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

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You believe the official story so you should know.

I don't believe anyone told them anything... what are you babbling about?

You are the one who believes the conspiracy. So what's the conspiracy explanation?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

I don't believe anyone told them anything... what are you babbling about?

You are the one who believes the conspiracy. So what's the conspiracy explanation?

If you don't know why should anyone listen to you?

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not making wild claims. I'm just saying that clear footage exists and the government have decided not to release it.

You are claiming clear footage exists but that's not backed by anything but your own incredulity

How many separate pieces of footage have you seen of the plane hitting the Pentagon?

Why is that footage blurry/bad quality?

Even if better "quality" footage exists, why should the Pentagon release it? there is overwhelming evidence flight 77 hit the Pentagon, so there is no need for it.

Why should they release it to appease a tiny group of conspiracy theorists many of whom don't believe the crystal clear footage from WTC 1 and WTC 2?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

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.

He has no credibility whatsoever. Widely discredited.

Is this the video where he tries to say that the force of the upper block on the bottom part of the tower was less when falling than when it was stationary. :rolleyes:

Also what happened to the real flight 77? And the passengers and crew?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If you don't know why should anyone listen to you?

Don't know what? I don't understand what it is you think you're asking.

Do you not know why the BBC announced the building fell early?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

He has no credibility whatsoever. Widely discredited.

Is this the video where he tries to say that the force of the upper block on the bottom part of the tower was less when falling than when it was stationary. :rolleyes:

Also what happened to the real flight 77? And the passengers and crew?

Discredited about who? Can't wait for this?

I never heard this you have to to be specific in your quoting a source. Paraphrasing could be anyone.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Don't know what? I don't understand what it is you think you're asking.

Do you not know why the BBC announced the building fell early?

I let you figure it out.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Discredited about who? Can't wait for this?

I never heard this you have to to be specific in your quoting a source. Paraphrasing could be anyone.

Its the main takeaway in the video you posted of him/googled and didn't bother watching 2 minutes before you posted.

His theory might work if it was just beams. But it wasn't.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I let you figure it out.

No, I have figured it out.
You have no answer. You can't explain it.
The conspiracy has no explanation for it, because the conspiracy makes no sense.
You never bothered to think about it or question it.

The Nal

I'm still wondering where the real Flight 77 went?

The logic behind crashing a different plane into the Pentagon is another matter.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, I have figured it out.
You have no answer. You can't explain it.
The conspiracy has no explanation for it, because the conspiracy makes no sense.
You never bothered to think about it or question it.

You don't know the official story that why you keep avoiding answering my questions If you knew the official story it would not be a problem for you to answer. So you spin and say what the conspiracy then? You wait for me to jump in so you can debunk.

You should not be on here if you don't know anything about 9/11. You are just on this site to attack people who believe in conspiracy theories about 9/11.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

I'm still wondering where the real Flight 77 went?

The logic behind crashing a different plane into the Pentagon is another matter.

Previously Cheerful claimed that it flew over the pentagon and away to parts unknown.
But also, I think he claimed that flight 77 never existed and all of the people who supposedly died in the crash were also not real. But they still got a pilot to kill himself by crashing the other plane/flight 77 into the building...

It was a bit confusing...

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Its the main takeaway in the video you posted of him/googled and didn't bother watching 2 minutes before you posted.

His theory might work if it was just beams. But it wasn't.

What are you rambling about there. So its just your opinion he was discredited got ya.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You don't know the official story that why you keep avoiding answering my questions If you knew the official story it would not be a problem for you to answer. So you spin and say what the conspiracy then? You wait for me to jump in so you can debunk.

Ok, lets pretend. I don't know the official explanation for why the BBC reported it early. There's no possible explanation for it. I never explained in detail a reasonable and possible explanation that isn't insane.

So how does it work in the conspiracy?
Whats the conspiracy explanation?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Previously Cheerful claimed that it flew over the pentagon and away to parts unknown.
But also, I think he claimed that flight 77 never existed and all of the people who supposedly died in the crash were also not real. But they still got a pilot to kill himself by crashing the other plane/flight 77 into the building...

