hired to remove the rubble. So anything useful was got rid of quickly and damaging material probably no longer exists.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not silly

No it is. And it looks all the sillier when you refuse to directly answer any of the problems you've been presented with.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Depends where the bombs were placed and went off in the building. The plane coming in a northside would not have not caused the C hole ring and this would expose the conspiracy inside the building? C ring hole is very important if you believe this plane damage was from a plane impacting the wall on the southside. The light poles would have to be staged to account for this flight path.

So wait. They claimed the plane came from a different direction to cover the fact that there was bombs.
But now you are saying that doing so does not cover up these imaginary bombs.
So why do it?
You're contradicting your own theory again.

Also:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Actually, the cleanup and wreckage removal was done by Amec construction. No outsiders were hired to remove the rubble. So anything useful was got rid of quickly and damaging material probably no longer exists.

Why couldn't they plant the landing gear in a place that was convincing in that case?

Why would they need to pretend that the plane came from a different direction if they weren't trying to throw off investigators?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This another thing that were fishy Hani Hanjour ( if he was the pilot) directed his plane to that location where the construction was ongoing. He even did a u360 in the sky to hit that spot.

Why couldn't they not get a better pilot than this guy?
Or failing that, why could then not fake him being a better pilot?
Or failing that, why not just not send him to a flight school where someone would notice he was a bad pilot? Also, weren't you claiming the flight school was a CIA thing? If so, why would one of the instructors contradict the official story? Was he the only guy there who wasn't CIA?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No it is. And it looks all the sillier when you refuse to directly answer any of the problems you've been presented with.


So wait. They claimed the plane came from a different direction to cover the fact that there was bombs.
But now you are saying that doing so does not cover up these imaginary bombs.
So why do it?
You're contradicting your own theory again.

Also:

Why couldn't they plant the landing gear in a place that was convincing in that case?

Why would they need to pretend that the plane came from a different direction if they weren't trying to throw off investigators?

No i didn't say that. The southside approach was the only way to explain the C hole blast. They must have mapped out the likely cause beforehand based on where the bombs were placed and likely damage to the C ring wall on that wing or area where those offices are located or were under construction.

A plane coming from a northside approach could not have made that C hole. That's why the eyewitnesses accounts and FDR and FAA animations are interesting and puzzling to people like me. How can a plane heading on Northside have to lead on to cause the C hole wall blowout?

Landing gear is a theory put out there by popular mechanics it has no basis in reality. You invented a theory here the conspirators thought about this landing gear explanation?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No i didn't say that. The southside approach was the only way to explain the C hole blast.

But you are arguing that the southside approach cannot explain the hole, making the whole thing pointless.

Why not just not blow a hole in the wall?

There is no possible reason why they would need to do so.

Again, you are doing exactly what you accused the other, "wrong" conspiracy theorists of doing.
You have dozens of basic questions you cannot answer.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Why couldn't they not get a better pilot than this guy?
Or failing that, why could then not fake him being a better pilot?
Or failing that, why not just not send him to a flight school where someone would notice he was a bad pilot? Also, weren't you claiming the flight school was a CIA thing? If so, why would one of the instructors contradict the official story? Was he the only guy there who wasn't CIA?

He hardly a terrible pilot if he got the plane down to hit the building. The pilot credentials are the biggest issue in this because the instructors claimed Hani Hanjour struggled to fly a Cessna and control it in flight weeks before 9/11. So either there was another guy flying or the cockpit controls were taken over and the pilot lost control and plane was flown remotely to the target. It hard to fake evidence from many schools he attended independent investigators found out how bad a pilot he was. This evidence was not talked about in the 9/11 report. The accepted version about Hani Hanjour was based on one flight school where Hani Hanjour turned up at and passed. We later learned the instructor who gave the evidence at the 9/11 commission was an Israeli former soldier who later after 9/11 returned home.

The CIA school was actually where Atta trained out of the Venice flying School in Florida.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He hardly a terrible pilot if he got the plane down to hit the building. The pilot credentials are the biggest issue in this because the instructors claimed Hani Hanjour struggled to fly a Cessna and control it in flight weeks before 9/11. So either there was another guy flying or the cockpit controls were taken over and the pilot lost control and plane was flown remotely to the target. It hard to fake evidence from many schools he attended independent investigators found out how bad a pilot he was. This evidence was not talked about in the 9/11 report. The accepted version about Hani Hanjour was based on one flight school where Hani Hanjour turned up at and passed. We later learned the instructor who gave the evidence at the 9/11 commission was an Israeli former soldier who later after 9/11 returned home.

The CIA school was actually where Atta trained out of the Venice flying School in Florida.

