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

King Mob

So if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, it was a...?

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

So if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, it was a...?

A missile I assume. Its 2005 again and we're watching Loose Change! :rolleyes:

All of the eye witnesses who saw a plane must been hallucinating at the same time and saw the same thing.

So, Cheerful Spring 3rd time of asking:

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

And

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?

Also, you seem new to this by your own admission? ie you're just reading up on stuff quickly as you post?

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

A missile I assume. Its 2005 again and we're watching Loose Change! :rolleyes:

The more likely answer will be "I'm not claiming it's anything".
Which is a dodge to avoid having to defend the inherently nonsense idea of there not being a plane.

But as Dohnjoe has been pointing out, the conspiracy doesn't have to be coherent or believable.

Dohnjoe

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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).

Conspiracies happen all the time, on a daily basis; political sleaze, scandals, match rigging in sports, collusion in companies, inside information, coups in third world countries, etc, etc

Classic "conspiracy theorists" aren't interested in any of that - which is why you don't see those types of threads here

On here we only really get the "fantastical" conspiracy theories; 911, Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, Bin Laden raid was a hoax, etc, etc

These are almost always prefaced by the appeal to history fallacy, aka justifying extreme modern theories with no evidence simply by pointing to real events or plans in the past, e.g. the height of the Cold War

Without fail we will hear reference to:
1. Operation Northwoods
2. Gulf of Tonkien incident
3. the USS Liberty attack

"Conspiracy theorists" (CTers) often start with a paranoid belief that an event is an "inside job" from the very outset (backed by a classic world view, that nefarious powers e.g. the US gov/the West/the Jews/the elites are responsible) and they work backwards from there looking for "clues" that it's an inside job whilst trying to retroactively to discredit any real evidence, facts or information

Personal incredulity is the key catalyst; "there's no way inexperienced pilots can fly planes into buildings" (but this is often contradicted by their belief in far more fantastic unbelievable conspiracy scenarios with no evidence)

Denialism traits common with anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, etc are common in forums like this

Dohnjoe

Dr. Bre wrote: »

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

"No proof the battle of Hastings happened unless they release footage"

What a ridiculous view

On top of that, there is released footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, it's bad quality because it was caught on shiatty 90's security cameras. Go outside, have a look around any buildings and petrol stations, notice any cameras pointing at the sky? note the way they are all pointing down?

The Nal

Id say the proof that a plane hit the Pentagon is there. Plane parts everywhere and a shítload of eyewitnesses.

mickdw

Okay. So a plane hit the Pentagon. There seems to be enough evidence of a plane being at or near the scene from eye witnesses.
I still cannot come up with any reasonable explanation as to why we have not seen any semi clear footage of it other than something being purposely hidden.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

A missile I assume. Its 2005 again and we're watching Loose Change! :rolleyes:

All of the eye witnesses who saw a plane must been hallucinating at the same time and saw the same thing.

So, Cheerful Spring 3rd time of asking:

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

And

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?

Also, you seem new to this by your own admission? ie you're just reading up on stuff quickly as you post?

I used to be a no plane truther. Now after studying the photographic evidence, I am of the opinion a plane did strike the west wall of the Pentagon.

My disagreement is where hit the plane hit the Pentagon exactly. I think it came in more straight on and was lined up. The 9/11 commission claims the plane was angled or tilted.

A missile can not account for the first-floor damage. The hole would be smaller if a cruise missile impacted the E ring. That hole is about 90 to 100 feet across. Clearly, the engines and wings of the plane are large enough to make that hole. I disagree with truthers that hole too small for a plane to fit. People often forget the wings and engines are at lower height compared to a top of the fuselage (ie windows of the cockpit and roof of the plane)

My biggest complaint is what caused that hole in C ring? A plane would have vapourised when hit the E ring. So the debris of the plane when it went inside had to travel through the E ring through the D ring wedge and then exit through the C ring wedge. If there is space between the columns for the plane wreckage to travel that far maybe the wreckage could have exited out, that's a big if.

And clearly, something happened at 9.42 below you see a fireball. So there is an unexplained secondary explosion.