It was a bit confusing...

You have been confused since we started. I still waiting for 100 replies to the questions I asked. You live in your own bubble mate it all about you.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What are you rambling about there. So its just your opinion he was discredited got ya.

Nope. Read up about him and come back to me. Don't just watch a video and accept it blindly as truth.

What happened to Flight 77?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Nope. Read up about him and come back to me.

What happened to Flight 77?

I think I went the wrong direction and ended up in Skeptic forum.

Read up on him where? Can you be any vaguer?

Cheerful Spring

Nal, Kingmob and Dohnnjoe don't believe in conspiracies but spend a lot of time on here? Have you guys no friends?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nal, Kingmob and Dohnnjoe don't believe in conspiracies but spend a lot of time on here? Have you guys no friends?

No, we're paid by the government.:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

No, we're paid by the government.:rolleyes:

But you not interested in a serious discussion about 9/11. When I have asked you a question you keep and are avoiding answering it.

For example, If I said why do you think NIST did not keep the fittings on the girder? Your response is no reply. But you guys expect me to keep answering you in this thread. You Skeptics have a weird state of mind.

I don't see any point debating people like you if that's how you want to play it. I will return though when Dr Hulsey releases his findings because its important study. I sure you keep debunking away while I am gone:)

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

But you not interested in a serious discussion about 9/11. When I have asked you a question you keep and are avoiding answering it.

Mm hmm...?
So why did the BBC announce the collapse early?
How long does it take for a ball to fall from the roof of WTC7?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I think I went the wrong direction and ended up in Skeptic forum.

Read up on him where? Can you be any vaguer?

Get a full rounded picture of his opinions and personality. Theres lots of sources available. You're the one who introduced him.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

But you not interested in a serious discussion about 9/11. When I have asked you a question you keep and are avoiding answering it.

The Nal wrote: »

I'm still wondering where the real Flight 77 went?

Ive asked this 4 or 5 times now. And you haven't answered.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nal, Kingmob and Dohnnjoe don't believe in conspiracies but spend a lot of time on here? Have you guys no friends?

Haha, where to start with this, personally I believe in many conspiracies, just real ones with evidence, not made-up ones. People generally don't like to see disinformation and lies masquerading as fact plastered over the internet. On the one hand some say "ah they're just harmless conspiracy theories", but we've also seen they aren't so harmless.. we have anti-vaxx theories, anti-medical science theories, climate change denial. Some of this stuff is dangerous. They are often tied together with the same type of denialist logic and distorted information. It needs to be called out

If you want to join in and just make stuff up out of thin air and post it up on public forums, well don't act surprised when people call you out on it

There's also the staggering hypocrisy of the whole thing. A person who lectures people on the truth, whilst spreading ridiculous lies and made-up facts. Someone who attacks others for accepting propaganda while they blindly accept and spread their own propaganda and disinformation

If left unchallenged, it can fester. Like AE911, an echo chamber of conspiracy theorists who can raise serious cash to carry out their ridiculous beliefs

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There's also the staggering hypocrisy of the whole thing. A person who lectures people on the truth, whilst spreading ridiculous lies and made-up facts. Someone who attacks others for accepting propaganda while they blindly accept and spread their own propaganda and disinformation

I think that the bigger hypocrisy is how some conspiracy theorists proclaim "they are just asking questions."

But I've found that they rarely can deal with being asked questions themselves.

I think this is because it requires them to critically think about the conspiracy claims that they are often just parroting from videos they watch. However if they had applied critical thinking to the claims, then they wouldn't believe them in the first place.

And more often than not, they are unwilling to admit simply "I don't know." or "I don't have answer to that" because that kills the thrill of the conspiracy theory. If they have to accept that, then they don't get to enjoy having the "secret" knowledge that few others don't.
So instead, difficult questions are ignored or brushed off and the whining that people are being mean begins...

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

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.


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.