And all of this unsourced bull**** answers exactly zero of my questions.
Because there is no answer.
You can't explain why and you know that.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But you are arguing that the southside approach cannot explain the hole, making the whole thing pointless.

Why not just not blow a hole in the wall?

There is no possible reason why they would need to do so.

Again, you are doing exactly what you accused the other, "wrong" conspiracy theorists of doing.
You have dozens of basic questions you cannot answer.

What difference does that make only conspiracy theorists are going to notice the problems. Skeptics have theories to explain the hole plane nose cone the landing gears explantations that dismiss what we are saying. Even without this you can just say the blast occurred inside the building from the plane, this can easily be dismissed if you don't find bomb residue left over.

Blowing a hole in the wall would give the game away. The blast has to line up with a plane impact on southside. The southside approach only way that C hole could have occurred.

The biggest problem like i said before the plane was seen on the northside not the Southside.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What difference does that make only conspiracy theorists are going to notice the problems.

Then why go to the bother of trying to cover it up in the first place?
You contradict yourself again because you haven't actually thought about your own theory.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Skeptics have theories to explain the hole plane nose cone the landing gears explantations that dismiss what we are saying. Even without this you can just say the blast occurred inside the building from the plane, this can easily be dismissed if you don't find bomb residue left over.

Blowing a hole in the wall would give the game away. The blast has to line up with a plane impact on southside. The southside approach only way that C hole could have occurred.

The biggest problem like i said before the plane was seen on the northside not the Southside.

Again, you fail to answer the question.
Why not just not blow a hole in the wall?
Or failing that, why not just plant evidence to show it was the landing gear?

You are overcomplicating your conspiracy theory. You might as well go back to claiming there was no 757. There's no difference really.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Then why go to the bother of trying to cover it up in the first place?
You contradict yourself again because you haven't actually thought about your own theory.


Again, you fail to answer the question.
Why not just not blow a hole in the wall?
Or failing that, why not just plant evidence to show it was the landing gear?

You are overcomplicating your conspiracy theory. You might as well go back to claiming there was no 757. There's no difference really.

Only conspiracy theorists are finding these holes in the flight path. Who knows maybe their planning was not perfect and they slipped up? 9/11 commission report agreed with the south side approach so they did a good job in fooling most of the public. Years later more information emerged and discrepancies were noticed but by then is the US government not going to come back and investigate and believe in what conspiracy theorists have found. If there were bombs that went off evidence for that long gone anyways in first a few months after 9/11.

The C hole is in specific location of that block. You just can't just blow a hole in the C ring and not match up with a plane hitting from the Southside. Something in that C hole block or offices needed to be got rid off and bombs were the only way to get rid of it the plane in my opinion would not have travelled the that far the plane would be pretty much gone by the time it arrived at Ring D.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Only conspiracy theorists are finding these holes in the flight path. Who knows maybe their planning was not perfect and they slipped up?

Again, this is a non answer that contradicts your previous claims.
If it's only conspiracy theorists finding problems, then who are they trying to fool?
And if they are slipping up so hilariously bad, how come this is the best evidence you have?
Why, if there's the possibility of them slipping up, would they go through the needlessly complex plan that offers no benefit for anyone?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The C hole is in specific location of that block. You just can't just blow a hole in the C ring and not match up with a plane hitting from the Southside. Something in that C hole block or offices needed to be got rid off and bombs were the only way to get rid of it the plane in my opinion would not have travelled the that far the plane would be pretty much gone by the time it arrived at Ring D.

Lol, so what could possibly have been there that could only possibly been taken out by a bomb?

Why not just take it out without crashing a plane?
Why not just move it to the area where the plane was going to be?
Why not just have the plane crash into that area in the first place?
Why not just crash the plane, then remove the thing in the clean up and pretend like it was destroyed or never existed.

There's no reason at all for why they would need a second event. The idea is just hilariously stupid and it raises more problems for your conspiracy theory than it solves.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, this is a non answer that contradicts your previous claims.
If it's only conspiracy theorists finding problems, then who are they trying to fool?
And if they are slipping up so hilariously bad, how come this is the best evidence you have?
Why, if there's the possibility of them slipping up, would they go through the needlessly complex plan that offers no benefit for anyone?


Lol, so what could possibly have been there that could only possibly been taken out by a bomb?

Why not just take it out without crashing a plane?
Why not just move it to the area where the plane was going to be?
Why not just have the plane crash into that area in the first place?
Why not just crash the plane, then remove the thing in the clean up and pretend like it was destroyed or never existed.

There's no reason at all for why they would need a second event. The idea is just hilariously stupid and it raises more problems for your conspiracy theory than it solves.

Obviously Skeptics are not going to get off their ass and do some real work for a change. They sit on forums debunking and doing nothing.