Finally to answer your questions. I don't explain it away they saw a plane and it hit the Pentagon. Why is there is so camera footage of this event though? I perplexed because there are cameras on the roof of the Pentagon and on the walls of the fire station near the heliport. Did the camera catch a glimpse of something they are now trying to hide I just can't figure out why no clear footage?

Planting evidence? I think it's unlikely if a plane hit. Could they have planted evidence this was flight 77 sure? That image I showed you the power unit with American airlines logo. The numbers on it look handwritten on, they are not engraved and etched on.

People worked in the area that got hit, body parts would be found. Were there people on the plane and their bodies found? I would have thought those bodies would be incinerated by the blast?

The Nal

mickdw wrote: »

Okay. So a plane hit the Pentagon. There seems to be enough evidence of a plane being at or near the scene from eye witnesses.

No. A plane hit the Pentagon. Exactly as history has recorded it. People in hotels, offices, in traffic, on foot, in the Pentagon all saw it and saw it hit the building, described the plane, it banking left, hitting poles etc. All consistent with the physical evidence, damage to the lawn and poles, the evidence found, the limbs, the uniforms and so on.

mickdw wrote: »

I still cannot come up with any reasonable explanation as to why we have not seen any semi clear footage of it other than something being purposely hidden.

Because all of the cameras in the area recorded between 1 and 8 frames a second in very low resolution. Unfortunately. But it was 1990s technology.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal That not accurate. The Pentagon released 5 frames from a camera located at the security checkpoint. That camera is the furthest camera at the Pentagon. You telling me a roof camera on the west corner wall would not see a plane coming in. It points down at the grass. You would have got a glimpse of the plane even if was not focused and was low resolution.

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

This photo. What is it showing?

A camera that not low resolution and records traffic on the freeway next to the Pentagon. This is the same area the plane came in from on 9/11. That camera was there on 9/11

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

Okay. So a plane hit the Pentagon. There seems to be enough evidence of a plane being at or near the scene from eye witnesses.
I still cannot come up with any reasonable explanation as to why we have not seen any semi clear footage of it other than something being purposely hidden.

As has been pointed out; almost all CCTV cameras point down, at foyers, entrances, forecourts, parking lots, etc. It's high unlikely there would have been any cameras pointing at the sky or wide shots (what would be the point?)

Footage has been released of the plane hitting, however it's in the background (naturally) the footage itself is grainy, blurry, low quality - as expected

The footage of the planes hitting the Twin Towers was clear because it wasn't CCTV, it was mainly TV cameras

Try to understand that despite all this clear footage of the planes hitting the Twin Towers, conspiracy theorists claimed it didn't happen, or they were holograms or whatever else

So even if by complete luck a TV camera was pointed at the Pentagon at the precise time the plane hit, then the conspiracy theories would simply morph around that

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I used to be a no plane truther. Now after studying the photographic evidence, I am of the opinion a plane did strike the west wall of the Pentagon.

My disagreement is where hit the plane hit the Pentagon exactly. I think it came in more straight on and was lined up. The 9/11 commission claims the plane was angled or tilted.

A missile can not account for the first-floor damage. The hole would be smaller if a cruise missile impacted the E ring. That hole is about 90 to 100 feet across. Clearly, the engines and wings of the plane are large enough to make that hole. I disagree with truthers that hole too small for a plane to fit. People often forget the wings and engines are at lower height compared to a top of the fuselage (ie windows of the cockpit and roof of the plane)

My biggest complaint is what caused that hole in C ring? A plane would have vapourised when hit the E ring. So the debris of the plane when it went inside had to travel through the E ring through the D ring wedge and then exit through the C ring wedge. If there is space between the columns for the plane wreckage to travel that far maybe the wreckage could have exited out, that's a big if.

And clearly, something happened at 9.42 below you see a fireball. So there is an unexplained secondary explosion.




Finally to answer your questions. I don't explain it away they saw a plane and it hit the Pentagon. Why is there is so camera footage of this event though? I perplexed because there are cameras on the roof of the Pentagon and on the walls of the fire station near the heliport. Did the camera catch a glimpse of something they are now trying to hide I just can't figure out why no clear footage?

