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

Dr. Bre

9/11 never forget unless it’s building 7 then always forget

Dohnjoe

Dr. Bre wrote: »

9/11 never forget unless it’s building 7 then always forget

WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, the Deutsche Bank Building on Liberty Street (torn down later). Fiterman Hall, 4 Albany Street, 130 Cedar Street, 133-135 Greenwich Street, 21-23 Thames Street

The Nal

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.

lol. Yes have had the same thoughts myself on Cheerful Springs threads. Which I've now just seen he has started loads of. All pro conspiracy.

From a human mind point of view its fascinating.

blanch152

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

Obviously somebody had given in the wrong receipt for their expense claims and organised the whole 9/11 thing so they wouldn't be caught out, it makes perfect sense.

Cheerful Spring

blanch152 wrote: »

Obviously somebody had given in the wrong receipt for their expense claims and organised the whole 9/11 thing so they wouldn't be caught out, it makes perfect sense.

What is strange about that is the pilot could have just come down on top of the Pentagon building and killed more people, killed generals and officers, and even got Rumsfield. Pentagon is a massive building hard to miss. Instead, he circles around when there was no need to reposition to hit. The plane hit the side of the Pentagon building that was being repaired and an area that was sparsely populated by workers.

Then you got the discrepancy of how many hijackers there was. Renne May a flight attendant on flight 77 saw six hijackers she claimed in a phone call and only five are listed by the FBI. Hani Hanjour may not even be the pilot?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What is strange about that is the pilot could have just come down on top of the Pentagon building and killed more people, killed generals and officers, and even got Rumsfield. Pentagon is a massive building hard to miss. Instead, he circles around when there was no need to reposition to hit. The plane hit the side of the Pentagon building that was being repaired and an area that was sparsely populated by workers.

Then you got the discrepancy of how many hijackers there was. Renne May a flight attendant on flight 77 saw six hijackers she claimed in a phone call and only five are listed by the FBI. Hani Hanjour may not even be the pilot?

It wasnt intended to kill people. It was a statement hitting the Pentagon.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

It wasnt intended to kill people. It was a statement hitting the Pentagon.

He already reached the Pentagon first try, he did not need to circle around in 360 loop to reposition.

All he had to do is dive and he would have hit it on the first try you can see the Pentagon in the distance.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

He already reached the Pentagon first try, he did not need to circle around in 360 loop to reposition.

All he had to do is dive and he would have hit it on the first try you can see the Pentagon in the distance.

He was too high. 8000 fight when he started the uturn. 2000 feet when he finished the uturn and ended up in the same position. He overshot it so had to do a uturn. Maybe that was a trial run to use landmarks such as the Washington monument to position himself. He ended up hitting the same side anyway.

Diving like that from 8000 feet is risky. Very good chance he would've missed it.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

He was too high. 8000 fight when he started the uturn. 2000 feet when he finished the uturn and ended up in the same position. He overshot it so had to do a uturn. Maybe that was a trial run to use landmarks such as the Washington monument to position himself. He ended up hitting the same side anyway.

Diving like that from 8000 feet is risky. Very good chance he would've missed it.

You can drop a plane from 8,000 feet to 1,000 feet in about 10 seconds. Planes in 2001 can go 400mph an hour.

There no reason to make a U-turn unless the pilot had a specific spot picked out and he made a turn to hit that side. The plane was incoming from White House side.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can drop a plane from 8,000 feet to 1,000 feet in about 10 seconds. Planes in 2001 can go 400mph an hour.

Experienced pilots can I suppose yeah. This was the first time he ever flew a plane like that.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Experienced pilots can I suppose yeah. This was the first time he ever flew a plane like that.

He pulled off an experienced pilot manoeuvre when he dropped the plane down to a few feet off the ground. I not really buying into the inexperienced pilot narrative. I think there was a more experienced pilot on board flying the plane.

Cheerful Spring

A car sped on the grass a few seconds after the plane hit the Pentagon. Could be just a security car or they could be planting materials on the grass for people to take pictures of later?

