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

smurfjed

This is from the 911 commission report, where does it say that the aircraft was in level flight at 20 feet? It does state approximately 530 mph on the next page.

smurfjed

Dozens and dozens of people saw it happen.

Including the crew of a C130 aircraft that identified it, followed it and observed it crashing into the Pentagon.

Here is some light reading for you.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

Cheerful Spring

smurfjed wrote: »

This is from the 911 commission report, where does it say that the aircraft was in level flight at 20 feet? It does state approximately 530 mph on the next page.

They revealed how low the plane got in the Pentagon performance report.

http://www.attivissimo.net/9-11/PentagonBuildingPerformanceReport.pdf

20 feet from the ground to the top of the fuselage of the plane. The Engines only had 2 to 4 feet of free space and if the plane dropped lower the engines would have hit the ground.

The plane was at 7,000 feet at 9.29am and they then claim it was at 2,000 feet at 9.34. The pilot had to keep dropping the speed and avoid stalling the aircraft to get low enough to hit the Pentagon. They claiming Hani Hanjour was flying at 400mph over residential homes for least a minute or two and when he reached the Pentagon outskirts 530mph.

I don't believe Hani Hanjour was the pilot when only weeks previously the flight instructor said he was a terrible pilot and could not handle a light aircraft in the air. You need to be an expert pilot to fly a big plane low to the ground.


Jet blast is air produced by the engines. It's powerful enough if you close to it it will damage buildings and cars. The jet blast will be a lot stronger when the plane is flying at max speed at ground level. Jet wash is the disturbance when the plane moving through the air. Jetwash is the air produced when the engine is at full throttle when flying.

Downwash and vortex comprehension you can look up and google it when you have time. You understand it more when you do.

Cheerful Spring

smurfjed wrote: »

Including the crew of a C130 aircraft that identified it, followed it and observed it crashing into the Pentagon.

Here is some light reading for you.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

C130 pilot said the plane was sprawled out coming in from northeast direction. I believe the plane hit the Pentagon from this direction. The official account says the plane hit the Pentagon coming in from the southwest at an angle.

Dohnjoe is posting info from a long time ago, ignore him. He believes the official account of where the plane was.

FDR and FAA data places the plane to the North. We had a long thread about this already.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

C130 pilot

You claim it's impossible that the plane was doing 530 mph (460 knots (780 ft/s)) when it hit the Pentagon

1. What speed was it doing?

2. Sources for that

smurfjed

Why are you willing to accept that report for the height of the aircraft and the speed but not for the direction of travel ? (Magnetic bearing 070 degrees ) Are you confusing bearing with heading ?

The 20feet is mentioned 320 feet prior to impact, it doesn’t state that it was substained flight at that height. As for the car antenna, was it “hit by the aircraft or another item propelled by the jetblast?

There is a big difference between “flying an aircraft” or just “steering” one.

banie01

smurfjed wrote: »

The 20feet is mentioned 320 feet prior to impact, it doesn’t state that it was substained flight at that height. As for the car antenna, was it “hit by the aircraft or another item propelled by the jetblast?

But but CS did an MS Paint measurement of the hole in the side of the Pentagon and that proves that the plane was flying at 20ft

Go back to the start of this thread, read up on how no 757 crashed, it was actually a Skywarrior! the FDR and radar data has been faked, the plane couldn't have hit the pentagon because a heading and a bearing or the same thing
All the passengers have been secreted away in some kind of witness protection.

I'm delighted to see an experienced pilot come here to challenge some of all our inaccuracies on this one

I did chuckle when CS deigned to explain Jet Blast to you and told you to google downwash and vortex's tho!

Cheerful Spring

smurfjed wrote: »

Why are you willing to accept that report for the height of the aircraft and the speed but not for the direction of travel ? (Magnetic bearing 070 degrees ) Are you confusing bearing with heading ?

The 20feet is mentioned 320 feet prior to impact, it doesn’t state that it was substained flight at that height. As for the car antenna, was it “hit by the aircraft or another item propelled by the jetblast?

There is a big difference between “flying an aircraft” or just “steering” one.

FDR data has the plane 180 feet in the air at the 9.47am moment of impact. At this altitude, the plane would have flown past the Pentagon.

I not confused had a thread discussing true north and magnetic heading in Washington DC. There is a positive and negative value to be added depending on where your plane is.

