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

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm...?
So does the fact you can't answer those questions bother you at all

I can but those questions are not addressing anything significant but I try.

Why not just take it out without crashing a plane?
This should be obvious by blowing a hole in the C ring don't you think that would expose bombs going off in the building? You need a diversion!

Why not just move it to the area where the plane was going to be?
The location of the C ring is at a specific location. You can't move the plane to another area.

Why not just have the plane crash into that area in the first place?
This doesn't make sense they did place the plane in the area to line up with the damage in C ring.


Why not just crash the plane, then remove the thing in the clean up and pretend like it was destroyed or never existed

Remove what thing?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can but those questions are not addressing anything significant but I try.

The questions show that your "explanation" is silly and nonsensical and contradicts the rest of the conspiracy.
As do the other questions you've skipped over.

This should be obvious by blowing a hole in the C ring don't you think that would expose bombs going off in the building? You need a diversion!

Then just don't use explosives.
Also, this is self contradictory, as you are claiming that the only reason you know about this second event is because of the "distraction".
It's silly.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The location of the C ring is at a specific location. You can't move the plane to another area.

This doesn't make sense they did place the plane in the area to line up with the damage in C ring.


Remove what thing?

You misunderstand or misread my points.
But it's pointless to explain it to you without first establishing what you think the second event actually was.
Why did they do it? What were they blowing up? Where was it? Why did they have to blow it up? When did this second even occur?

If the answer to these question is "I don't know" then your explanation is empty, useless nonsense.
For a change, be honest and just admit this.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

The questions show that your "explanation" is silly and nonsensical and contradicts the rest of the conspiracy.
As do the other questions you've skipped over.

Then just don't use explosives.
Also, this is self contradictory, as you are claiming that the only reason you know about this second event is because of the "distraction".
It's silly.

You misunderstand or misread my points.
But it's pointless to explain it to you without first establishing what you think the second event actually was.
Why did they do it? What were they blowing up? Where was it? Why did they have to blow it up? When did this second even occur?

If the answer to these question is "I don't know" then your explanation is empty, useless nonsense.
For a change, be honest and just admit this.

It does make sense if your open minded to the north side approach. If you think the plane hit from the southside is not going to make sense to you.

That's why the eyewitnesses accounts, the FDR data and FAA animations are vital to finding out what happened. All the eyewitnesses have to be suffering from mass delusion on the day to have placed the plane on a different side. There should not be this problem in so many eyewitnesses accounts I struggling to find an alternative explanation why their recollections are so wrong?

The distraction makes sense if the plane hit the Pentagon from the northside. A Northside hit rules out 5 knocked down light poles and the C hole damage was caused by the plane on that side.

Northside side approach only a bomb or something else internally inside the building blew out the wall.

King Mob

And again, you've answered no questions.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The distraction makes sense if the plane hit the Pentagon from the northside. A Northside hit rules out 5 knocked down light poles and the C hole damage was caused by the plane on that side.

But it's not a distraction if it draws your attention to the event in the first place. That's the exact opposite of what a distraction is.
So, no it doesn't make sense and it's silly.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Northside side approach only a bomb or something else internally inside the building blew out the wall.

This sentence also makes no sense.

Lets start simple so you can ignore only one question at a time.

Do you know what they blew up inside the building?
Yes or no?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And again, you've answered no questions.

But it's not a distraction if it draws your attention to the event in the first place. That's the exact opposite of what a distraction is.
So, no it doesn't make sense and it's silly.


This sentence also makes no sense.

Lets start simple so you can ignore only one question at a time.

Do you know what they blew up inside the building?
Yes or no?

The 9/11 commission report is a fraud we pretty much know that to true today. Since this report came out in 2004 it only information up that year.

A lot of this new evidence has been found out since 2004. Maybe they did not think that far ahead a group like CIT would actually go to Washington DC on their own time and start interviewing eyewitnesses and asking them questions like where you saw the plane moments before it hit? Maybe they thought their cover-up was airtight but it wasn't? Animations also came out after 2004 so there is that. It seems whoever was involved could not change what is in this FDR and FAA data.

That specific location what was there in C ring NO, but I think I might do research on it to find out.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That specific location what was there in C ring NO, but I think I might do research on it to find out.