Cheerful Spring

Pentagon camera direct line of sight to take a picture of the plane as it passed by

Cheerful Spring

Currently looking for more information on this item allegedly photographed on the grass at the Pentagon. if you look close the numbers look like they were handwritten in with some purple like ink. The numbers identify it as flight 77, but if they were handwritten on someone deliberately tried to pass that item off as coming off that plane?

The Nal

Why not focus on the many many many parts of the plane they did actually find and all of the eye witnesses who saw the plane.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Why not focus on the many many many parts of the plane they did actually find and all of the eye witnesses who saw the plane.

The 9/11 commission report put the plane in the wrong spot, for starters least, i think so? Over 13 Eyewitnesses saw the plane coming in from the north near the Cisco Petrol station.

9/11 commission puts the plane coming in from the south of the Cisco Station. That puts the plane on a different trajectory to hit the west wall.

FDR data and FAA animation belonging to flight 77 put the plane to the north of the Cisco station also.

Their number of possibilities to consider with this. Could there be two planes in the same area and one of them was a decoy or was guiding it in?. Did our plane, not hit, and just kept going by the Pentagon and something else did hit? Right now though my belief is the Pentagon was hit from the north by a plane?

But why would the 9/11 commission claim it came from the south is there something the authorities don't want us to see?

What do you mean by many parts? The fuselage and engines were never found? They found pieces of a tire rim, a few broken pieces of American airlines metal, and some parts that may have come off a 757 plane? There many planes that have the same wheels and parts?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal What truly amazing here is the cameras on the freeway and the Pentagon roof cameras never videoed the plane.

Why would the Pentagon security cameras not be recording? What's the excuse for that?

Freeway camera.

mickdw

What is that photo showing

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

What is that photo showing

What photo exactly there are a few images posted?

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

Why not focus on the many many many parts of the plane they did actually find and all of the eye witnesses who saw the plane.

Because these types of views are nothing to do with reason/fact/logic

It's about twisting everything so that the conspiracy can somehow be true in that person's mind. It's about entertaining the impossible. A hobby.

A bit like how you'd expect a Bigfoot meeting to go down, a bunch of people going through a bunch of mental hoops to validate their fantasies about it being true

Dr. Bre

Why not actually show footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? What are they hiding cos they have the footage.

King Mob

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Why not actually show footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? What are they hiding cos they have the footage.

What are they hiding?
What do you think hit the pentagon?

Please put forward an actual theory, as these "questions" don't add up to much.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Nal What truly amazing here is the cameras on the freeway and the Pentagon roof cameras never videoed the plane.

Why would the Pentagon security cameras not be recording? What's the excuse for that?

They were all recording. But using 1990s tech. Low res, low frame rate, fish eye. Not much chance of catching an object moving at 550mph. Thats why.

Can you explain all these eye witnesses?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

Not to mention the black box, body passenger and uniformed staffs body parts etc.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

They were all recording. But using 1990s tech. Low res, low frame rate, fish eye. Not much chance of catching an object moving at 550mph. Thats why.

Can you explain all these eye witnesses?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

Not to mention the black box, body passenger and uniformed staffs body parts etc.

For reference, cheerful previously claimed that it was a different plane that crashed into the building and that the real plane flew over the pentagon and away. In the course of this, he claimed that witnesses reported an entirely different plane, that all the wreckage from the crash was either planted or from a different plane and that the conspirators painted the other plane white, then silver, then half and half.
However after painting himself into a corner by putting all his support behind the flight data recorder, which he declared couldn't possibly be altered or corrupted, he changed his mind cause he realised that he couldn't claim that, and a different plane at the same time.
He now claims that the conspirators in fact flew a the real plane into the building, but a slower speed and a different direction from what the flight data and witnesses reported and from the actual investigators concluded.
He has not provided a reason why they did this.
To support this belief, he uses pictures and text he stole from other conspiracy theorists who claim that no plane hit the pentagon.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because these types of views are nothing to do with reason/fact/logic

It's about twisting everything so that the conspiracy can somehow be true in that person's mind. It's about entertaining the impossible. A hobby.