The plane had to keep dropping altitude to reach the height the Pentagon report states.

20 feet is when they plotted the plane height cross the Pentagon lawn. From the Pentagon lawn to the top part of the fuselage of the plane. The plane was about 2 to 4 feet off the ground across the lawn.

What height was the plane when flew past the highway?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

But but CS did an MS Paint measurement of the hole in the side of the Pentagon and that proves that the plane was flying at 20ft

Go back to the start of this thread, read up on how no 757 crashed, it was actually a Skywarrior! the FDR and radar data has been faked, the plane couldn't have hit the pentagon because a heading and a bearing or the same thing
All the passengers have been secreted away in some kind of witness protection.

I'm delighted to see an experienced pilot come here to challenge some of all our inaccuracies on this one

I did chuckle when CS deigned to explain Jet Blast to you and told you to google downwash and vortex's tho!

This was the height they gave in the Pentagon performance report. The plane had to be this low to hit the first floor of the Pentagon west wall. The official account is is the plane was travelling at a sideways angle from the Southwest. The problem with the angle is the left wing I believe is 60+ feet and would be out across the lawn. The nose and right wing of the plane hit the Pentagon, not the left wing and the left engine.

The Nal

Still waiting on an opinion on how the 104 people who directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon were wrong.

ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR PEOPLE.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Still waiting on an opinion on how the 104 people who directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon were wrong.

ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR PEOPLE.

When will you provide a list for the 104 people? Just saying it does not make it so.

I provided actual video of eyewitnesses seeing the plane coming in from northeast before it hit the Pentagon.

Lloyd England even claimed his accident with the lampost occurred somewhere else.

CIT was wrong to attack him. He was confirming where the incident happened and was near the cemetery (northside) not on the bridge (southside)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When will you provide a list for the 104 people? Just saying it does not make it so.

I provided actual video of eyewitnesses seeing the plane coming in from northeast before it hit the Pentagon.

For anyone else all this "northeast" nonsense was pulled from a conspiracy site (prob P4T)and has been debunked and discussed to death over on international skeptics

A couple of witnesses were simply mistaken, they misjudged where the plane came from, a few people also thought they saw a "military plane" or a "private jet". The majority of witnesses confirm that an airliner struck the Pentagon

A common tactic by conspiracy theorists is to drag people into the most minute details and find something, anything that can't be 100% explained (t to them) and then use that to claim some sort of vague conspiracy exists. A conspiracy they never go into detail on.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

For anyone else all this "northeast" nonsense was pulled from a conspiracy site (prob P4T)and has been debunked and discussed to death over on international skeptics

A couple of witnesses were simply mistaken, they misjudged where the plane came from, a few people also thought they saw a "military plane" or a "private jet". The majority of witnesses confirm that an airliner struck the Pentagon

A common tactic by conspiracy theorists is to drag people into the most minute details and find something, anything that can't be 100% explained (t to them) and then use that to claim some sort of vague conspiracy exists. A conspiracy they never go into detail on.

Can you find the plane in this security tape? I can see a trail of smoke and the only thing this proves there is an object there blowing smoke.

There a clue in this security tape it was not a big commercial airliner. Pay attention to the second pillar to the right. Notice how the trail of smoke can be seen in a blob form when it appears first and then next second spreads out across the grass just after impact clearly visible on the security tape. Yet for some reason, no part of the plane is visible between these two frames. Don't make sense especially when you can see the trail of smoke in the frame after the object hit.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There a clue in this security tape it was not a big commercial airliner.

Lol, are you going back to your original claim again?
FFS. :rolleyes:

Reality really doesn't matter to you. Only that there's a conspiracy you can be in the know about...

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Can you find the plane in this security tape?

lol

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

lol

You can clearly see the white smoke came from the object and visible on the grass after the object hit. There no reason you be unable to see flight 77 before it hit. Flight 77 is a 757, not a small aircraft. If flight 77 flew in front of the pillar why can't we see it? I can see a tail fin belonging to a plane that's about it when entered the frame.

The only way to explain this anomaly is frames are missing from the security tape or the plane was small or the video was altered.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You can clearly see the white smoke came from the object and visible on the grass after the object hit. There no reason you be unable to see flight 77 before it hit. Flight 77 is a 757, not a small aircraft. If flight flew in front of the pillar why can't see it? I can see a tail fin belonging to a plane that's about it when entered the frame.