FFS, you can't even answer a simple yes or no question directly or clearly.

I think this means "No, you don't know".

So you don't know what they would want to blow up, therefore your "explanation" is empty nonsense.

You can't answer the rest of he questions without having some idea of what the second event was, therefore it's not an explanation.

You can't explain why they would do any of this, because it makes no sense.
The conspiracy is stupid.

And again "watching Youtube" is not research.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

FFS, you can't even answer a simple yes or no question directly or clearly.

I think this means "No, you don't know".

So you don't know what they would want to blow up, therefore your "explanation" is empty nonsense.

You can't answer the rest of he questions without having some idea of what the second event was, therefore it's not an explanation.

You can't explain why they would do any of this, because it makes no sense.
The conspiracy is stupid.

I just said No how this not clear to you?

It not empty nonsense because you keep ignoring the eyewitnesses and FDR and FAA data is showing a plane on the wrong side to have knocked 5 lightpoles and caused a blowout in C ring wall.

There has to be the second event because what knocked down 5 light poles if the plane was on the Northside. Why would you go to the trouble of knocking them down if nothing else was happening inside the building?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just said No how this not clear to you?

Your sentence structure is often hard to decipher. And answers, when they are found, often come buried in the middle of dense rants.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not empty nonsense because you keep ignoring the eyewitnesses and FDR and FAA data is showing a plane on the wrong side to have knocked 5 lightpoles and caused a blowout in C ring wall.

But it is nonsense because it makes no sense, it contradicts the conspiracy you imagine and it is not supported by anything else.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There has to be the second event because what knocked down 5 light poles if the plane was on the Northside.

There doesn't have to be a second event.
You could just be wrong, like you were when you claimed it wasn't a 757.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would you go to the problem of knocking them down if nothing else was happening inside the building?

You tell us, it's your conspiracy theory. Why can't it provide an answer?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Your sentence structure is often hard to decipher. And answers, when they are found, often come buried in the middle of dense rants.


But it is nonsense because it makes no sense, it contradicts the conspiracy you imagine and it is not supported by anything else.


There doesn't have to be a second event.
You could just be wrong, like you were when you claimed it wasn't a 757.


You tell us, it's your conspiracy theory. Why can't it provide an answer?

What I said is supported by Pentagon eyewitnesses and the FDR raw data and FAA raw data:rolleyes:

It clear you don't want to talk about this evidence you prefer to ignore as if it doesn't exist.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob just curious are you believer in any conspiracy about any subject? I just interested to know why you spend your time on a conspiracy forum?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What I said is supported by Pentagon eyewitnesses and the FDR raw data and FAA raw data:rolleyes:

It clear you don't want to talk about this evidence you prefer to ignore as if it doesn't exist.

Again, you claimed that the eyewitnesses and FDR data supported the theory that no plane hit the Pentagon.
You were wrong then.

You are wrong again now. But you are just as adamant and convinced as you were when you knew for a fact that a 757 could not have hit the pentagon.

I don't want to talk about this evidence because if I did you would quickly stat ignoring points and will refuse to back up any of your claims.
It would be pointless to chase you around on these points when I can just much more easily point out the holes and flaws in the conspiracy and highlight how it's silly and how it explains nothing.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you claimed that the eyewitnesses and FDR data supported the theory that no plane hit the Pentagon.
You were wrong then.

You are wrong again now. But you are just as adamant and convinced as you were when you knew for a fact that a 757 could not have hit the pentagon.

I don't want to talk about this evidence because if I did you would quickly stat ignoring points and will refuse to back up any of your claims.
It would be pointless to chase you around on these points when I can just much more easily point out the holes and flaws in the conspiracy and highlight how it's silly and how it explains nothing.

That I am willing to change my opinion on something is not a bad thing. I more than willing to listen to your opinion on the Pentagon eyewitnesses and FAA and FDR. I might not agree but hey least you're showing what you think and other people can be the judge. You need to stop worrying about me ignoring your points you should be providing evidence to debunk what I am saying otherwise this not a genuine conversation. I lead out what I believe and have taken the criticisms.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

you need to stop worrying about me ignoring your points you should be providing evidence to debunk what I am saying otherwise this not a genuine conversation.

No, it's not a conversation when you will ignore anything I say or ask. You have demonstrated that this is all you are capable of doing.