Planting evidence? I think it's unlikely if a plane hit. Could they have planted evidence this was flight 77 sure? That image I showed you the power unit with American airlines logo. The numbers on it look handwritten on, they are not engraved and etched on.

People worked in the area that got hit, body parts would be found. Were there people on the plane and their bodies found? I would have thought those bodies would be incinerated by the blast?

No they found lots of body parts. They identified most of the dead.

What did all the eyewitnesses see? How do you explain the lamp posts, the engine, the landing gear, the passengers remains, the seats, the airframe etc.

If it wasn't Flight 77, where did Flight 77 go?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe plane was not in the sky it was about 10 or 20 few feet off the ground before it hit the Pentagon. 9/11 commission has the plane flying past that camera on 9/11.

Dohnjoe

"why isn't there any footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon"

- there is

"but why isn't it good quality"

- because CCTV back then was **** quality

"but there were loads of cameras surely some of them caught it"

- they did, conspiracy theorists just dismissed it because it was low quality

"but why isn't there more footage of the plane hitting"

- because most of them are pointing downwards

"but look someone has circled a camera on the pentagon of a camera why didnt that catch it

- because maybe it wasn't on, maybe it was 1 frame a second, maybe it was narrow angle, maybe the Pent didn't feel the need to release it to appease a few conspiracy theorists

Note the circular nature of these type of obtuse questions that are consistently and repeatedly asked

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

No they found lots of body parts. They identified most of the dead.

What did all the eyewitnesses see? How do you explain the lamp posts, the engine, the landing gear, the passengers remains, the seats, the airframe etc.

If it wasn't Flight 77, where did Flight 77 go?

No engines were found. They found a turbine wheel that may have come off a turbofan? scraps of the airframe were found. landing gear yes they found. Seats that new have you images of that I thought no seats was found?

Lampsposts is why this thread was started.

mickdw

The Nal wrote: »

No. A plane hit the Pentagon. Exactly as history has recorded it. People in hotels, offices, in traffic, on foot, in the Pentagon all saw it and saw it hit the building, described the plane, it banking left, hitting poles etc. All consistent with the physical evidence, damage to the lawn and poles, the evidence found, the limbs, the uniforms and so on.



Because all of the cameras in the area recorded between 1 and 8 frames a second in very low resolution. Unfortunately. But it was 1990s technology.

I'm not arguing with the first point. I said I believe it hit due to the number of people who saw it there.
The second point doesn't hold water. If the plane was travelling at 500 miles per hour and was visible from say 3 miles out it would be visible for 21 seconds. Give it 1 mile visibility at same speed , 7 seconds visible prior to hit. Now if cameras were only looking across its path, it might be believable that something recording only a few frames per second could entirely miss the plane, however considering we are taking about the pentagon, I'd wager there was a camera looking in the general direction of approach of the plane. Even at 1 frame per second, there would be multiple frames with at worst a shot 220m away. 8 frames per second would capture an image every 28m.
Only a fool would believe that there is no footage.
I was alive back then. It was 2001, it wasn't the dark ages. There were cameras everywhere. Sure some businesses had terrible cctv but the Pentagon would have best available technology at the time and would certainly have multiple angles covered.
The question has to be for what reason did the government not release clear footage?
It may be perfectly innocent re protecting national security and it being part of a criminal investigation etc or it may be something more sinister.
My point is footage exists, I have zero doubt.

Dohnjoe

???

Cheerful_Spring you maintain that flight 77 hit the Pentagon - why are you now trying to discredit your own argument?

It's literally in this thread

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe plane was not in the sky it was about 10 or 20 few feet off the ground before it hit the Pentagon. 9/11 commission has the plane flying past that camera on 9/11.

How wide and far do you think these cameras actually record?!

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

Only a fool would believe that there is no footage.

There is footage

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

How wide and far do you think these cameras actually record?!

Enough to see an outline of an object. Security gate cameras are further away than this camera and that camera saw an object.

Release the footage people then can say yep can't see ****. Clearly, there was a camera on the roof. The FBI has released 9/11 footage, they confiscated, and that showed no plane. So why is this footage been kept back? People will be satisfied if the footage is showing absolutely nothing. Not showing the footage is why people are suspicious.