That gate camera took quite a wide view overall even though it's purpose was only for specific gate area. My whole point is that there must be other similar cameras around the Pentagon even if recording such poor frame rates, multiple cameras will have caught the plane and a camera looking down the approach line of the plane would have captured good footage.
That traffic camera view as attached earlier should be interesting too. I must check rough distance from pentagon but it looks to be at a distance that it would have grabbed a frame of the plane even at 1 or 2 frames per second.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

That gate camera took quite a wide view overall even though it's purpose was only for specific gate area.

But if they had access to HD wide angle high frame rate cameras, where would they be more useful than the main gate?
Why go with the cheap option at the main gate?

You say that a cheap, low frame rate camera is for purpose in this instance, so then why can't they be fit for purpose in the other instance.

mickdw wrote: »

My whole point is that there must be other...

But no, you are assuming based on absolutely nothing but your own inexpert ideas of how security works.

You could be wrong, so there's no "must".
If you had something solid to show that there were such cameras and they were pointed in the right direction and had the right timing then you could claim that it "must" be so.

Before that however, all you have is your own assumptions.

And when the alternative is so ludicrous that you won't even address the question asking you to explain the other option, then your personal, inexpert, unsupported assumption isn't worth that much.

So again, if the explanation isn't that the footage just doesn't exist, why is it being covered up?

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

But if they had access to HD wide angle high frame rate cameras, where would they be more useful than the main gate?
Why go with the cheap option at the main gate?

You say that a cheap, low frame rate camera is for purpose in this instance, so then why can't they be fit for purpose in the other instance.


But no, you are assuming based on absolutely nothing but your own inexpert ideas of how security works.

You could be wrong, so there's no "must".
If you had something solid to show that there were such cameras and they were pointed in the right direction and had the right timing then you could claim that it "must" be so.

Before that however, all you have is your own assumptions.

And when the alternative is so ludicrous that you won't even address the question asking you to explain the other option, then your personal, inexpert, unsupported assumption isn't worth that much.

So again, if the explanation isn't that the footage just doesn't exist, why is it being covered up?

I've said this before - it could have been withheld as part of the official investigation. No mad conspiracy there. Can we agree that much?
I never mentioned HD cameras just that they would have had good cameras but further stated that even with 1 frame per second if there was a camera pointing in the general direction, it would have captured multiple frames based on the simple maths I explained earlier.
Can you agree that it is at least possible given traffic cameras, all the local businesses and the Pentagon itself that someone's camera caught a better shot of the plane than we have been given and that the government have retained such footage due to it being part of an investigation. Can you agree that much without trying to flip it around?

why not later released?
Maybe it will be soon.
Maybe it doesn't suit government to release it yet.

The Nal

Its 17 years later. If they had footage they would have released it by now. Why wouldn't they?

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

I've said this before - it could have been withheld as part of the official investigation. No mad conspiracy there. Can we agree that much?

Sure.

mickdw wrote: »

I never mentioned HD cameras just that they would have had good cameras but further stated that even with 1 frame per second if there was a camera pointing in the general direction, it would have captured multiple frames based on the simple maths I explained earlier.

Assuming that it was pointing in the right direction.
The operative word being "Assuming."

mickdw wrote: »

Can you agree that it is at least possible given traffic cameras, all the local businesses and the Pentagon itself that someone's camera caught a better shot of the plane than we have been given and that the government have retained such footage due to it being part of an investigation. Can you agree that much without trying to flip it around?

Yes, it's possible. But it's also just as possible, probably more possible that the cameras weren't in the right position with the right frame rates and the right resolution.

Possible is very, very far from "must."

mickdw wrote: »

why not later released?
Maybe it will be soon.
Maybe it doesn't suit government to release it yet.

Sure. But again, this doesn't help the conspiracy at all though.
The conspiracy theorists are claiming that it does, as the only possible explanation for that is the government used a missile or some such and are trying to hide that.

Do you think that claim is reasonable, or worth entertaining?

mickdw

The Nal wrote: »

Its 17 years later. If they had footage they would have released it by now. Why wouldn't they?