And my opinion is that the conspiracy theory is abject, empty nonsense because it is unable to actually explain anything about the events of the day. And because that to accept the conspiracy theory, like you do, you have to ignore how little sense it makes and how it contradicts itself.
And because that there is no complete alternative narrative for the conspiracy.

You have done nothing to show that any of that is not the case. No one in 18 years has done anything to show that this is not the case.
It's just all space lasers and magic invisible 757s. Your current theory is no different.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, it's not a conversation when you will ignore anything I say or ask. You have demonstrated that this is all you are capable of doing.

And my opinion is that the conspiracy theory is abject, empty nonsense because it is unable to actually explain anything about the events of the day. And because that to accept the conspiracy theory, like you do, you have to ignore how little sense it makes and how it contradicts itself.
And because that there is no complete alternative narrative for the conspiracy.

You have done nothing to show that any of that is not the case.

If you don't believe in the deeper conspiracy fine. But there plenty of evidence of a conspiracy. You have ignored statements from FBI agents and 9/11 commissioners who all stated the American public was mislead about the events and who was involved in the planning. Do you want the full story or just happy to believe everything in the 9/11 commission report is correct? Truthers findings on its own sure not enough for you but when government officials say we didn't get the full story about 9/11 you should least be interested in that part of the story surely?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have ignored statements from FBI agents and 9/11 commissioners who all stated the American public was mislead about the events and who was involved in the planning.

Again, not ignoring, just not interested in discussing it with you.
And again, I think this is a case of you misrepresenting things like you have done with sources in the past.
You've lied about what sources say and you have trouble understanding the meaning and context of those sources.

I just don't accept your claims and interpretations.

And I don't think that you are attempting to find out what happened.
Had it not been for us pinning you down on one particular point, chasing you down and highlighting all of the problems with it and making you paint yourself into a corner, you'd still believe that the pentagon wasn't hit by a 757.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, not ignoring, just not interested in discussing it with you.
And again, I think this is a case of you misrepresenting things like you have done with sources in the past.
You've lied about what sources say and you have trouble understanding the meaning and context of those sources.

I just don't accept your claims and interpretations.

And I don't think that you are attempting to find out what happened.
Had it not been for us pinning you down on one particular point, chasing you down and highlighting all of the problems with it and making you paint yourself into a corner, you'd still believe that the pentagon wasn't hit by a 757.

I have not interpreted anything the links and information were provided for you to look at yourself. You back to whataboutery again your difficult person to talk with. If you don't accept my claims why you even replying to me? Don't you think you better off doing something else more productive with your time? If you don't believe in any conspiracy why you hear surely you have other hobbies you prefer to be doing? You got a skeptical belief on everything you better of joining metabunk or international skeptic forums?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you don't accept my claims why you even replying to me?

Because I was trying to get you to stick to some points so that we could break them down and hold them to fire. But like you say you're not interested, you'll just ignore parts you don't like and you aren't actually interested in analyzing or scrutinizing anything.

So yea, I think we're done.

However, I will still point out the hilarious flaws and contradictions in your conspiracy theory.

So to reiterate, you believe that there was something in the pentagon, you don't know what, but it had to be blown up. So to hide this, they crashed a plane into the pentagon. Only they couldn't crash it into that spot for some reason. So they had to say the plane came from a different direction than it did so it would look like the damage was cased by a plane coming from that direction instead of a bomb.
However, they **** that up, cause the damage doesn't look like a plane coming from that direction. and it doesn't hide the damage from the bomb. And then the only reason people know what the damage is like is from documents they themselves release.
And then the only thing they do to cover up this is knock down a few light poles (lucky no one caught them doing that), then tell one random taxi driver to say he saw the plane knock them down.
But then whoops, they forgot to take care of that pesky flight data. And whoops, they accidentally released that data, blowing the entire thing.

I think the no 757 theory is looking a lot less stupid than this...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Because I was trying to get you to stick to some points so that we could break them down and hold them to fire. But like you say you're not interested, you'll just ignore parts you don't like and you aren't actually interested in analyzing or scrutinizing anything.

So yea, I think we're done.

However, I will still point out the hilarious flaws and contradictions in your conspiracy theory.

