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

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

104 people saw a plane hit the building.......from the southwest.

26 could even identify the branding on the plane ie American Airlines

39 others identified it as a large jet/commercial airliner.

We know for sure an American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon from the Southwest, Cheerful Spring of course ignores this.

I revised my opinion, unlike you guys will never do. Dohnjoe is posting info from a year ago. I looked at the evidence again and did some measurements of my own. Most truthers the crazy ones deny a plane even hit the Pentagon. I believe now a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

The only difference between me and you is I believe the American Airlines plane was further to the north of the Annex building. And the plane hit the Pentagon slower than 530mph and Hani was not the pilot.

We don't know for sure the plane hit from the Southwest. There no video footage of the plane stop saying you know. My biggest problem with the Southwest theory is the plane looked like it hit the wall straight on. The southwest angle the plane is turned out sideways left wing out across the grass. When the right wing and right engine hit the wall the left wing is going to break off yet they found no piece of the left wing on the grass?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I revised my opinion, unlike you guys will never do. ing is going to break off yet they found no piece of the left wing on the grass?

Why would I revise the truth? It happened. Theres nothing to revise.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I believe the American Airlines plane was further to the north of the Annex building. And the plane hit the Pentagon slower than 530mph and Hani was not the pilot.

At what speed, then, and based on what evidence? More importantly: why would this be significant?

smurfjed

And the plane hit the Pentagon slower than 530mph

How did you come to your conclusion that the speed was slower? Please run us through the calculations. And as this is aviation, can we stick to NAUTICAL MILES please.

The Nal

Overheal wrote: »

At what speed, then, and based on what evidence? More importantly: why would this be significant?

Because it directly contradicts what 104 people saw and means its still a conspiracy if Al Qaeda weren't involved. They're "innocent" remember. They had nothing to do with 9/11.

Overheal

The Nal wrote: »

Because it directly contradicts what 104 people saw and means its still a conspiracy if Al Qaeda weren't involved. They're "innocent" remember. They had nothing to do with 9/11.

Which is a fallible leap in conclusions: it was raining lightly that day but the eyewitnesses reported no rain at the moment in question, therefore they're all liars and lizardmen. (even though rain comes and goes in bands...) So what if it was 530 or 520 or 540? If we agree that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, then a plane crashed into the Pentagon, regardless of what heading or how many barrel rolls it did or didn't take in transit.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Never said was not possible. Of course, you can hit the Pentagon. What speed what he going at please do let's see what speed he hit the Pentagon at.

Who hit the Pentagon? and at what speed? with evidence

You're claiming it was someone else, who?

Dohnjoe

Short clip from the Dutch TV show (with subtitles), on a proper Boeing simulator, a novice hit the Pentagon 3 out of 3 times

Ipso

smurfjed wrote: »

We used to bring friends in to fly real simulators, you would be very surprised how someone like me with very little knowledge of how a 747 worked could teach people how to land it.

The next time I do "upset recovery" training, I should video it so that you can see how rapidly we can end up 100 kts faster than the max speed thanks to that wonderful thing called GRAVITY.

But . . . . what about freefall?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Short clip from the Dutch TV show (with subtitles), on a proper Boeing simulator, a novice hit the Pentagon 3 out of 3 times

They hit the Pentagon in the wrong spot that's the east wall to the north lol. They never showed what speed they were going at.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They hit the Pentagon in the wrong spot that's the east wall to the north lol. They never showed what speed they were going at.

As I've explained before

You're simply playing a game of "convince me, but I'll never accept the explanations", these posts aren't to convince you, because you will always reject them, they are for other posters

If you have a theory, then present it, who was flying the plane? how fast was it going with proper calculations and evidence?

You avoiding those questions or giving vague rambling answers demonstrates to other posters how weak your theory is

In general your responses on 911 show how absurd the truther argument is: you do more to debunk 911 CTs than we do

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As I've explained before

You're simply playing a game of "convince me, but I'll never accept the explanations", these posts aren't to convince you, because you will always reject them, they are for other posters

If you have a theory, then present it, who was flying the plane? how fast was it going with proper calculations and evidence?