A bit like how you'd expect a Bigfoot meeting to go down, a bunch of people going through a bunch of mental hoops to validate their fantasies about it being true

It’s fairly unreasonable to dismiss all conspiracy theories. In fact elites conspire all the time. While there’s a certain type of person who sees conspiracy everywhere, there’s a type that sees conspiracy nowhere. Both are wrong.

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

For reference, cheerful previously claimed that it was a different plane that crashed into the building and that the real plane flew over the pentagon and away. In the course of this, he claimed that witnesses reported an entirely different plane, that all the wreckage from the crash was either planted or from a different plane and that the conspirators painted the other plane white, then silver, then half and half.
However after painting himself into a corner by putting all his support behind the flight data recorder, which he declared couldn't possibly be altered or corrupted, he changed his mind cause he realised that he couldn't claim that, and a different plane at the same time.
He now claims that the conspirators in fact flew a the real plane into the building, but a slower speed and a different direction from what the flight data and witnesses reported and from the actual investigators concluded.
He has not provided a reason why they did this.
To support this belief, he uses pictures and text he stole from other conspiracy theorists who claim that no plane hit the pentagon.

For further reference, there was a JFK thread knocking about and he provided equally batshít "theories" on there too. Worth a scroll through if you're bored for a laugh.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057800117&page=49

King Mob

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s fairly unreasonable to dismiss all conspiracy theories. In fact elites conspire all the time. While there’s a certain type of person who sees conspiracy everywhere, there’s a type that sees conspiracy nowhere. Both are wrong.

Which ones are reasonable?

That the twin towers were taken down by space lasers?
That no planes hit the pentagon or towers?
That we didn't go to the moon?
That all shootings in the US are faked by the government using fake actors?
That every airliner in the world is spraying chemtrails?
That the world is flat and that the entire space program is fake?

People often whine that "not every conspiracy theory is crazy" but then they don't seem interested in defending any of the conspiracy theories put forward on this forum or on the usual conspiracy media outlets.

I'm curious what conspiracies that were discovered and cracked by conspiracy theorists rather than members of the media or actual authorities.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

For further reference, there was a JFK thread knocking about and he provided equally batshít "theories" on there too. Worth a scroll through if you're bored for a laugh.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057800117&page=49

Yourself Dohnjoe and Kingmob should ask the moderators to create a new forum for you. If you think conspiracy theories are rubbish leave, this is a conspiracy forum. You ruining the forum for other people who want to talk about these topics.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

this is a conspiracy forum. Y

Yes I agree. But I don't see a theory!

Again, explain the eye witnesses to me.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Yes I agree. But I don't see a theory!

Again, explain the eye witnesses to me.

I don't see the point you have your world belief nothing I say will change that. You guys are just not able to see falsehoods with the 9/11 official story. Those gifs I provided showing what WTC7 looked like when it actually fell on 9/11 compared to what NIST says it looked like when it fell should be enough for you guys to wake up. If you can't see what is wrong there you never going to wake up and realise the official story about 9/11 is wrong.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't see the point you have your world belief nothing I say will change that. You guys are just not able to see falsehoods with the 9/11 official story. Those gifs I provided showing what WTC7 looked like when it actually fell on 9/11 compared to what NIST says it looked like when it fell should be enough for you guys to wake up. If you can't see what is wrong there you never going to wake up and realise the official story about 9/11 is wrong.

Ive been reading about 9/11 in detail since 9/12. A shoddy gif isn't going to "wake" anyone.

Im 100% open to it. Ive no "world view" - unlike you, where everything is a conspiracy.

But before we go there, theres glaring issues that need to be addressed. The Pentagon for example.

1. How do you explain away all of the eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash?

2. And the plane and body parts. Did someone quickly run about the lawn and the building scattering plane parts and body parts about the place undetected?

If there are valid answers to those questions and then maybe look further.

Franz Von Peppercorn

King Mob wrote: »

Which ones are reasonable?

That the twin towers were taken down by space lasers?
That no planes hit the pentagon or towers?
That we didn't go to the moon?
That all shootings in the US are faked by the government using fake actors?
That every airliner in the world is spraying chemtrails?
That the world is flat and that the entire space program is fake?