The Nal

mickdw wrote: »

I'd wager there was a camera looking in the general direction of approach of the plane.

Why would you wager that? Why would a low res CCTV camera be aimed high and out towards the horizon?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Enough to see an outline of an object. Security gate cameras are further away than this camera and that camera saw an object.

Release the footage people then can say yep can't see ****. Clearly, there was a camera on the roof. The FBI has released 9/11 footage, they confiscated, and that show no plane. So why is this footage been kept back? People will be satisfied if the footage is showing absolutely nothing. Not showing the footage is why people are suspicious.

So if the camera was pointed down at the door, shooting 15 sq in fisheye, it should've picked up footage of something 200 feet away to its right?!

Look at your hand, can you see the back of your head when you do that?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

???

Cheerful_Spring you maintain that flight 77 hit the Pentagon - why are you now trying to discredit your own argument?

It's literally in this thread

I can not trust anything when the evidence clearly shows WTC7 was brought down by demolition.

My mind is working overtime was it flight 77 or was a plane just like it same make and model?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Why would you wager that? Why would a low res CCTV camera be aimed high and out towards the horizon?



So if the camera was pointed down at the door, shooting 15 sq in fisheye, it should've picked up footage of something 200 feet away to its right?!

Look at your hand, can you see the back of your head when you do that?

Nal the right wing of the plane would be over the car park when it came in. Just not believable to me a piece of the plane would not be seen on camera. This is the Pentagon they going to using the best security cameras available Even if it was just a wing you saw, that clear evidence of a plane. You may even see the engine?

Security cameras at the security gates are there to watch the space around this area they not placed there to watch the grounds. The security cameras on the roof are probably lot more advanced?

mickdw

The Nal wrote: »

Why would you wager that? Why would a low res CCTV camera be aimed high and out towards the horizon?



So if the camera was pointed down at the door, shooting 15 sq in fisheye, it should've picked up footage of something 200 feet away to its right?!

Look at your hand, can you see the back of your head when you do that?

It was the Pentagon. They would surely have combination cameras covering multiple views, cameras covering targeted small areas and camera taking in lawn areas etc. Even of you look at some images from low grade domestic cc tv, many will cover quite a distance away even when faced gently downward due to wide angle lens.
I'm sure there were cameras covering every square inch of the Pentagon grounds that day.
It is not realistic to think that the plane wasn't clearly seen by any camera. I'm aware of the joke distant footage that was released but bad and all as it is, if another similar camera captured the plane face on, there would be multiple clear frames to view.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

It was the Pentagon. They would surely have combination cameras covering multiple views, cameras covering targeted small areas and camera taking in lawn areas etc. Even of you look at some images from low grade domestic cc tv, many will cover quite a distance away even when faced gently downward due to wide angle lens.
I'm sure there were cameras covering every square inch of the Pentagon grounds that day.
It is not realistic to think that the plane wasn't clearly seen by any camera. I'm aware of the joke distant footage that was released but bad and all as it is, if another similar camera captured the plane face on, there would be multiple clear frames to view.

One explanation is that there wasn't any cameras in right position with the right frame right with the right timing to capture a very fast moving plane.

You are "sure there were cameras covering every square inch of the Pentagon grounds that day".
What is that based on? Do you work in security? Are you familiar with the Pentagon security systems in the early 2000s?
Is it just an assumption you are making with no evidence?

Suggesting that it wasn't a plane isn't realistic, it's silly.
Suggesting that it's the same plane, jsut coming from a different angle than the government claims isn't realistic, it's silly.

However, you just being wrong about a baseless assumption... bit more realistic.
That aside, what possible other explanation is there that isn't inherently ridiculous, never mind realistic?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I can trust anything when the evidence clearly shows WTC7 was brought down by demolition.

How exactly did that happen? Did none of the tens of thousands of people in the building in the lead up notice demolition teams working 24/7 for months and months planting nitroglycerin and shaped charges on every floor? Did they not think something was up when "they" were stripping the columns and knocking down walls on 50 odd floors and putting up explosive fabrics, fencing and so on?

There would've been miles upon miles of wires across peoples desks across all floors, thousands of pounds of explosives carefully layed out on floors, on stairs, hundreds of workers planting it, detonators, back ups, hundreds of walls missing....

