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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

Who exactly do you think you are fooling with this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No you haven't.

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

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

Otherwise it's just another exercise in bad creative thinking

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

Are you just copy pasting links now?

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Are you just copy pasting links now?

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

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

If you were honest, you could just admit that.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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

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


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

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

If you were honest, you could just admit that.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

What is the original one?

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

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

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

mickdw

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

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

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

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

mickdw

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

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

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

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

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

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

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

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

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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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

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

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

As you said

"Some of us just know