Have all recordings from surrounding businesses been returned to business owners?

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

Sure.

Ok well at least we are getting somewhere

King Mob wrote: »

Assuming that it was pointing in the right direction.
The operative word being "Assuming."

Ok, but its not an outlandish assumption.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, it's possible. But it's also just as possible, probably more possible that the cameras weren't in the right position with the right frame rates and the right resolution.

Really, we wouldn't need excellent frame rate, resolution and positioning. Probably one of those being 'good' would result in footage of the plane.
So crap camera pointing in the direction of travel would result in footage of plane.
High frame rate across the flight path would result in footage of plane
High resolution from a distant business pointing generally towards the pentagon would result in footage of the plane.

King Mob wrote: »

Possible is very, very far from "must."

I will give you that

King Mob wrote: »

Sure. But again, this doesn't help the conspiracy at all though.
The conspiracy theorists are claiming that it does, as the only possible explanation for that is the government used a missile or some such and are trying to hide that.

Do you think that claim is reasonable, or worth entertaining?

My points have been in relation to lack of footage and my belief that additional footage would be very likely to exist.
I did originally find it very suspicious that no footage was available and entertained the idea of a missile for that very reason. The multiple eye witness accounts seem to put the idea of a missile hitting to bed so Im talking only about lack of footage and my belief that more footage is very likely to exist.
If multiple eye witnesses saw a plane hitting the pentagon, then im happy with that. I am not however happy to accept that no further footage of the plane exists todays. In the fullness of time, Im sure we will see many more images of the plane.


We seem to be in agreement that there is possibly additional footage that government have chosen to keep for public release.

King Mob

Yup, bit I would say possible, but not probable as I can't see, nor can anyone seemingly provide a reason why they would withhold clearer footage than they have already released.

Cheerful Spring

Interesting new thread on the Let's roll forums.

A poster has introduced new evidence Lloyd Taxi cab was moved to the bridge where the light poles were knocked down. The only issue with this new theory is the security video, not overly clear. But you can definitely see cars and tow truck parked near the cemetery wall. This a good distance from where the Taxi cab was photographed on the bridge later.

Some new conspirators also observed and picked out. One of them is pictured walking with Rumsfield later in the day.

It fits where Lloyd said he was at the time and were the eyewitnesses saw the plane (northside)

It new evidence, but not 100 per cent verification yet.

http://letsrollforums.com//lloyde-england-vindicated-new-t32464.html

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Interesting new thread on the Let's roll forums.

A poster has introduced new evidence

They are 911 truthers posting in a 911 truther echo chamber. They are preying on some old witness who doesn't remember being there despite being there (obviously has dementia).

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They are 911 truthers posting in a 911 truther echo chamber. They are preying on some old witness who doesn't remember being there despite being there (obviously has dementia).

If you had read the thread, you notice the poster attacked the CIT guys for criticizing Lloyd.

It interesting info. We did know before now how they moved the car from the cemetery wall (north side) to the bridge at the Southside.

Now we do. What they did was close down the road, both sides. Got a tow truck, put the Taxi on it and moved it to this area. And then photographs were taken of the cab on the bridge near the lamp posts.

He got security footage of the tow truck and Lloyd Taxi at the Cemetery wall. near the Exit sign on the Northside. Lloyd was confused because the incident occurred at the Cemetery wall, not on the bridge.

That why Lloyd let out when he thought the camera was off we came across the highway together.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It interesting info. We did know before now how they moved the car from the cemetery wall (north side) to the bridge at the Southside.

Now we do. What they did was close down the road, both sides. Got a tow truck, put the Taxi on it and moved it to this area. And then photographs were taken of the cab on the bridge near the lamp posts.

He got security footage of the tow truck and Lloyd Taxi at the Cemetery wall. near the Exit sign on the Northside. Lloyd was confused because the incident occurred at the Cemetery wall, not on the bridge.

That why Lloyd let out when he thought the camera was off we came across the highway together.