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

My mind is working overtime was it flight 77 or was a plane just like it same make and model?

Where did the real plane go then?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The security cameras on the roof are probably lot more advanced?

How so? What sort of camera was up there?

mickdw wrote: »

I'm sure there were cameras covering every square inch of the Pentagon grounds that day.

How are you sure? You're looking at 2001 from a 2018 post 9/11 perspective. Doesn't work that way unfortunately. If you believe that "they" have everything covered like that and know everything thats going on, I can see why you default to conspiracy. Fact is they don't. As proven by the 1993 WTC bombing, and, well, 9/11.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

How exactly did that happen? Did none of the tens of thousands of people in the building in the lead up notice demolition teams working 24/7 for months and months planting nitroglycerin and shaped charges on every floor? Did they not think something was up when "they" were stripping the columns and knocking down walls on 50 odd floors and putting up explosive fabrics, fencing and so on?

There would've been miles upon miles of wires across peoples desks across all floors, thousands of pounds of explosives carefully layed out on floors, on stairs, hundreds of workers planting it, detonators, back ups, hundreds of walls missing....

It bares noting that cheerful claims that the reason they destroyed WTC7 was to destroy paper evidence kept at the building.
The reason they could not just simply shred this evidence? People would have noticed too easily.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

My mind is working overtime was it flight 77 or was a plane just like it same make and model?

So now you are changing your theory again?

According to you..

First it was impossible it was flight 77
Then it was a missile
Then a military jet
Then it was flight 77 but from a "different angle"
Now it might not be flight 77

The only thing "working overtime" is your imagination

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

It bares noting that cheerful claims that the reason they destroyed WTC7 was to destroy paper evidence kept at the building.
The reason they could not just simply shred this evidence? People would have noticed too easily.

And that the supposed guys secretly rigging a 47 story building with magic silent explosives couldn't simply destroy these "secret papers" while they were there

"but sir, the secret papers are right here"

"NO it has to be this way, and you'd better pray both those planes hit their targets otherwise we have this entire building sitting here rigged to blow"

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

How exactly did that happen? Did none of the tens of thousands of people in the building in the lead up notice demolition teams working 24/7 for months and months planting nitroglycerin and shaped charges on every floor? Did they not think something was up when "they" were stripping the columns and knocking down walls on 50 odd floors and putting up explosive fabrics, fencing and so on?

There would've been miles upon miles of wires across peoples desks across all floors, thousands of pounds of explosives carefully layed out on floors, on stairs, hundreds of workers planting it, detonators, back ups, hundreds of walls missing....



Where did the real plane go then?



How so? What sort of camera was up there?

If the people who did this have access then there no sneaking in!. You swear this was done by amateurs. The people who did this are professionals. And the people who send them there will be people who can get them this access. If you hand security your work ID they will let you in and not bother you at all. Repair work was done in all three towers leading up to 9/11. It not as hard as you think it is. You could even come any night when everyone has gone home. These buildings were not protected by the SAS or Delta force.

What independent scientists found in WTC dust was nano-thermite a nano-chemical particle that acts like thermite but is more explosive and spikes in energy at very low temp. It's very different to thermite that requires a lot of heat to ignite.

Did they use explosives as well? I don't think they are going to use explosives that give it away and expose what they were up to. They probably only need to break a number of core columns anyhow to weaken the building. Afterall NIST claims one girder falling and one column buckling on 79 brought the building down. So put a shape charge on column 79 blow it up building falls, that's what NIST is saying happening?

And wireless technology existed in 2001 I not sure why you have to wire up the entire building?

Flight 77 probably did hit the Pentagon, just curious why there no footage.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So now you are changing your theory again?

According to you..

First it was impossible it was flight 77
Then it was a missile
Then a military jet
Then it was flight 77 but from a "different angle"
Now it might not be flight 77

The only thing "working overtime" is your imagination

And don't forget the super secret double event at the pentagon where they did something else, then crashed the plane in the wrong place so it was super obvious that something was amiss...
And that this maybe involved pre-planted explosives, since cheerful, a guy who can't pass leaving cert physics, thinks the damage is impossible for a 757.

