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

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

As you said

"Some of us just know

Hijackers secured visas through CIA section of the Jeddah office in Saudi Arabia. Some of the hijackers were trained at secure US bases in the 90's. All known now and true. They were not just some boys from the middle east who got recruited by Bin Laden, this is a myth. They were recruits paid large sums of money to carry out this operation for the Saudi Government on 9/11. This was further backed up by the 29 pages classified section of the 9/11 commission report. Saudi consular officials were regularly meeting the hijackers and paying their expenses in America. Bush administration covered this up for 12 years. FBI officials openly talked about the US administration stonewalling their investigation and blocking leads to investigate Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11.. The system is corrupt and bankrupted.

mcmoustache

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.

It follows a clear pattern.

"Here. This video proves that Soros is behind everything"

"No. That's just an old guy in a bikini ranting at ducks"

"OK. Here. Check out this video. It proves that the reptiles control Soros"

"Sorry, but that's just the same old guy from the last video but now he's naked and breathing something from a paper bag and shouting something about Jews"

"OK. How about this video. It proves beyond any doubt that the Saudis are controlling the sale of sunshine to the reptiles."

"Come off it. It's that same old guy again but this time he's covered in poop and eating pennies."

et cetera, et cetera

Dr. Bre

Look at who benefited from 9/11 then you will know it’s an inside job. Some people just wanna believe that it was a coincidental tragedy..

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

the official narrative

There's no "official narrative".

Like everything else it was pieced together with facts, evidence, witnesses, information as the events unfolded and after. Apart from small details, it hasn't changed since 2001

Unlike conspiracy theories which are all over the place because they are based on a belief in conspiracy theories, not on the facts or truth

Dohnjoe

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Look at who benefited from 9/11 then you will know it’s an inside job. Some people just wanna believe that it was a coincidental tragedy..

Incorrect. This is the "appeal to motive fallacy". Dreaming up a list of people who benefit from an event is easy. The evidence is the vital part.

Dr. Bre

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Look at who benefited from 9/11 then you will know it’s an inside job. Some people just wanna believe that it was a coincidental tragedy..

People like Alex Jones have made a mint of this kind of stuff.
So therefore, Alex Jones did 9/11?

Timberrrrrrrr

King Mob wrote: »

People like Alex Jones have made a mint of this kind of stuff.
So therefore, Alex Jones did 9/11?

Blasphemer!!!!!! :pac:

Annd9

Ah 9/11 it's been a while ..... I think the problem is too many theories about certain events on that day while the obvious questions go unanswered.

15 Saudi's attack America so they invade Iraq ,Why ?

According to the transport secretary, Cheney knew a plane was approaching Washington but nothing was done . Why ?

BBC reported wtc7 collapsed before it had . How ?

I'm sure I can think of more but if you are in any way cynical you can see why people are suspicious of all the critical failures that day

Annd9

Annd9 wrote: »

BBC reported wtc7 collapsed before it had . How ?

Again, what's the conspiracy explanation for this?

Did the conspirators tell the BBC before the fact? If so, why? In case they wouldn't notice?
Did they tell every news agency?

Dohnjoe

Annd9 wrote: »

BBC reported wtc7 collapsed before it had . How ?

Apply basic critical thinking

1. It was a live reporting error (there were many on the day)

2. The "powers-that-be" decided to tell a media organisation in another country their "secret inside treasonous plan" to destroy a building and gave an exact time that it would fall.

Annd9

I don't have an explanation and never claimed to , I just find it strange . Is it not ok to question these things ? I have not found any reasoning as to how it was falsely reported or where the Bbc got that info .
Reporting that a skyscraper has collapsed is not exactly the smallest of mistakes , I can understand exact times being wrong , number of casualties etc etc but reporting news before it happens ?

Dohnjoe

Annd9 wrote: »

Reporting that a skyscraper has collapsed is not exactly the smallest of mistakes , I can understand exact times being wrong , number of casualties etc etc but reporting news before it happens ?

Probably one of the most extraordinary news days in history. Two of the largest buildings in the world had just collapsed. The Pentagon had been hit and the side wall collapsed. That building had been on fire, unchecked for hours, firefighters had been expecting it to collapse. On the day I remember up to 8 planes being reported as hijacked.