So to reiterate, you believe that there was something in the pentagon, you don't know what, but it had to be blown up. So to hide this, they crashed a plane into the pentagon. Only they couldn't crash it into that spot for some reason. So they had to say the plane came from a different direction than it did so it would look like the damage was cased by a plane coming from that direction instead of a bomb.
However, they **** that up, cause the damage doesn't look like a plane coming from that direction. and it doesn't hide the damage from the bomb. And then the only reason people know what the damage is like is from documents they themselves release.
And then the only thing they do to cover up this is knock down a few light poles (lucky no one caught them doing that), then tell one random taxi driver to say he saw the plane knock them down.
But then whoops, they forgot to take care of that pesky flight data. And whoops, they accidentally released that data, blowing the entire thing.

I think the no 757 theory is looking a lot less stupid than this...

You have done any debunking of what I have shown u you just engaged in tirades since the middle of this thread.

Ignore the second event.

Just explain why the eyewitnesses are wrong and this should not be so hard for you since your convinced the plane was on the Southside? If you not going to answer this ever just admit it?

Similarly for the FAA and FDR animations why show the plane on the wrong side. This is a huge mistake to make? Whatouubery deflections does not help you at all you just look foolish

If you not going to address any of this yes it best we end this for another time. Hulsey WTC7 study is due out in the summer so we have something new to talk about then and maybe then you engage?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Just explain why the eyewitnesses are wrong and this should not be so hard for you since your convinced the plane was on the Southside? If you not going to answer this ever just admit it?

Your interpretation of what people say is suspect. You have claimed people say things that they do not say, then ignore it when it's pointed out you've been lying. You are simply not trustworthy when it comes to reporting quotes and being able to interpret things.

You have also stated as a fact that those same eyewitnesses proved 100% that a 757 could not have crashed into the pentagon.

To actually unpack and explain why you are wrong here, first you would have to actually point out which witnesses you are talking about, what they say and how you use that to figure out the exact position of the plane from that small snippet of a quote.
You have repeatedly and constantly refused to do that because you know it would make your argument fall apart.

Similarly, you have not explained where you have stolen the diagram you continually copy and paste, so we cannot comment on that without more context, sources and description of how it was produced.

And then, on top of that, the language you are using to describe your claim has shifted to the point of being contradictory and incomprehensible. You have claimed that the plane came from both a northernly direction and a westernly direction. You now seem to be claiming that the plane hit the south side of the pentagon...
I don't think you even know what you are claiming any more.

So, this line of "evidence" is dismissed.

You've had ample opportunities to engage on this point. You haven't and you won't.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Similarly for the FAA and FDR animations why show the plane on the wrong side. This is a huge mistake to make? Whatouubery deflections does not help you at all you just look foolish

Again, this has been addressed and debunked. You only extended your opinion of the opinion of some other random person on the internet in way of rebuttal. That's not convincing to anyone.

Similarly, you have also claimed for a fact that that exact same data 100% proved the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon. So again, your opinions about the data are not worth anything.

And on top of that, the idea of the data not matching the actual flight path is not compatible with the idea of a conspiracy. This is because this makes no sense in the context of the conspiracy. You cannot provide a rational explanation for why the data would not altered, destroyed or suppressed. If your conspiracy theory were true, then they would have easily altered, destroyed or suppressed the data. Similarly you cannot provide an explanation for why they would not simply claim the plane flew in the direction you believe it did. You have to invent a silly, childish notion of a second event for which there is no evidence and even more of a lack of explanations. (And now, you are asking for that claim to be ignored because you realise how silly and embarrassing it is.)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have done any debunking

Nobody needs to. You debunk your own theories by dismissing them as soon as an "easier" one comes along.

It's a game/hobby with zero interest in the truth or reason. Alex Jones played it with Sandy Hook (and dropped it as soon as someone called him out on his shenanigans)

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nobody needs to. You debunk your own theories by dismissing them as soon as an "easier" one comes along.

What's ironic is that the simplest, easiest version of that conspiracy is not that unreasonable.
The idea that some elements in the US government allowed or assisted the terrorists in their attack is not something that can be out right dismissed as impossible or silly.
Of course there's no evidence for this, much like the others, it just doesn't have inherently silly things like space lasers or silent explosives or any of the stuff that Cheerful is suggesting.