The only way to explain this anomaly is frames are missing from the security or the plane was small or the video was altered.

Was recording speed and frame per second not explained to you last year on this very thread?

You made yourself look poor enough yesterday without needing to go back and rehash a pile of dung that was already dealt on thread....

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Was recording speed and frame per second not explained to you last year on this very thread?

You made yourself look poor enough yesterday without needing to go back and rehash a pile of dung that was already dealt on thread....

It only two seconds. The blob of smoke is 1 second and next second light later the flash of light and you got the trail of smoke spread across the grass.

Why are you saying flight 77 would not be seen between the two frames? How come the plane did not block out the trees in the distance when passed in front of it?

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It only two seconds. The blob of smoke is 1 second and next second light later the flash of light and you got the trail of smoke spread across the grass.

Why are you saying flight 77 would not be seen between the two frames? How come the plane did not block out the trees in the distance when passed in front of it?

How many frames per second do you think the camera was recording?

How much of an aircraft travelling at @777ft per second do you think should have been captured?

Do you understand how a multiplexed security camera signal is recorded?
Particularly on an analogue system?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

When will you provide a list for the 104 people? Just saying it does not make it so.

I provided actual video of eyewitnesses seeing the plane coming in from northeast before it hit the Pentagon.

Lloyd England even claimed his accident with the lampost occurred somewhere else.

CIT was wrong to attack him. He was confirming where the incident happened and was near the cemetery (northside) not on the bridge (southside)

LOL!

One person. ONE. Versus 104!!

Hahaha

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

How many frames per second do you think the camera was recording?

How much of an aircraft travelling at @777ft per second do you think should have been captured?

Do you understand how a multiplexed security camera signal is recorded?
Particularly on an analogue system?

I don't think you understand the footage. Security tape is showing three seconds of footage the object appearing and then crashing. We see the smoke trail all the way in but we never saw the plane really?

A plane flying in front of the camera would block far off objects like the trees in the distance. You don't understand this.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It only two seconds. The blob of smoke is 1 second and next second light later the flash of light and you got the trail of smoke spread across the grass.

Why are you saying flight 77 would not be seen between the two frames? How come the plane did not block out the trees in the distance when passed in front of it?

SO are you back to claiming that it's an A-3 or whatever?
Or have you gone full missile like the experts and youtube videos you copy paste from?

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't think you understand the footage. Security tape is showing three seconds of footage the object appearing and then crashing. We see the smoke trail all the way in but we never saw the plane really?

A plane flying in front of the camera would block far off objects like the trees in the distance. You don't understand this.

I am being told what I understand now by you?
Put down your crayons and dig out your calculator.

The video shown covers a timespan of 3 seconds.
What frame rate was that video captured at?
What effect would low frame rate capture have vis a vis an object travelling at 777ft per second?

Do you understand what multiplexed recording is?

banie01

King Mob wrote: »

SO are you back to claiming that it's an A-3 or whatever?
Or have you gone full missile like the experts and youtube videos you copy paste from?

Well he can't stand over any of his 757 claims anymore can he :pac:

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't think you understand the footage. Security tape is showing three seconds of footage the object appearing and then crashing. We see the smoke trail all the way in but we never saw the plane really?

A plane flying in front of the camera would block far off objects like the trees in the distance. You don't understand this.

104 people saw the plane hit the Pentagon directly.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris.

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

I am being told what I understand now by you?
Put down your crayons and dig out your calculator.

The video shown covers a timespan of 3 seconds.
What frame rate was that video captured at?
What effect would low frame rate capture have vis a vis an object travelling at 777ft per second?

Do you understand what multiplexed recording is?

The plane went invisible for three seconds is this your theory? Let's ignore the object did not block the pixelated trees in the background. Explain how that's even possible? We can see the smoke trail for the three seconds but we can not see the plane?

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The plane went invisible for three seconds is this your theory? Let's ignore the object did not block the pixelated trees in the background. Explain how that's even possible? We can see the smoke trail for the three seconds but we can not see the plane?

Answer the questions I asked you please.
How many frames per second is the equipment capturing?
Do you understand how multiplexed recording works?

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Answer the questions I asked you please.
How many frames per second is the equipment capturing?
Do you understand how multiplexed recording works?

It records 1 frame per second.

Yes. And this affects what exactly in the footage?

Hilarious you believe a commercial airline would not block out objects in the background and camera would not pick this up.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It records 1 frame per second.