You avoiding those questions or giving vague rambling answers demonstrates to other posters how weak your theory is

In general your responses on 911 show how absurd the truther argument is: you do more to debunk 911 CTs than we do

Not playing any game. I'm willing to change my opinions at any time. You guys believe there no conspiracy whatsoever. This is a problem with debunkers they side with the official story about everything.

I pointed it to you guys before Andrews Airforce base was based in Washington DC. How was it Flight 77 was not intercepted by a jet? Why did Cheney stand down the military? Why did Rumsfield disappear for 40 minutes during 9/11- there a lot more going on this day and incidents themselves while important don't account for everything that occurred.

Pentagon attack. I can't say who flew the plane for sure. The flight instructors said Hani was a bad pilot and could not control a light aircraft with no passengers on board. One instructor even said he could not fly at all. Truthers don't just dismiss evidence, as you guys do ah sure he got lucky, anyone could fly a large jumbo jet at 530mpgh 4 feet off the ground.

I requested evidence the plane was going 530mph. You ignored me. Where is this data online, Can I find the info online and read up on it? I googled it and can't find the data.

Overheal

That’s not really true though: when Loose Change came out I considered myself a truther, no doubt. I have the post history to prove it (you can check yourself)

What happened? I became educated. I became a mechanical engineer. I applied what I learned, and lo and behold, the conspiracy doesn’t hold up to science and engineering. And I trust science, it makes my car and phone work and got us to the moon and ****.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

That’s not really true though: when Loose Change came out I considered myself a truther, no doubt. I have the post history to prove it (you can check yourself)

What happened? I became educated. I became a mechanical engineer. I applied what I learned, and lo and behold, the conspiracy doesn’t hold up to science and engineering. And I trust science, it makes my car and phone work and got us to the moon and ****.

Really I check it out interesting.

Truthers are not waffling about the buildings collapse. You have the crazies who claim the towers were hit by space beams and there no planes. They are the lunatic fringe on Youtube and you find them on web Forums. Ignore them. The truthers are not one big collective who agree about everything. David Chandler, an example, believes the official story about the Pentagon attack and believed this from the very beginning.

He believes the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition though;)

I don't believe this is true. Architects and Engineers for truth movement are not lunatics they are educated, people who have science backgrounds. They attended some of the finest schools in America. They don't believe NIST got it right.

With a three-year study that cost 300,000 dollars, they now have a body of work that can be peer reviewed by the mainstream professions. Dohnjoe dismisses this before it even out. Science works by peer review. If this study is junk then people with the right credentials will say so. You not going to find out the truth on Metabunk or JREF forum. There no neutral people on there.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Truthers are not waffling about the buildings collapse. You have the crazies who claim the towers were hit by space beams and there no planes. They are the lunatic fringe on Youtube and you find them on web Forums.

Reminder, you previous claimed no plane hit the pentagon.

You are no different from the "crazies".
Some of these "crazies" are much more qualified than the experts you seem to worship.
You are a hypocrite.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Reminder, you previous claimed no plane hit the pentagon.

You are no different from the "crazies".
Some of these "crazies" are much more qualified than the experts you seem to worship.
You are a hypocrite.

I respond to this post, but if you keep up the attacks back on ignore you go.

I said a plane hit the Pentagon, not a commercial airliner.

I now believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. People are allowed to change their opinion. I said this in early 2018.

Have you never changed your opinion on any topic ever?

Overheal

You had no problem calling people assholes yesterday, so yeah you’re being a hypocrite.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I respond to this post, but if you keep up the attacks back on ignore you go.

I was never on ignore.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I said a plane hit the Pentagon, not a commercial airliner.

I now believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. People are allowed to change their opinion. I said this in early 2018.

Yes, and that's the exact same crazy theory you are decrying.
You are a hypocrite.

Your theory is as insane as the ones you say are crazy.
Your experts are just as qualified as the crazies who believe the crazy theories.

You are a hypocrite.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Have you never changed your opinion on any topic ever?

Yup.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

You had no problem calling people assholes yesterday, so yeah you’re being a hypocrite.

I'm my own here and their mutiple posters posting who are hostile all the time. People are afraid to post here because of how they act. I hardly the only truther on board ie:). People come here to make a post or two then they are attacked and they leave. Fact is if I left there be no traffic here at all.