The reason I think that no conspiracy theorists subscribe to this slimmed down idea is because it's not something you can stretch out into hour long youtube videos. There's no shocking attention grabbing "revelations" they can sell their narrative on. There's nothing that can make a nice factoid to throw out on facebook and forums that is "convincing" or "unexplainable".
The idea is simply too boring for most conspiracy theorists.
So we get nano-thermite and crisis actors and holographic planes and planes being replaced with other planes and double secret events in the pentagon... etc...

Dr. Bre

Just look who benefited from 9/11. Connect the dots. Then you will know who was really behind it

King Mob

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Just look who benefited from 9/11. Connect the dots. Then you will know who was really behind it

Alex Jones and his ilk have profited millions from pedaling conspiracy theories.
Therefore he's really behind it?

Maybe he is behind all those mass shootings he likes to exploit too...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Your interpretation of what people say is suspect. You have claimed people say things that they do not say, then ignore it when it's pointed out you've been lying. You are simply not trustworthy when it comes to reporting quotes and being able to interpret things.

You have also stated as a fact that those same eyewitnesses proved 100% that a 757 could not have crashed into the pentagon.

To actually unpack and explain why you are wrong here, first you would have to actually point out which witnesses you are talking about, what they say and how you use that to figure out the exact position of the plane from that small snippet of a quote.
You have repeatedly and constantly refused to do that because you know it would make your argument fall apart.

Similarly, you have not explained where you have stolen the diagram you continually copy and paste, so we cannot comment on that without more context, sources and description of how it was produced.

And then, on top of that, the language you are using to describe your claim has shifted to the point of being contradictory and incomprehensible. You have claimed that the plane came from both a northernly direction and a westernly direction. You now seem to be claiming that the plane hit the south side of the pentagon...
I don't think you even know what you are claiming any more.

So, this line of "evidence" is dismissed.

You've had ample opportunities to engage on this point. You haven't and you won't.

Again, this has been addressed and debunked. You only extended your opinion of the opinion of some other random person on the internet in way of rebuttal. That's not convincing to anyone.

Similarly, you have also claimed for a fact that that exact same data 100% proved the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon. So again, your opinions about the data are not worth anything.

And on top of that, the idea of the data not matching the actual flight path is not compatible with the idea of a conspiracy. This is because this makes no sense in the context of the conspiracy. You cannot provide a rational explanation for why the data would not altered, destroyed or suppressed. If your conspiracy theory were true, then they would have easily altered, destroyed or suppressed the data. Similarly you cannot provide an explanation for why they would not simply claim the plane flew in the direction you believe it did. You have to invent a silly, childish notion of a second event for which there is no evidence and even more of a lack of explanations. (And now, you are asking for that claim to be ignored because you realise how silly and embarrassing it is.)

Why you lie is suspect!. I posted video evidence of the Pentagon Northside eyewitnesses talking about what they saw. You don't have to believe my interpretation. You're disingenuous because of it obvious you have bothered to find out if I was lying. Your criticism is therefore worthless.

I said eyewitnesses reported seeing another plane in the area before the crash. This is actually true a white plane EB3 was spotted in the Wahington area it was even captured on video on 9/11.

None of the Northside witnesses saw a plane crash they are too far away to have seen. Obviously your unfamiliar about sites and locations of where the plane was seen.


The diagram is from the Pentagon Performance report it not stolen. The eyewitnesses directional lines are new and are only a visual aid to highlight the whereabouts the plane was seen. There nothing suspicious about the diagram it all in your own head.

Again your interpreting wrong. The plane was heading NE that's the direction it was heading. The plane though was seen on the Northside of the Navy Annex seconds before crashing. The official 9/11 version is the plane was on the opposite side of the Navy Annex the southside of the building. You obviously have no clue how to read a grid map or use a compass?

Wrong flight data and radar data should match the actual flight path. Fact eyewitnesses and the FAA and FDR actual flight data do not match up with the 9/11 commission findings are highly irregular. You believe every agency is involved in a cover up of 9/11 thats highly unlikely. The conspirators probably did not have access to this data and could not manipulate it. I never believed the conpiracy involved hundreds of people and every agency. My belief was it involved a few very powerful men.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why you lie is suspect!. I posted video evidence of the Pentagon Northside eyewitnesses talking about what they saw. You don't have to believe my interpretation. You're disingenuous because of it obvious you have bothered to find out if I was lying. Your criticism is therefore worthless.