Yes. And this affects what exactly in the footage?

Hilarious you believe a commercial airline would not block out objects in the background and camera would not pick this up.

Where is your plane? what created the explosion in that footage?

Remember, whatever answer you make up on the spot to answer these questions becomes your new "theory", so think long and hard

Or just avoid the glaring questions

And to recap

1. What speed was your "plane" going?

2. With sources

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It records 1 frame per second.

Yes. And this affects what exactly in the footage?

Hilarious you believe a commercial airline would not block out objects in the background and camera would not pick this up.

So 1 frame per second trying to capture an object travelling at 777feet per second.

What is the field of the camera?
What distance is it actually covering of the 757?

At 1 frame per second versus the speed of the plane from right of frame assuming even a very generous field of view at the level of the aircraft of 1000ft...
It would capture slightly more than one frame of video.

In reality the field of view at the point of impact is much less and it is practically conceivable that given the multiplex frame switch that it would have been possible for the impact to have occured without any actual frame of the aircraft appearing at all.

Luckily however, there is some video captured that corrobates all the other evidence and witnesses.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

So 1 frame per second trying to capture an object travelling at 777feet per second.

What is the field of the camera?
What distance is it actually covering of the 757?

At 1 frame per second versus the speed of the plane from right of frame assuming even a very generous field of view at the level of the aircraft of 1000ft...
It would capture slightly more than one frame of video.

In reality the field of view at the point of impact is much less and it is practically conceivable that given the multiplex frame switch that it would have been possible for the impact to have occured without any actual frame of the aircraft appearing at all.

Luckily however, there is some video captured that corrobates all the other evidence and witnesses.

FDR data had Flight 77 180 feet above the highway at 9.37am when supposedly crashed. How did the plane crash at this height? How did get down to 20 feet in less than a second?

Go look at the data if you don't believe me. The video animation you can find online.

banie01

For the sake of the relatively sane posters and contributers.
This is a comparison of different frame rate captures on CCTV.
Surprising how close to disappearing even relatively slow moving vehicles are.
Now imagine trying to capture a kamikaze attack at 1FPS!

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

For the sake of the relatively sane posters and contributers.
This is a comparison of different frame rate captures on CCTV.
Surprising how close to disappearing even relatively slow moving vehicles are.
Now imagine trying to capture a kamikaze attack at 1FPS!

Lol you can see the car even at 1 frame per second. Yet you can't see the big airliner that 155 feet long with three seconds of footage

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FDR data had Flight 77 180 feet above the highway at 9.37am when supposedly crashed. How did the plane crash at this height? How did get down to 20 feet in less than a second?

Go look at the data if you don't believe me. The video animation you can find online.

You are misinterpreting the information

It's been explained to you but you continue to play games where you "don't get it"

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Lol you can see the car even at 1 frame per second. Yet you can't see the big airliner that 155 feet long with three seconds of footage

And the car is travelling at @ 5% of the speed of the aircraft in question.
It is to show as I said, the sane posters the impact 1 frame per second capture has on actual video capture.

It's not video...
It's stop motion.

But tell ya what, dig out your crayons.
Work out the FOV of the pentagon camera and tell me what distance it covers.
Then work out how many frames of 1FPS video the 757 should have appeared in then?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Lol you can see the car even at 1 frame per second. Yet you can't see the big airliner that 155 feet long with three seconds of footage

Again playing games or playing a character who "doesn't get things" that are painfully obvious

but supports insanely complex conspiracy theories with no practical evidence

The Nal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Again playing games or playing a character who "doesn't get things" that are painfully obvious

but supports insanely complex conspiracy theories with no practical evidence

And ignores 104 eyewitnesses!

ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR PEOPLE SAW IT HAPPEN.

Completely ignored.

This must be up for some Boards.ie comedy award

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are misinterpreting the information

It's been explained to you but you continue to play games where you "don't get it"

Not really it's their data they released it. The plane is too high at 9.37am. Notice how high the plane is above the highway! How did the Plane hit light poles at this height? 180 feet in altitude at the moment of the crash.

They should be correcting this if its wrong and explaining how they made an error publically.

banie01

The Nal wrote: »

And ignores 104 eyewitnesses!

ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR PEOPLE SAW IT HAPPEN.

Completely ignored.