I called you asshole you repeated Dohnjoe post to me you joined in. I have answered his question numerous times in this long thread and just keeps posting who planted the explosive and whatnot. I explained I can't answer but keeps posting it and my mind his trolling when I gave him a reply many times before.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I'm my own here and their mutiple posters posting who are hostile all the time. People are afraid to post here because of how they act. I hardly the only truther on board ie:).

Again: asking difficult questions is not attack.
Stating facts about you and your posting style and level of knowledge is not attacking.

If you are going to post crazy theories and do things like out yourself as a holocaust denier at a drop of a hat, grow a thicker skin because people are going to point that stuff out.

Conspiracy theorists are a very sensitive bunch.
They should go look for nice gentle safe spaces were no one will question them ever. And they can believe in their fantasies all they like.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Again: asking difficult questions is not attack.
Stating facts about you and your posting style and level of knowledge is not attacking.

If you are going to post crazy theories and do things like out yourself as a holocaust denier at a drop of a hat, grow a thicker skin because people are going to point that stuff out.

Conspiracy theorists are a very sensitive bunch.
They should go look for nice gentle safe spaces were no one will question them ever. And they can believe in their fantasies all they like.

You not debating 9/11. I have probably asked you a hundred questions or more and you just keep ignoring and deflecting back to me.. You don't want to put yourself in uncomfortable situations were give your opinion. I don't mind difficult questions but if I am the only one answering questions then it, not a debate.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You not debating 9/11. I have probably asked you a hundred questions or more and you just keep ignoring and deflecting back to me.. You don't want to put yourself in uncomfortable situations were give your opinion. I don't mind difficult questions but if I am the only one answering questions then it, not a debate.

Lol.:rolleyes:

You live in your own little fantasy world.

You are incapable of answering direct simple questions.
You were give more than enough chances to do so, but you showed yourself incapable of answering difficult questions.
You constantly dodge, then throw childish strops when you're caught out.

No one takes you seriously for those reasons. Everyone's twigged to the fact that you are either an adult with poor education and writing skills or you are 12 years old.

You are convinced of your own fantasy of being a rebel researcher because it's better than facing the reality.
You are one of the "crazies" you dismiss. You aren't any different.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.:rolleyes:

You live in your own little fantasy world.

You are incapable of answering direct simple questions.
You were give more than enough chances to do so, but you showed yourself incapable of answering difficult questions.
You constantly dodge, then throw childish strops when you're caught out.

No one takes you seriously for those reasons. Everyone's twigged to the fact that you are either an adult with poor education and writing skills or you are 12 years old.

You are convinced of your own fantasy of being a rebel researcher because it's better than facing the reality.
You are one of the "crazies" you dismiss. You aren't any different.

Lies and more lies. I try to answer if I can. This thread would not be this long if I never replied to posts.

You on the other hand nope don't even try and your posts don't fool me I dealt with you for over a year now.

My last post for you.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Lies and more lies. I try to answer if I can. This thread would not be this long if I never replied to posts.

You on the other hand nope don't even try and your posts don't fool me I dealt with you for over a year now.

My last post for you.

Pretending I'm ignore again? :rolleyes:

Anyway, you don't answer questions, you just parrot crazy you've learned from youtube videos. You pretend this is research.
It is not. It is delusion.

As we've stated before, you have no theory. You only have what you're told to believe by cranks.
The space laser theory is more coherent and rational than your nonsense.
And it's supported by someone far more qualified than you.
Also, Judy Woods isn't a raging holocaust denier, so she has that going for her.

smurfjed

But . . . . what about freefall?

From my dropping skydiver days, I remember it as 109 mph, but I have never looked it up

Overheal

Well this guy appears to have done his homework, for a blogger

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com/

You can believe all you want that it came in from a different angle, or at a slower speed, or a faster speed, but that doesn't change the preponderance of evidence that supports the mainstream reporting. I'm still not even sure what the significance is, to you, if the plane came in slower or not? Just to poke some hole in the illuminati curtain? As for video I don't know what to tell you: security cameras don't usually record in realtime, it's usually one or two frames per second, if that, and the resolution is piss. And when something is traveling at over 700-800 ft/s you're not going to capture a whole lot of anything.