Nope its a bunch of people stitching random crap together to make it look like something nefarious happened on a forum for 911 theories, chemtrails, HAARP and other assorted nonsense

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope its a bunch of people stitching random crap together to make it look like something nefarious happened on a forum for 911 theories, chemtrails, HAARP and other assorted nonsense

If you took the time to watch the CIT video, Lloyd told him where exactly the incident happened. It happened at the Cemetery wall.

Pentagon cops and multiple eyewitnesses saw a large plane coming in also from the northside.

The official account of a plane striking the Pentagon from the Southside is wrong.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The official account of a plane striking the Pentagon from the Southside is wrong.

lol.

What about all the witnesses? Over a 100 people saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Half a dozen where nearly hit by the plane.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Pentagon cops and multiple eyewitnesses saw a large plane coming in also from the northside.

Who are they?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol.

What about all the witnesses? Over a 100 people saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Half a dozen where nearly hit by the plane.



Who are they?

100 witnesses saw the plane hit is not true. Eyewitnesses saw a plane maybe two planes in the near vicinity of the Pentagon.

Where it's confusing the eyewitnesses claim the plane hit the Pentagon coming in from the Northeast. The official version is flight 77 hit the Pentagon at an angle coming in from the South West.

Was it a decoy plane- no passengers or real plane with passengers that hit the Pentagon?

CIT interviewed them on Youtube. They were asked where the plane came in and they all pointed to the north. There definitely something fishy about the official account. The plane was supposedly coming in over 500mph an hour near ground level ( beyond max speed for the plane) about 10 to 20 feet off the grass. If there was a car on the road the jet wash alone would have sent things hurling everywhere, car windows would break.

There not enough information to truly prove a conspiracy at the Pentagon.

WTC7 you can show there was a cover-up there.

Some of the eyewitnesses interviewed the 20-minute mark.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

100 witnesses saw the plane hit is not true.

You're right, its actually 104 people. They all must be mistaken or in on it.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was it a decoy plane- no passengers or real plane with passengers that hit the Pentagon?

What happened to the real Flight 77, passengers and crew then?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Some of the eyewitnesses interviewed the 20-minute mark.

Terrible

banie01

The Nal wrote: »

You're right, its actually 104 people. They all must be mistaken or in on it.



What happened to the real Flight 77, passengers and crew then?



Terrible

One of Cheerfuls more hilarious moments regarding the pentagon impact was that it was actually an A3 Skywarrior that hit the Pentagon via a different flightpath.
Clearly he's right and all the witnesses are subject to either being members of the conspiracy or a mandala effect!

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

One of Cheerfuls more hilarious moments regarding the pentagon impact was that it was actually an A3 Skywarrior that hit the Pentagon via a different flightpath.
Clearly he's right and all the witnesses are subject to either being members of the conspiracy or a mandala effect!

Look it doesn't matter if it was a missile, a jet, a different airliner, an airliner from a different angle, an airliner which pulled up at the last second as a fake explosion went off - it just has to be a conspiracy

The Nal

banie01 wrote: »

One of Cheerfuls more hilarious moments regarding the pentagon impact was that it was actually an A3 Skywarrior that hit the Pentagon via a different flightpath.
Clearly he's right and all the witnesses are subject to either being members of the conspiracy or a mandala effect!

My favourite theory is that Flight 77 was diverted elsewhere and they were all either killed when they landed or put into some sort of witness protection type program.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Clearly he's right and all the witnesses are subject to either being members of the conspiracy or a mandala effect!

Not true. I not certain about what happened at the Pentagon. I open it was Flight 77 that crashed at the Pentagon. There was a plane seen there no doubt about that.

Was it really Hani Hanjour flying the plane? One instructor in the summer of 2001 took Hani up gave him the Cessna plane to fly and he not could control or handle it. Yet they believe this same guy was controlling a heavy Boeing aircraft low to the ground at 400mph and 500mph.