They obviously slipped up if the plane was seen on the northside and animations came out showing the plane on the wrong side. Obviously, nothing can be done without a new 9/11 government-sanctioned independent investigation so we are just left with more questions. Cases filed in court recently may help and new information will emerge out who really was behind 9/11

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Obviously Skeptics are not going to get off their ass and do some real work for a change. They sit on forums debunking and doing nothing.

Mm hmm...?
So does the fact you can't answer those questions bother you at all? Does it not set off even the teensiest doubt?
You were exactly as sure about a 757 not hitting the pentagon. But it was only after you painted yourself into a corner did you decide to change your mind.
Maybe you are wrong here too?

Maybe you are wrong about the whole thing?

But meh, that would require you to have an actual open mind...

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Only conspiracy theorists are finding these holes in the flight path.

They aren't

Conspiracy theorists think energy weapons "dustified" the Twin Towers. They believe holograms were used. They believe remote controlled planes were used. They believe WTC7 was blown up with silent explosives. They believe a fake explosion was used at the Pentagon and the airliner pulled up at the last second. They believe a missile hit the Pentagon. They believe "the Jews" did it. They believe Bush did it. They believe the Saudi's did it with knowledge from the Saudi leadership. They believe the NWO did it.

You just play pick'n'mix with the conspiracies. Whichever one you randomly believe at that moment is undeniable, then drop it, randomly change to another, rinse repeat

At this stage in the debate it's nothing to do with the event. It's entirely to do with your mentality

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm...?
So does the fact you can't answer those questions bother you at all? Does it not set off even the teensiest doubt?
You were exactly as sure about a 757 not hitting the pentagon. But it was only after you painted yourself into a corner did you decide to change your mind.
Maybe you are wrong here too?

Maybe you are wrong about the whole thing?

But meh, that would require you to have an actual open mind...

I swear you makeup things in your head and convince yourself that's what happened. I did paint myself into a corner I changed my opinion when I looked into things more. You have not convinced me why the 9/11 commission is right? You not even debated the evidence and give us your theory why the northside eyewitnesses are wrong and why the raw data is wrong on the FDR and FAA animations. If you tried to debate this topic properly I might change my mind what your explanations for all that ? whataboutery is not solving anything

King Mob

Sorry Cheerful, you've had every chance to debate "properly."
You have dodged and ducked and avoided almost every question and you refuse to back up anything you claim. Actual debate is impossible with you. Now it only bares pointing out how ridiculous and hypocritical your conspiracy theory is

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They aren't

Conspiracy theorists think energy weapons "dustified" the Twin Towers. They believe holograms were used. They believe remote controlled planes were used. They believe WTC7 was blown up with silent explosives. They believe a fake explosion was used at the Pentagon and the airliner pulled up at the last second. They believe a missile hit the Pentagon. They believe "the Jews" did it. They believe Bush did it. They believe the Saudi's did it with knowledge from the Saudi leadership. They believe the NWO did it.

You just play pick'n'mix with the conspiracies. Whichever one you randomly believe at that moment is undeniable, then drop it, randomly change to another, rinse repeat

At this stage in the debate it's nothing to do with the event. It's entirely to do with your mentality

What all the got to with anything? Talking about every theory on 9/11 is a mess just to stick what I am saying it and refute it. If you can't just don't post. I more than willing to listen to explanations that are different to mine. Just saying oh the 9/11 commission said it happened this way that's good enough for me is not debating it just accepting what you got told.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry Cheerful, you've had every chance to debate "properly."
You have dodged and ducked and avoided almost every question and you refuse to back up anything you claim. Actual debate is impossible with you. Now it only bares pointing out how ridiculous and hypocritical your conspiracy theory is

I have attempted to answer you best I can I have got all day. Ten whataboutery questions in every post do not address anything I am saying.You just trying to confuse the argument and thats about it. Anyway i going to bed when you start addressing the topic we may have a better discussion.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Talking about every theory on 9/11 is a mess just to stick what I am saying it and refute it

It has been refuted and you are unable to stick to any theory

It's to impossible to debate with someone who jumps from one contradictory theory to the next, proclaiming each one to be the undeniable truth until the moment they drop it like a hot potato. The truth is based on the event, not your own personal beliefs at a random point in time.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It has been refuted and you are unable to stick to any theory

It's to impossible to debate with someone who jumps from one contradictory theory to the next, proclaiming each one to be the undeniable truth until the moment they drop it like a hot potato. The truth is based on the event, not your own personal beliefs at a random point in time.

By who? The Eyewitnesses accounts are detailed on video so they are can't be any manipulation.

You have not given any theory why the FDR data and FAA data are both wrong. Posting links to Skeptic sites and leave it that is not debating. What exactly debunks the northside approach give us your explanation?