Post the the names witnesses. Post what they say. Post when they say it.
Otherwise, yea you are lying just like you did when you claimed they proved the 757 didn't hit the pentagon.

I'm sure there's a list somewhere you can steal from like you've done with other posts.

You've done nothing to convince anyone to waste their time with your video.
Especially given that your video most likely promote the idea that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon.

Actually just post one witness that directly states clearly and unambiguously that they saw the plane where you claim it was.
Just one.
I would be shocked if you can actually do this.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Post the the names witnesses. Post what they say. Post when they say it.
Otherwise, yea you are lying just like you did when you claimed they proved the 757 didn't hit the pentagon.

I'm sure there's a list somewhere you can steal from like you've done with other posts.

You've done nothing to convince anyone to waste their time with your video.
Especially given that your video most likely promote the idea that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon.

Do you realise how long that would take? It easier to just watch the video, every name is listed for you to look up if you want to do that. Their jobs are listed. They are seen on video describing what they saw. The text is irrelevant when you got video.

There interviewed at their jobs most of them you can see that in the video. You can even see the Navy Annex in the background where 4 men are interviewed.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you realise how long that would take? It easier to just watch the video,

Lol. Not my problem. If you aren't bothered to provide the evidence which is clearly non existent, I'm not interested in wasting the time to watch a video that does not show what you claim it does.
You've lied about this stuff before. It's clear this is case again.

Their jobs are listed. They are seen on video describing what they saw. The text is irrelevant when you got video.

There interviewed at their jobs most of them you can see that in the video. You can even see the Navy Annex in the background where 4 men are interviewed.

Lol what has any of that got to do with anything?

The building is in the background, therefore the plane must have been on whatever side you believe it was on?

Are you now saying it's 4 witnesses?
FFS

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. Not my problem. If you aren't bothered to provide the evidence which is clearly non existent, I'm not interested in wasting the time to watch a video that does not show what you claim it does.
You've lied about this stuff before. It's clear this is case again.

It not non-existent I provided the video of their version of events. You're asking me to break down the video for you that takes an age. I would have to write out everything they said on the video and that takes an hour or two.

If you so convinced I lied why don't you watch the video and then comment buddy you lied I watched the video and nobody saw the plane on the side you claim it was? Everything I said would fall apart and this discussion will be over


Yes, the building is in the background, but it matters where the plane was visually seen. According to the 9/11 commission report the plane was seen on the south side of the Navy Annex. If the plane was on the opposite side, the Northside, there no possible way a plane could have hit 5 light poles. The plane was seconds away from crashing it could not have turned and lined up in time and everyone accepts this as fact.

There are 23 eyewitnesses 13 eyewitnesses are on video describing seeing a plane on the north side.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It not non-existent I provided the video of their version of events. You're asking me to break down the video for you that takes an age. I would have to write out everything they said on the video and that takes an hour or two.

Just one then.
One.
Post who they are, where in the video they appear and explain what they say and where specifically they state directly that the plane was where you think it was.

One.
You're not going to be able to provide one.

Besides, you've said it's only 4 now. So not sure why that would take so long. Or why you can't just steal it from another conspiracy site like you've done previously.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The plane was seconds away from crashing it could not have turned and lined up in time and everyone accepts this as fact.

Yea, and it was also a "fact" that the plane couldn't drop however far and that proved that it didn't hit the pentagon.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Just one then.
One.
Post who they are, where in the video they appear and explain what they say and where specifically they state directly that the plane was where you think it was.

One.
You're not going to be able to provide one.

Besides, you've said it's only 4 now. So not sure why that would take so long. Or why you can't just steal it from another conspiracy site like you've done previously.

I said 4 men were interviewed who worked in the same area, the same company were interviewed. Thier company was located just in front of the Navy Annex. There were many eyewitnesses.

I think it silly to do this when the video is provided for you to watch. Why should I take an hour to write out a transcript for you because your lazy to watch a video?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I said 4 men were interviewed who worked in the same area, the same company were interviewed. Thier company was located just in front of the Navy Annex. There were many eyewitnesses.