How is it inconceivable that it's a mistake during live chaotic news, but somehow plausible that the whole thing is an inside job with the conspirators handing the plans and "timetable" to a media organisation?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's no "official narrative".

Like everything else it was pieced together with facts, evidence, witnesses, information as the events unfolded and after. Apart from small details, it hasn't changed since 2001

Unlike conspiracy theories which are all over the place because they are based on a belief in conspiracy theories, not on the facts or truth

You are choosing the parts you like and don't like about 9/11.

You have ignored the PANC group in 1997 ( hardline neocons with ties to Israel) talked about needing a new "pearl harbour" event to occur in America so they can change the middle east. They talked about removing hostile regimes by the military force and they openly before 9/11 said Saddam was a target. Strange a few years later they got what they wanted!

You have ignored evidence multiple eyewitnesses saw a plane on a different path the 9/11 commission claimed. These people are Pentagon 9/11 witnesses they are not fake witnesses.

You have ignored Hani Hanjour flight instructor said he was a terrible pilot, and could not handle and control a light Cessna Plane a few weeks before 9/11. Yet we are told to believe on 9/11 he could fly and could control commercial airliner like a fighter jet just a few weeks later 9/11 commission believed Hani Hanjour was a better pilot based on the evidence given by Eddie Shalev a flight instructor. Years later the truth camp found out he was a former Israeli soldier (another Israeli connection to 9/11)

You have ignored the hijackers were known to be inside America for years and even got their Visas from CIA section of the Jeddah Embassy in Saudi Arabia to fly to America (nothing weird about that?) You ignored the hijackers trained out of secure US bases in the 90's. If there was nothing to hide why did the Bush government stonewall the Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11 and classify the 29 pages of the 9/11 commission report.

Why does the FAA and NTSB animation not support the official narrative about 9/11 Pentagon attack?

The official narrative is a joke and the only persons clueless here are you and your friends on this board.

Cheerful Spring

Annd9 wrote: »

I don't have an explanation and never claimed to , I just find it strange . Is it not ok to question these things ? I have not found any reasoning as to how it was falsely reported or where the Bbc got that info .
Reporting that a skyscraper has collapsed is not exactly the smallest of mistakes , I can understand exact times being wrong , number of casualties etc etc but reporting news before it happens ?

They are fortune tellers they can predict the future! The whole building would not have come down at freefall speed this is a sign of demolition. We have plenty of video and photographs that show only light fires occurring on the West side of WTC7. A few floors would likely fall down not the whole building. 90 percent of the building was structurally ok with no fire present.

Dohnjoe

All of the above has been debunked/explained

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

All of the above has been debunked/explained

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Apply basic critical thinking

1. It was a live reporting error (there were many on the day)

2. The "powers-that-be" decided to tell a media organisation in another country their "secret inside treasonous plan" to destroy a building and gave an exact time that it would fall.

No, the BBC got a report the building collapsed. When asked about this they could not find the source who told them this, highly suspicious.I believe that report on the BBC was 30 to 40 minutes before WTC7 collapsed. Somebody obviously messed up the timing of the report to be let out to the news media.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No the BBC got a report the building collapsed. When asked about this they could not find the source who told them this, highly suspicious.

Live news makes mistakes.

If you are entertaining the notion that somehow the conspirators have some sort of timetable and handed it to a media organisation - I am very curious. Where are you getting this info from? sources? evidence?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Live news makes mistakes.

If you are entertaining the notion that somehow the conspirators have some sort of timetable and handed it to a media organisation - I am very curious. Where are you getting this info from? sources? evidence?

I not blaming BBC I think the person who phoned or send the BBC this information knew the building was coming down. How they knew this before it did nobody knows because the BBC refuses to reveal their source.

Cheerful Spring

The PANC Group later lied about Iraq WMD and faked intelligence for that war but somehow it's not believable they could be involved in 9/11?