This must be up for some Boards.ie comedy award

But that's because you haven't provided their names as demanded by CS :pac:

Like the 757...
They aren't real! :pac:

The Nal

banie01 wrote: »

But that's because you haven't provided their names as demanded by CS :pac:

Like the 757...
They aren't real! :pac:

Like saying theres 150 Tesco stores in Ireland and him claiming there are none because I didn't list their addresses.

Hes just craving attention, bless.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

And the car is travelling at @ 5% of the speed of the aircraft in question.
It is to show as I said, the sane posters the impact 1 frame per second capture has on actual video capture.

It's not video...
It's stop motion.

But tell ya what, dig out your crayons.
Work out the FOV of the pentagon camera and tell me what distance it covers.
Then work out how many frames of 1FPS video the 757 should have appeared in then?

You crazy mate. 155 feet airliner is going to be noticeable even if its a blur. You ignoring the gap the space between the object hitting the wall and the object appearing in the frame.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You crazy mate. 155 feet airliner is going to be noticeable even if its a blur. You ignoring the gap the space between the object hitting the wall and the object appearing in the frame.

Not at all, the size is irrelevant.
It's speed of travel across the frame is known, the frame rate is known.
I've even gone so far as to tell you how to work out how many frames the aircraft actually should be visible in and rather than do the simple maths.
You deflect.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Not at all, the size is irrelevant.
It's speed of travel across the frame is known, the frame rate is known.
I've even gone so far as to tell you how to work out how many frames the aircraft actually should be visible in and rather than do the simple maths.
You deflect.

Not all you believe the plane was travelling 530mph an hour 3 to 4 feet off the ground. I know what you keep claiming 777 feet a second.

People who believe a commercial airliner can do this speed at this level are not all there in the head.

Cheerful Spring

This was tried in an actual simulator by a qualified pilot. The results are not surprising.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not really it's their data they released it. The plane is too high at 9.37am.

Again you:

a) Don't understand the information

or

b) Refuse to understand the information in order to bring your conspiracy to life

No one else has a problem with this in the thread, only you.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not all you believe the plane was travelling 530mph an hour 3 to 4 feet off the ground. I know what you keep claiming 777 feet a second.

People who believe a commercial airliner can do this speed at this level are not all there in the head.

You are just exposing your wilful ignorance now.
It's accepted consensus that the speeds are correct.
So what's your current theory de jour?

And more importantly what actual evidence have you got to back it up?
Funny how you are avoiding maths again tho, tell you what if it will make fit a little easier to your skewed world view...

Work out how many frames the plane would appear in at 493mph...

Timberrrrrrrr

banie01 wrote: »

You are just exposing your wilful ignorance now.
It's accepted consensus that the speeds are correct.
So what's your current theory de jour?

And more importantly what actual evidence have you got to back it up?
Funny how you are avoiding maths again tho, tell you what if it will make fit a little easier to your skewed world view...

Work out how many frames the plane would appear in at 493mph...

Dont let him deflect, do the same as the 9-11 thread, no matter what he posts everyone needs to just ignore it and keep repeating these questions until.he answers.

I see he has bailed from the 9-11thread because he can't answer the questions.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This was tried in an actual simulator by a qualified pilot. The results are not surprising.

This stuff is debunked

Why are you even using this? you believe that the plane hit the Pentagon

It's like you're so desperate to hint at some conspiracy, any conspiracy you'll even contradict yourself

More than anyone in any of these threads your posts are literally making the best argument that the conspiracies are all bonkers

banie01

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Dont let him deflect, do the same as the 9-11 thread, no matter what he posts everyone needs to just ignore it and keep repeating these questions until.he answers.

I see he has bailed from the 9-11thread because he can't answer the questions.

Oh believe me, this isn't a let him deflect tactic.
I'm curious to see what number he comes up with and how it affects his standpoint is all.

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

You are just exposing your wilful ignorance now.
It's accepted consensus that the speeds are correct.
So what's your current theory de jour?

And more importantly what actual evidence have you got to back it up?
Funny how you are avoiding maths again tho, tell you what if it will make fit a little easier to your skewed world view...

Work out how many frames the plane would appear in at 493mph...

US Government position it was 530mph. Pilots who have tried in real simulators can't do it explain it. The video is proof of this. They visited a pilot instructor working for airlines and he said he could do it.

It crazy you believe a commercial airliner can fly 530mph 2 to 3 feet from the ground. It not a stealth bomber or advanced fighter jet.