Because, again the only possible way to get rid of something at the Pentagon without anyone noticing is to plant explosives, then ram a jet into it.

Or maybe a jet with a missile...

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Flight 77 probably did hit the Pentagon

And it's changed back to again

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And that the supposed guys secretly rigging a 47 story building with magic silent explosives couldn't simply destroy these "secret papers" while they were there

"but sir, the secret papers are right here"

"NO it has to be this way, and you'd better pray both those planes hit their targets otherwise we have this entire building sitting here rigged to blow"

"But sir, wouldn't rigging the building to go down exactly like a controlled demolition just draw attention to the fact it's fake, thus the fact we are hiding these documents? Why not just take them, and say they were destroyed in the large fire that's already here? Or let them burn in said fire?"

"Shut up and plant the thermite Jenkins."

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

"But sir, wouldn't rigging the building to go down exactly like a controlled demolition just draw attention to the fact it's fake, thus the fact we are hiding these documents? Why not just take them, and say they were destroyed in the large fire that's already here? Or let them burn in said fire?"

"Shut up and plant the thermite Jenkins."

"So sir, we plant all these explosives inside a building that will be on fire.."

"Yes"

"A building that will be burning out of control for hours.."

"Yes"

"..."

I can do this **** all day

Cheerful Spring

This coming from Kingmob who claimed thermite can't cut steel.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"So sir, we plant all these explosives inside a building that will be on fire.."

"Yes"

"A building that will be burning out of control for hours.."

"Yes"

"..."

I can do this **** all day

"No Jenkins, it's not explosives, it's thermite."

"Doesn't thermite go off when it's exposed to fire?"

"No, this is nano-thermite. It's magic and it doesn't go off when exposed to fire."

"But wouldn't that leave tell tale traces that any old random conspiracy theorist could find as opposed to normal thermite that would just like rust particles?"

"Shut up Jenkins and tell the BBC to report the building fell early..."

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This coming from Kingmob who claimed thermite can't cut steel.

Nope, king mob who can do simple physics problems. :pac:

Also, never claimed that. I claimed that thermite has never been used in a demolition at all, secret or otherwise.
You never provided an example.

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

It bares noting that cheerful claims that the reason they destroyed WTC7 was to destroy paper evidence kept at the building.
The reason they could not just simply shred this evidence? People would have noticed too easily.

haha.

Surely a robbery in the middle of the night would've been easier? Destroying a large part of downtown Manhattan seems excessive and risky?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, king mob who can do simple physics problems. :pac:

Also, never claimed that. I claimed that thermite has never been used in a demolition at all, secret or otherwise.
You never provided an example.

Yes, you did. Yes, I did provide examples to you before in this thread or another.

Steel and girders were brought down by thermite.
The skyride tower [1936] and the remaining roof of the reichstag building [1954]

Nano thermite was found not thermite in the dust.

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

haha.

Surely a robbery in the middle of the night would've been easier? Destroying a large part of downtown Manhattan seems excessive and risky?

Apparently it was to destroy the "command center" for 911

So yeah, the whole point of 911 was to destroy the command center for.. 911

I'm not joking by the way, that's an actual theory

Cheerful Spring

What Dohnjoe and Kingmob and Nal ignore is that NIST has lied continuously.

NIST said no eyewitness reporting seeing molten steel and melted steel and iron (False) Multiple witnesses involved in the cleanup and recovery process reporting see melted steel and iron. NIST just forget that FEMA found two steel pieces from a beam were melted by extreme heat.

NIST said no noise was heard above 130db ( sound of a drill hammer) before collapse. False a loud bang was heard blocks away coming from the direction of WTC7 and after this bang 1 second later Penthouse caved in.

NIST study has been proven to be fraudulent. Removing fittings on the girder that was the there on the girder during construction. Their collapse model looks nothing like the actual collapse.

Scientists finding nano-thermite in the dust?

The only side being truthful is the conspiracy side and they are the lunatics?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob Who told the BBC they building was coming down 30 minutes before it did.

How could anyone possibly know a girder would fall down on floor 13 30 minutes before it did according to NIST? You guys believe in fairytales.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob Who told the BBC they building was coming down 30 minutes before it did.