Annd9

Annd9 wrote: »

I don't have an explanation and never claimed to , I just find it strange . Is it not ok to question these things ? I have not found any reasoning as to how it was falsely reported or where the Bbc got that info .
Reporting that a skyscraper has collapsed is not exactly the smallest of mistakes , I can understand exact times being wrong , number of casualties etc etc but reporting news before it happens ?

But if you can't explain it, why do you think it points towards a conspiracy?
Surely if it was a conspiracy something like this wouldn't happen in the first place.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I think the person who phoned or send the BBC this information knew the building was coming down.

What is evidence for the above? who was the person? what details did they provide? transcripts? reasoning for it?

It's important for you to provide this so that anyone reading this thread can see what evidence it's based on.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is evidence for the above? who was the person? what details did they provide? transcripts? reasoning for it?

It's important for you to provide this so that anyone reading this thread can see what evidence it's based on.

You don't report WTC7 just collapsed and not have a source for this information. Even if they got from another network? They too had to have gotten that information from somewhere.

The video exists of the building still standing when BBC said it collapsed?

Annd9

King Mob wrote: »

But if you can't explain it, why do you think it points towards a conspiracy?
Surely if it was a conspiracy something like this wouldn't happen in the first place.

I've never once mentioned a conspiracy , I have simply yet to find the explanation as to how it was reported in the first place

"What is evidence for the above? who was the person? what details did they provide? transcripts? reasoning for it?

It's important for you to provide this so that anyone reading this thread can see what evidence it's based on."

Can you provide these ? you seem to know how this happened

Annd9

Annd9 wrote: »

I've never once mentioned a conspiracy , I have simply yet to find the explanation as to how it was reported in the first place

It was a mistake in reporting on a day of hectic reports and confusion.
I'm not sure why that is impossible or inadequate.

It could be something like firefighters relaying that "the building might collapse" becomes, after various hectic retelling along the chain between emergency workers, police, reporters, writers, editors and the news reader it becomes "the building has collapsed" in the haze of reports buzzing around.

AFAIR the news report in question the actual wording is more like: "there are reports that the building has collapsed".
This is different to "the building has collapsed" and so the actual news report would still be true and entirely consistent with what was happening as those erroneous reports would indeed have been going around.

And again, there's no alternative that makes sense.
It can't be a conspiracy, cause the conspiracy idea doesn't provide an explanation and it doesn't make sense.
So even if the idea of it being a mistake is somehow impossible... What else is there?

Overheal

Tbh I don’t blame him for not getting back into the same subject matter as infinitum

Dr. Bre

So many coincidences that day and that’s why I don’t believe

Cheerful Spring

This is how I think the operation unfolded planners are the ( PNAC group) was behind 9/11. They could not use American boys to carry out the operation they needed patsies. So the 19 hijackers from the Middle East are the patsies. This is stage one of the operation. You create a false background and narrative for these guys and the controlled corporate media will buy into line hook and sinker!

The controllers not the same as the planners, they are basically a group that makes sure the 19 hijackers got protected while in America. No other agency could know about any of these guys before 9/11, Arrests would stop the operation on 9/11. This is why the CIA does not share information with the FBI, to mention who they are, would disrupt the event and potentially uncover the whole plot before it happened.

9/11 commission report is then the cover-up later of in coincidences in the official narrative. Just like the Warren report covered up the JFK murder done by the CIA and Mob guys.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't report WTC7 just collapsed and not have a source for this information. Even if they got from another network? They too had to have gotten that information from somewhere.

The video exists of the building still standing when BBC said it collapsed?

In your mind, you've guessed, with no evidence, that someone who you can't name, handed the BBC a report that you have no idea about, with details of a "911 inside job" which you've also made up, with the precise time that a "building would collapse" which is again made up

Let's look at the evidence: none
Let's look at all parts you've guessed to fit your narrative: everything

Or do you have evidence?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In your mind, you've guessed, with no evidence, that someone who you can't name, handed the BBC a report that you have no idea about, with details of a "911 inside job" which you've also made up, with the precise time that a "building would collapse" which is again made up

Let's look at the evidence: none
Let's look at all parts you've guessed to fit your narrative: everything

Or do you have evidence?

So what your version the BBC just made up the story themselves about WTC7 collapsing before it did?