You seem to have a clear expectation of nothing short of omnipotent perfection in the fact finding ex post facto. Like: we're still not entirely sure *exactly how* gravity works, but it just does, and we have models of it that are 'good enough' to exploit its application in engineering. That doesn't mean gravity is a conspiracy. That every facet of the attacks can not be explained literally down to the intergranular level, in dissertation-levels of fidelity, is not evidence of a cover-up. But that's the comparison here: the Conspiracy Theories have some massive freaking holes in them as have been discussed here, while trying to poke holes in the official store has literally been needled down to trying to find flaws with the lack of information to explain intergranular melting at the micron-level.

Overheal

smurfjed wrote: »

From my dropping skydiver days, I remember it as 109 mph, but I have never looked it up

That's terminal velocity, (but that depends on the drag eg. bowling ball vs. parachute pants) I think he met 9.8 m/s^2 ?

smurfjed

I requested evidence the plane was going 530mph. You ignored me. Where is this data online, Can I find the info online and read up on it? I googled it and can't find the data.

Actually the first link that you provided for me, PentagonBuildingPerformance report, states a figure of 780 ft/s, I'm assuming that they are using feet per second based on how much of the airliner moved across two camera frames, so using known length/distance over time they got ft/sec. This turns out to be 460 NAUTICAL MILES per hour, now go to Google and convert 460 KTS to MPH and you get 529.359 MPH, so we can call that 530 MPH.

Just to clarify:
1 NM = 6076 feet
1 SM - 5280 feet.

Overheal

And to be fair that alone wouldn't be dead-nuts accurate, because of your Uncertainty of Resolution. That's going to be whatever your camera resolution was, though, so technically u of R would equal +/- one half of a pixel in relative distance. It might be enough to swing the value +/- 10 mph, being generous, but it doesn't amount of a big hill of beans, since the estimation is also backed up by the flight data recorder.

smurfjed

since the estimation is also backed up by the flight data recorder.

One of the videos that I watched last night stated that the FDR had stopped recording a number of seconds prior to the impact.

Overheal

smurfjed wrote: »

One of the videos that I watched last night stated that the FDR had stopped recording a number of seconds prior to the impact.

been a while since i dove into anything about the black box, did note the FDR graphs flying around though that show the velocity exceeding 460 knots

King Mob

smurfjed wrote: »

One of the videos that I watched last night stated that the FDR had stopped recording a number of seconds prior to the impact.

Cheerful previously claimed that this gap was due to the plane missing the pentagon so that a different plane could be crashed in it's place.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Pretending I'm ignore again? :rolleyes:

Anyway, you don't answer questions, you just parrot crazy you've learned from youtube videos. You pretend this is research.
It is not. It is delusion.

As we've stated before, you have no theory. You only have what you're told to believe by cranks.
The space laser theory is more coherent and rational than your nonsense.
And it's supported by someone far more qualified than you.
Also, Judy Woods isn't a raging holocaust denier, so she has that going for her.

Kingmob I don't care- your opinion about me is meaningless. You're a big man who can type out insults on a keyboard or on your little phone keypad

Ignore and ignore evidence (debunker code) I have tolerated this behaviour for far too long. No more posts will be answered and replied to. I will not be posting here anymore the moderator now joining in with the trolling (last straw) joke his even a moderator on a conspiracy forum acting the prick. Use your ban hammer as you threatened in PM message.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob I don't care- your opinion about me is meaningless. You're a big man who can type out insults on a keyboard or on your little phone keypad

Thought I was going back on ignore?
Guess not.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I will not be posting here anymore the moderator now joining in with the trolling (last straw) joke his even a moderator on a conspiracy forum acting the prick. Use your ban hammer as you threatened in PM message.

Lol.
Bye.

smurfjed

@Cheerful.

I have asked you quite a number of questions to which you have provided no answers. I love to deal in "facts" but so far since I joined this discussion a few days ago, I've seen very few.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Use your ban hammer as you threatened in PM message.

Oh that wasn't a threat, and it won't be my banhammer, it will be an admin's banhammer, if you try to send me more personal attacks over PM.

The only thing I've joined in is delivering unto you facts and evidence and logic, in return you called me an asshole and asked to be banned. I've given you plennnty of latitude to cool off. If you want to remove yourself from the forum that's fine.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Oh that wasn't a threat, and it won't be my banhammer, it will be an admin's banhammer, if you try to send me more personal attacks over PM.