I think it silly to do this when the video is provided for you to watch. Why should I take an hour to write out a transcript for you because your lazy to watch a video?

One. Just one.

And you should do it because you've proven yourself unable to accurately report what sources say. You are a proven lair.
I simply don't believe or trust you are being honest here as you have not displayed any level of honesty and only abject dishonesty.

So. again, just post one example of a witness directly stating what you said they said.
One.

So far I've had to ask you this 3 times. You've ignored it every time.
If that's not illustrative of why you have no credibility....

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, and it was also a "fact" that the plane couldn't drop however far and that proved that it didn't hit the pentagon.

According to 9/11 commission report, the plane was less than 4 feet off the ground before it crashed and was travelling at 530mph an hour in last few seconds. Max speed of 757 plane in 2001 is only 490mph there something off about that speed too.

Northside approach changes everything about what happened.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

According to 9/11 commission report, the plane was less than 4 feet off the ground before it crashed and was travelling at 530mph an hour in last few seconds.

Northside approach changes everything about what happened.

And again, previously you said that the plane couldn't drop fast enough to hit the pentagon.

Why were you wrong then? Why should we believe you when you are claiming that a plane can't do something else?
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Max speed of 757 plane in 2001 is only 490mph there something off about that speed too.

Lol. are we back to it not being a 757 again?
FFS, this is impossible. I'm done.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And again, previously you said that the plane couldn't drop fast enough to hit the pentagon.

Why were you wrong then? Why should we believe you when you are claiming that a plane can't do something else?
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course it can, if the plane was not going 530mph an hour. Slower speed you have time to get the plane down to hit the building.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. are we back to it not being a 757 again?
FFS, this is impossible. I'm done.

I just don't believe the 9/11 commission findings. A plane flying at 530mph at near the ground level and 4 feet of the ground before it impacted is nonsense.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

nonsense.

But the conspirators switching out the plane? Perfect sense.
The conspirators blowing something up the pentagon for no reason? Perfect sense.
The conspirators trying to cover it up by knocking over a few lightpoles and paying off a rando? Perfect sense.
The conspirators not bothering to cover up the data that exposes them? Perfect sense.

You have a very skewed idea of what sense and nonsense is.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

One. Just one.

And you should do it because you've proven yourself unable to accurately report what sources say. You are a proven lair.
I simply don't believe or trust you are being honest here as you have not displayed any level of honesty and only abject dishonesty.

So. again, just post one example of a witness directly stating what you said they said.
One.

So far I've had to ask you this 3 times. You've ignored it every time.
If that's not illustrative of why you have no credibility....

I not going to watch the video and start writing out a transcript for you. If you truly think I am lying watch the video and then debunk. Can you watch a video on your internet since you looking for one eyewitness it takes 5 minutes to watch? For me to write out everything was said to take me half hour to write about.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not going to watch the video and start writing out a transcript for you. If you truly think I am lying watch the video and then debunk. Can you watch a video on your internet since you looking for one eyewitness it takes 5 minutes to watch? For me to write out everything was said to take me half hour to write about.

Just one.
You can't even do that.

No witnesses say what you claim they did.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But the conspirators switching out the plane? Perfect sense.
The conspirators blowing something up the pentagon for no reason? Perfect sense.
The conspirators trying to cover it up by knocking over a few lightpoles and paying off a rando? Perfect sense.
The conspirators not bothering to cover up the data that exposes them? Perfect sense.

You have a very skewed idea of what sense and nonsense is.

Again there no evidence a plane was switched out. There are some unusual things happening like Phone calls made on Cell phones at high altitudes that are not possible in 2001. Seat Phones were to be discontinued by Sep 9/11 documentation was found proven this but this project may have not got completed in time on all planes, but we never know for sure if the 9/11 planes had their back seat phones discontinued and if these calls were made elsewhere? Why none of the pilots radioed in a hijacking was in the process is also a strange mystery.

Well, we don't know if there no reason. The fact the pilot of Flight 77 circled the Pentagon when could easily have just hit when Pentagon on the first try is highly suspicious. The pilot directed the plane to very area where the construction was ongoing and where fewer people worked. The accounting department for the Pentagon was located in that section that got hit but I not sure if that was their intended target?