The lack of security footage is troubling, to say the least. The roofline where the plane crashed had three cameras. Are really going to believe they ran out of tape on 9/11. What about freeway/highway cameras no tape either? It doesn't add up.

I think something else hit or bomb went off inside the Pentagon before the plane hit. All the clocks found stopped at exactly 9.31am, 6 minutes before flight 77 is alleged to have smashed against the west wall of the Pentagon.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I think something else hit or bomb went off inside the Pentagon before the plane hit.

Again, to destroy paperwork in the Pentagon.
Which they couldn't just shred.
Cause that would be too noticeable.

Also, lol. Now you are going back to the insane idea that "something else" hit the Pentagon.

You are the perfect example of conspiracy thinking. You are the paragon we will all point to...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again, to destroy paperwork in the Pentagon.
Which they couldn't just shred.
Cause that would be too noticeable.

Also, lol. Now you are going back to the insane idea that "something else" hit the Pentagon.

You are the perfect example of conspiracy thinking. You are the paragon we will all point to...

If the hijacked the plane, then it crashed at the Pentagon. I don't think it was flown somewhere else and passengers were killed.

Plus it was an aircraft belonging to American airlines, it was registered and one of the planes in their inventory. It obviously went missing on 9/11.

Even if Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. It does explain everything. We know the Pentagon is one of most protected buildings in the world. And that plane was up in the air flying around for over 45 minutes after it was known it was hijacked. Are you that naive to believe they could get one fighter jet up to intercept it? God help them if the Russians attacked them.

Why did the Hani Hanjour not just drop the plane on top of the building? He would have killed more killed more people. He attacks the Pentagon at an area where construction was happening, fewer people working there. It was no Al Qaeda terrorist who piloted the plane.

Yes, I believe it because three clocks pulled from the wreckage all stopped around 9.31am. It is weird if Pentagon staff were settings the clocks 6 minutes behind the real time? I firmly believe something else happened at the Pentagon and that's the reason there no clear security footage. The security tape they released had no time stamp (most importantly) and date. We could be looking at 9.31am explosion inside the building if all we know?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If the hijacked the plane, then it crashed at the Pentagon. I don't think it was flown somewhere else and passengers were killed.

Plus it was an aircraft belonging to American airlines, it was registered and one of the planes in their inventory. It obviously went missing on 9/11.

Even if Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. It does explain everything. We know the Pentagon is one of most protected buildings in the world. And that plane was up in the air flying around for over 45 minutes after it was known it was hijacked. Are you that naive to believe they could get one fighter jet up to intercept it? God help them if the Russians attacked them.

Why did the Hani Hanjour not just drop the plane on top of the building? He would have killed more killed more people. He attacks the Pentagon at an area where construction was happening, fewer people working there. It was no Al Qaeda terrorist who piloted the plane.

Yes, I believe it because three clocks pulled from the wreckage all stopped around 9.31am. It is weird if Pentagon staff were settings the clocks 6 minutes behind the real time? I firmly believe something else happened at the Pentagon and that's the reason there no clear security footage. The security tape they released had no time stamp (most importantly) and date. We could be looking at 9.31am explosion inside the building if all we know?

Lol and then when faced with how utterly silly your own theory is, you spew out more debunked conspiracy cliches.

Again, a shining beacon for what conspiracy theorists everywhere strive for.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol and then when faced with how utterly silly your own theory is, you spew out more debunked conspiracy cliches.

Again, a shining beacon for what conspiracy theorists everywhere strive for.

Hani did a midair loop in the sky to get around to that area. He could have easily just dropped the plane on the roof hundreds would be killed. The pilot went exactly for the spot that had fewer people working there. Plus they picked the day when America was holding military drills across the country, secret info by the way.. It obvious this was a false flag.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Hani did a midair loop in the sky to get around to that area. He could have easily just dropped the plane on the roof hundreds would be killed. The pilot went exactly for the spot that had fewer people working there. Plus they picked the day when America was holding military drills across the country, secret info by the way.. It obvious this was a false flag.

Like a broken record...

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

Like a broken record...

pot...kettle