People often whine that "not every conspiracy theory is crazy" but then they don't seem interested in defending any of the conspiracy theories put forward on this forum or on the usual conspiracy media outlets.

I'm curious what conspiracies that were discovered and cracked by conspiracy theorists rather than members of the media or actual authorities.

I have a conspiracy that some conspiracies are designed to muddy the water alright. Numerous conspiracies and false flags have happened that we know of.

There’s a lot of moving parts in 9/11 though so I’m not sure about it. I don’t believe the inside job. There were definitively people acting suspiciously on the day. Nobody knows here if buildings fall like that, but I note that some experts say it isn’t possible and do so at personal cost. But I don’t know either way.

Anyway feast on this report from the 60s. A false flag operation which got to the highest levels - the joint chiefs of staff. Not a maverick in the CIA. Top level military brass. They planned to blame Cubans for a number of potential terrorist attacks or downing planes - all of which would be actually done by CIA operatives. An agreement then, to kill Americans on American soil by state sponsored terrorism. It was released a few years ago in an FOI act related to the death of Kennedy, who was president at the time. He refused to authorise it.

If these terrorist acts had gone ahead then of course the report would never have been released. You can only read it now because they didn’t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

(Note: not to muddy the waters, I don’t have an opinion either way on the Kennedy assassination).

King Mob

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I have a conspiracy that some conspiracies are designed to muddy the water alright.

Which ones and how do you know? And how can you tell the difference between a conspiracy theory created by someone who's just wrong and paranoid and one that's created by the government?

People often claim this, but it's not once been substantiated or explained.
I think it's to avoid the uncomfortable reality that conspiracy theorists are just wrong and make up silly stuff.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Numerous conspiracies and false flags have happened that we know of.

Yup.
And how many of these were discovered by random people on their keyboards using only what they can find in the news?

The Nal

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

An agreement then, to kill Americans on American soil by state sponsored terrorism.

Except thats not true. Theres nothing in Northwoods saying they'll kill US citizens. Most of it was "mock" killing. Blowing up drone chartered airliners, mock invasion of US bases by "friendly" Cuban land troops etc.

Northwoods was a memo, not an operation. It didn't even make it past being a memo before being rejected.

Not saying that they had more of these things drafted that we never heard about mind you.

The 9/11 false flag thing is total cobblers though from all view points.

Franz Von Peppercorn

King Mob wrote: »

Which ones and how do you know? And how can you tell the difference between a conspiracy theory created by someone who's just wrong and paranoid and one that's created by the government?

People often claim this, but it's not once been substantiated or explained.
I think it's to avoid the uncomfortable reality that conspiracy theorists are just wrong and make up silly stuff.

Since I know that governments conspire this isnt something beyond the pale to believe in.

Yup.
And how many of these were discovered by random people on their keyboards using only what they can find in the news?

Well before keyboard warriors the gulf of Tonkin was a conspiracy theory doing the rounds and dismissed as such. Now we know. It was true. The attacks were exaggerated. A conspiracy fact.

The northwoods conspiracy fact was revealed because of conspiracy theorists investigating the death of Kennedy. Not the media. The media is hopeless. In fact they didn’t really cover it even after it was released.

It’s a bit odd to dismiss all conspiracy theorists as kooks including those of us who think that many if not most conspiracy theories are crazy, possibly planted by the CIA. Or not. Who knows. I wonder what you think they do all day. If I had planned a false flag on the American public I’m sure that discrediting the kind of person who would notice the discrepancies in the report (had northwoods gone ahead say) would be a fairly routine thing to do, and how better than to generate other crazier conspiracies to discredit the main one. Bread and butter I’d say.

( So on the recent subject of course a plane crashed into the pentagon. And into the towers. And there were Arabs onboard. )

As I said the tweedle dum and tweedle Dee here. The believers of all conspiracies and the believers in none (except those now verified without dispute).

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Except thats not true. Theres nothing in Northwoods saying they'll kill US citizens. Most of it was "mock" killing. Blowing up drone chartered airliners, mock invasion of US bases by "friendly" Cuban land troops etc.