How could anyone possibly know a girder would fall down on floor 13 30 minutes before it did? You guys believe in fairytales.

You tell us. It's your daft conspiracy theory.

Who told the BBC?
Why did they tell the BBC?
Why did the BBC announce it early?
And then evidence for that, please and thanks.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes, you did. Yes, I did provide examples to you before in this thread or another.

No, I never claimed that. You are lying again.
Quote me where I said that.

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

One explanation is that there wasn't any cameras in right position with the right frame right with the right timing to capture a very fast moving plane.

You are "sure there were cameras covering every square inch of the Pentagon grounds that day".
What is that based on? Do you work in security? Are you familiar with the Pentagon security systems in the early 2000s?
Is it just an assumption you are making with no evidence?

Suggesting that it wasn't a plane isn't realistic, it's silly.
Suggesting that it's the same plane, jsut coming from a different angle than the government claims isn't realistic, it's silly.

However, you just being wrong about a baseless assumption... bit more realistic.
That aside, what possible other explanation is there that isn't inherently ridiculous, never mind realistic?

It's a great old trick to ask for the evidence when I'm making a reasonable amount of sense re cameras and angles.
What evidence have you that the Pentagon was poorly set up camera wise?
On balance, I think any reasonable person would come down on the side of their being more than adequate camera cover at the Pentagon at that time to catch a full on shot of any airplane incoming.
I'm not making wild claims. I'm just saying that clear footage exists and the government have decided not to release it.
The traffic camera looking at the road and the Pentagon as posted by cheerful is a perfect example of a camera that could easily have captured the plane.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

haha.

Surely a robbery in the middle of the night would've been easier? Destroying a large part of downtown Manhattan seems excessive and risky?

As I said before, the bare bones simple version of the 9/11 conspiracy isn't actually that far fetched.
The idea that elements of the US government helped the terrorists or purposefully did not stop them in their plan so that the government could use it to justify various policies isn't an insane, impossible notion.

There's only two problems with this: First that there's of course, no evidence, but that isn't what stops conspiracy theorists.
That's the second problem. It's a boring conspiracy.

There's no holograms or double fake secret events and super nano mega thermite activated by space lasers... There's no Gotcha factoids to spread on facebook and forms. You can't stretch it out into 4 hour long youtube videos...

You can't sell the realistic, boring conspiracy, and conspiracy theorists aren't actually interested in it...

Cheerful Spring

NIST and so-called experts Dohnjoe supports did not spot WTC7 experienced freefall.

One guy did David Chandler. The the most credible truther discussing the topic right now.

He explains freefall here.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

It's a great old trick to ask for the evidence when I'm making a reasonable amount of sense re cameras and angles.

Yes, it's a trick called looking at the facts.
You are basing your certainy on a complete assumption that you have no compelling reason to believe other than it makes sense to you.

mickdw wrote: »

What evidence have you that the Pentagon was poorly set up camera wise?

Firstly this is a strawman. We are not saying that the Pentagon was poorly set up camera wise.
It was probably quite well set up camera wise. However, these cameras would be set up to monitor foot and road traffic in conjunction with an ever present security force. They wouldn't actually need to have complete and utter HD footage from every angle to do adequate coverage for the time and level of security pre 9/11.
This is evidenced by the fact that the footage they did release is of such poor quality.
Why, if the pentagon was set up as you believe, would they have a slow frame rate, fixed camera that only took a limited view at one of their main road security gates? Why wouldn't that be a HD wide angled camera that caught every detail? Do they only do that on important places like really high up on the corner of the building far from any entrances or gates?

Secondly, the evidence that there is no other footage is that there is no sane reason why the government would be hiding the footage.
A plane crashed into the building.

Even if there was a conspiracy, that's what the cameras would show. So what possible reason would there be to hide it?

The only explanation that makes any sense and doesn't rely on assuming that one is a security expert for a government building is that the footage simply wasn't captured.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You tell us. It's your daft conspiracy theory.

Who told the BBC?
Why did they tell the BBC?
Why did the BBC announce it early?
And then evidence for that, please and thanks.

You believe the official story so you should know.