Lightpoles knocked down makes perfect sense if you covering up the second event. The lightpoles has to line up with the C hole damage. If there no knocked down lightpoles the game is up because there be no way to explain how a hole got blown out in C ring.

Lloyd England is actually a northside witness what happened we never truly know. He seems to imply some of what we saw was staged.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Just one.
You can't even do that.

No witnesses say what you claim they did.

Video for you 48 minutes long. You can listen to whatever eyewitness you like that disproves my claim!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The accounting department for the Pentagon was located in that section that got hit but I not sure if that was their intended target?

And the only way that they could possibly get rid of accounting evidence in the pentagon is by blowing it up.
Or by crashing a plane in it.

No other way at all that I can possibly think of...
https://www.amazon.com/hredders/b?ie=UTF8&node=172591

Again, your conspiracy is silly. No one is convinced. You are only making your conspiracy look sillier now.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Video for you 48 minutes long. You can listen to whatever eyewitness you like that disproves my claim!

Just one.
It doesn't take much effort.
The fact you've have to dodge and avoid this only makes me think you are lying again.
I'm not going to watch any video until you do this.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And the only way that they could possibly get rid of accounting evidence in the pentagon is by blowing it up.
Or by crashing a plane in it.

No other way at all that I can possibly think of...
https://www.amazon.com/hredders/b?ie=UTF8&node=172591

Again, your conspiracy is silly. No one is convinced. You are only making your conspiracy look sillier now.

So employees would not notice people shredding documents of importance? A terrorist attack would be the perfect cover to get rid of things unwanted.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So employees would not notice people shredding documents of importance? A terrorist attack would be the perfect cover to get rid of things unwanted.

Lol. But they wouldn't notice the bombs that were being planted?
Just gets sillier and sillier...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Just one.
It doesn't take much effort.
The fact you've have to dodge and avoid this only makes me think you are lying again.
I'm not going to watch any video until you do this.

Yes, it does take effort. I have to quote the interviewer questions and interviewee answers in detail, this takes time. Visually you see him pointing and showing where he saw the plane. It just quicker and more impressive watching some detail their story on video. There can be no misinterpretation of the eyewitnesses accounts if you watch what they're saying for yourself. The fact you so reluctant to watch even one eyewitness account says something more about you than me.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, it does take effort. I have to quote the interviewer questions and interviewee answers in detail, this takes time. Visually you see him pointing and showing where he saw the plane. It just quicker and more impressive watching some detail their story on video. There can be no misinterpretation of the eyewitnesses accounts f you watch what they're saying for yourself. The fact you so reluctant to watch even one eyewitness account says something more about you than me.

Wait... so the entire thing hinges on where a person is pointing?
Lol.

So does the video agree with you when you say the plane hit the building?
Cause the intro seems to insist that the 757 didn't hit the building.

Why should I accept it when it reaches an obviously incorrect conclusion?
2 seconds in and debunks itself.

So yea, 3 mins in, none of the witnesses say what you say they said and the film maker says that those exact same witnesses prove that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon.
It's 3 mins I've wasted.

I've wasted too much time on this thread.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. But they wouldn't notice the bombs that were being planted?
Just gets sillier and sillier...

That Area of the Pentagon that got hit was under construction for years. AMEC construction was carrying out Renovations in that very place. This very interesting when you looking into the background and people who own AMEC. If the plane hit elsewhere around the Pentagon it would be problematic how they managed to bypass the security. I think the bombs were placed there during the construction phase.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Wait... so the entire thing hinges on where a person is pointing?
Lol.

So does the video agree with you when you say the plane hit the building?
Cause the intro seems to insist that the 757 didn't hit the building.

Why should I accept it when it reaches an obviously incorrect conclusion?
2 seconds in and debunks itself.

So yea, 3 mins in, none of the witnesses say what you say they said and the film maker says that those exact same witnesses prove that a 757 didn't hit the pentagon.
It's 3 mins I've wasted.

I've wasted too much time on this thread.

All that matters is what the Pentagon Eyewitnesses claim and who cares if CIT believes no plane hit it's irrelevant? Pentagon Eyewitnesses are not conspiracy theorists they are just people who saw the plane on the northside on 9/11

Stop lying watch the video the eyewitnesses are all placing the plane on the northside.