Northwoods was a memo, not an operation. It didn't even make it past being a memo before being rejected.

Not saying that they had more of these things drafted that we never heard about mind you.

The 9/11 false flag thing is total cobblers though from all view points.

Nal please stop.

Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The plans detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[

It was handed to Kennedy as a viable option. Kennedy said no. If he had said yes you know the rest.

mickdw

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Nal What truly amazing here is the cameras on the freeway and the Pentagon roof cameras never videoed the plane.

Why would the Pentagon security cameras not be recording? What's the excuse for that?

Freeway camera.

This photo. What is it showing?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Ive been reading about 9/11 in detail since 9/12. A shoddy gif isn't going to "wake" anyone.

Im 100% open to it. Ive no "world view" - unlike you, where everything is a conspiracy.

But before we go there, theres glaring issues that need to be addressed. The Pentagon for example.

1. How do you explain away all of the eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash?

2. And the plane and body parts. Did someone quickly run about the lawn and the building scattering plane parts and body parts about the place undetected?

If there are valid answers to those questions and then maybe look further.

Don't listen to Kingmob this is what actually happened.

I analysed the images of the Pentagon damage. I noticed there no way a plane coming in from southwest did that damage. It had or must have been a smaller plane of some kinda jet, a small commercial jet maybe?

I decided to do more research into it and I discovered multiple eyewitnesses saw the plane coming in from another direction ( Northeast) I never heard this before so I started listening to their stories and dawned on me if the plane hit straight on that would account for the damage i was seeing in the images.

I could not figure out why there was this edged out block on the second floor? Why did the wings not clip off and break apart on the grass? The plane left wing was out across the grass when the plane hit. You have to remember in all this the 9/11 commision states the plane came in at an angle almost turned sideways. There was a number of other issues but I can't remember all of them right now.

Then I found the FDR animation released years after the 9/11 commision report. And then I found the FDR data recorder of flight 77 animation. I noticed both animations both place flight 77 further north like the eyewitnesses said. So there are errors in where the plane was located. This changes everything and while a plane would account for the face damage on the front wall of the Pentagon. That hole - in C ring was not caused by a plane impact.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Don't listen to Kingmob this is what actually happened.

I analysed the images of the Pentagon damage. I noticed there no way a plane coming in from southwest did that damage. It had or must have been a smaller plane of some kinda jet, a small commercial jet maybe?

Lol, lies.

You are lying about what you said to avoid how embarrassingly wrong you were.

There was no "maybe" in your arguments.
You argued that the hole was too small period.
You argued that it was a very specific type of military jet.

Reality doesn't reinvent itself at your convenience. When you claim something that isn't true, it's called lying.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, lies.

You are lying about what you said to avoid how embarrassingly wrong you were.

There was no "maybe" in your arguments.
You argued that the hole was too small period.
You argued that it was a very specific type of military jet.

Reality doesn't reinvent itself at your convenience. When you claim something that isn't true, it's called lying.

I just explained it to Nal. I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon from Southwest. My suspicion turned out to be correct when I found evidence.

Stop pretending I did not talk about those northeast witness accounts and FDR and FAA in this thread. That hole was not caused by a plane coming from southwest or northeast.

Yes based on thinking all the eyewitnesses only saw a plane southwest. Stop pretending I did not debate the damage based on a plane coming from there.

King Mob

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Since I know that governments conspire this isnt something beyond the pale to believe in.

But that doesn't really answer my questions.
Which conspiracy theories were created by the government?
How do you know which ones were created by the government?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well before keyboard warriors the gulf of Tonkin was a conspiracy theory doing the rounds and dismissed as such. Now we know. It was true. The attacks were exaggerated. A conspiracy fact.

The northwoods conspiracy fact was revealed because of conspiracy theorists investigating the death of Kennedy. Not the media.

But neither of these are an example of conspiracy theorists proving a conspiracy.

The Gulf of Tonkin thing was exposed by the media, not conspiracy theorists.