The only thing I've joined in is delivering unto you facts and evidence and logic, in return you called me an asshole and asked to be banned. I've given you plennnty of latitude to cool off. If you want to remove yourself from the forum that's fine.

You liar i never attacked you personally on PM. You are a troll. The post on Syria thread childish.

smurfjed sorry I did not reply to you. This will be my last post on here.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This will be my last post on here.

Will it though? Will it really?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

smurfjed sorry I did not reply to you. This will be my last post on here.

You were never going to reply.
You were again caught out by someone who actually is an expert in a field you only pretend to be knowledgeable in.
You are not taking an out because had you responded, you would again reveal you don't understand the technical terms he used.

smurfjed

Here is another one for you to think about, you said that the FDR readout meant that the aircraft was too high to hit the building. But do you actually know where the FDR takes it's information from? How it's calculated and what impact using a different pressure setting would have?

smurfjed

Amazing what you can find on the internet, Supersonic DC8

http://dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

banie01

smurfjed wrote: »

Here is another one for you to think about, you said that the FDR readout meant that the aircraft was too high to hit the building. But do you actually know where the FDR takes it's information from? How it's calculated and what impact using a different pressure setting would have?

CS was asked about ASL/sea level and Barometric/Radar altimeter data and the actual airfield the FDR baseline was for early last year in this thread and it was dismissed/ignored.

The level of evidence that CS casually dismisses as being part of the conspiracy or as "debunkers" being manipulated is staggering.

Especially when you consider that he will present nothing other than "feelings" and his own half arsed theories based often on completely misunderstood words and phrases!

The level of outright lies and evasion is crazy!
No matter how often he is called out on it.

smurfjed

Another one for you to ponder, the top of the fuselage is 20 feet 6 inches, the bottom of the engine nacelle is 2 feet 5 inches above the ground, so total height of the aircraft (without wheels) is 18 feet 1 inch.

So where did the figure that the aircraft was flying at 20 feet come from?





https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/757_23.pdf

The Nal

King Mob wrote: »

You were again caught out by someone who actually is an expert in a field you only pretend to be knowledgeable in.

Properly "exposed" and then chucked the toys out of the pram.

smurfjed

Some more light reading, this time from the NTSB.

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_AA77.pdf

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/AAL77_fdr.pdf

If you work your way through the FDR data you will find the final speed and true&magnetic heading. At the same time you can look at flight control position and throttle position. The engine readings are extremely interesting.

Have fun reading it

Cheerful Spring

Paper smurfjed send me by PM
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

Pilots for truth debunked Warren Strut and Frank Legge claims.

Strut posted there and he got debunked. He even admitted to not knowing stuff, making errors and even with the corrected data the plane was still too high.

Full list of threads debunking the paper.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22540

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

CS was asked about ASL/sea level and Barometric/Radar altimeter data and the actual airfield the FDR baseline was for early last year in this thread and it was dismissed/ignored.

The level of evidence that CS casually dismisses as being part of the conspiracy or as "debunkers" being manipulated is staggering.

Especially when you consider that he will present nothing other than "feelings" and his own half arsed theories based often on completely misunderstood words and phrases!

The level of outright lies and evasion is crazy!
No matter how often he is called out on it.

Not true I doubt you even remember last year. I have provided info to him on PM how I calculated this and did the same last year.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Pilots for truth

P4T - Pilots for Truth is another one of these internet conspiracy groups. Like AE911, they are made up of 911 conspiracy theorists who specialise in attempting to distort evidence about the event (but never producing a solid counter-theory)

Their (largely obtuse) arguments have been soundly debunked over the years

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true I doubt you even remember last year. I have provided info to him on PM how I calculated this and did the same last year.

Post your calculations here

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

P4T - Pilots for Truth is another one of these internet conspiracy groups. Like AE911, they are made up of 911 conspiracy theorists who specialise in attempting to distort evidence about the event (but never producing a solid counter-theory)

Their (largely obtuse) arguments have been soundly debunked over the years

Strut posted and debated his claims on the pilot for truth forum. It was not good for him. You don't even know what the arguments are so why are you saying they are debunked?

Give us your rundown of the complaints. I bet you can't.