And the Northwoods Conspiracy (which leaving aside was a memo, not an actual event) was not claimed to exist before hand. It was stumbled onto (if your description is true) after the government handed over the information. That's not exactly a good example of keyboard warriors cracking the case...

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I just explained it to Nal. I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon from Southwest. My suspicion turned out to be correct when I found evidence.

Stop pretending I did not talk about those northeast witness accounts and FDR and FAA in this thread. That hole was not caused by a plane coming from southwest or northeast.

Yes based on thinking all the eyewitnesses only saw a plane southwest. Stop pretending I did not debate the damage based on a plane coming from there.

But you claimed that the hole was too small period.
You claimed that it was a specific military jet.

It was really embarrassing and kinda makes your current claims look ridiculous. Nevermind the hundreds of questions you can't answer and the silly cartoon scenario you have to dream up to support your silly claims.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But you claimed that the hole was too small period.
You claimed that it was a specific military jet.

It was really embarrassing and kinda makes your current claims look ridiculous. Nevermind the hundreds of questions you can't answer and the silly cartoon scenario you have to dream up to support your silly claims.

King Mob You are the liar you know damn well I thought the Pentagon was only hit from one direction. Read the thread.

Then I found eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane coming in from the northeast not southwest. That's weird. So I started looking at the Pentagon damage again and yes a plane hitting the wall straight and dead on would account for the damage I am seeing.

Then I found the FDR and FAA animation further confirming my suspicions.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob You are the liar you know damn well I thought the Pentagon was only hit from one direction. Read the thread.

Then I found eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane coming in from the northeast not southwest. That's weird. So I started looking at the Pentagon damage again and yes a plane hitting the wall straight and dead on would account for the damage I am seeing.

Then I found the FDR and FAA animation further confirming my suspicions.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106773890&postcount=164
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106778197&postcount=192
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106784748&postcount=223
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106787464&postcount=236
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106787545&postcount=241
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106797661&postcount=256

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There is no place on the Pentagon wall where I can see a nose cone fitting through?.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106809808&postcount=290
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106810209&postcount=300

And here's where you realised you messed up:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106816485&postcount=328

You have been again, lying about your own point. I agree with Dohnjoe now. You are being entirely dishonest with your position. No point engaging further.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106773890&postcount=164
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106778197&postcount=192
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106784748&postcount=223
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106787464&postcount=236
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106787545&postcount=241
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106797661&postcount=256

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106809808&postcount=290
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106810209&postcount=300

And here's where you realised you messed up:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106816485&postcount=328

You have been again, lying about your own point. I agree with Dohnjoe now. You are being entirely dishonest with your position. No point engaging further.

All links to posts at the start of the thread when I thought the plane hit from one direction only. People are free to read this thread and you see Kingmob is lying.

Cheerful Spring

Kingmob thanks for proving me right since all your links are posts of mine at the beginning of the thread.

Kingmob, when we got into this further. You dismissed multiple eyewitnesses accounts, the FAA radar returns and FAA animation. Why would anyone listen to, seriously, when you deny the evidence?

When the plane hit from the northeast it would have hit the Pentagon as it showed in this image.

Kingmob Do you now see the damage was caused by a plane hitting from the northeast?



Can you see where the tail is hitting on the second floor? Where the wings are going? The engines?

Cheerful Spring

For people who don't what we are debating.

Kingmob believes the plane came along that red path its the official account.

I am of the opinion the plane was along these yellow lines.

You can see the 9/11 commission places the plane at an angle coming in and left wing of the plane will be spread out across the grass when it hit the Pentagon.

King Mob

Note, Cheerful is stealing that diagram from a group of conspiracy theorists who believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Note, Cheerful is stealing that diagram from a group of conspiracy theorists who believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.

Stealing :eek: The Eyewitnesses saw a plane in that direction that's what the yellow lines show.

So what if conspiracy theorists believe no plane hit? Are you going to claim these eyewitnesses are conspiracy theorists because they saw a plane Northeast?

Dr. Bre

King Mob wrote: »

Note, Cheerful is stealing that diagram from a group of conspiracy theorists who believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.

No proof a plane hit the pentagon unless they release the footage