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

Cheerful Spring

banie01 wrote: »

Why are you adjusting for Washington DC?
The DC datum point is @4 miles away from the Pentagon on the opposite riverbank and on a hill.

The Pentagon is located on the riverbank of an estuary as is the conveniently adjacent Ronald Reagan Airport.
Same side of the river, very similar elevation and a datum point of 16ft ASL
Surely it's the logical Datum point to use for your "calculation" rather than DC?

Local Barometric pressure for Washington DC at the Pentagon is 30.22 InHg. It not 29.92 InHg.

Overheal

You can also go to Google Earth and confirm the ground elevation across the highway and on the approach (9/11 memorial) is fairly level at 11 m, or 36 feet. With the construction height of the Pentagon being 71 feet, that's 107 feet ASL.

This paper addresses directly the altitude conspiracy and bunks it fairly hard.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Local Barometric pressure for Washington DC at the Pentagon is 30.22 InHg. It not 29.92 InHg.

So rather than use relevant and accurate Barometric pressure.
You use an incorrect value to skew a result in favour of your theory?
Why not redo your calculations with the data for a more relevant Datum point? Such as Ronald Reagan Airport and see what effect that has on your presumed flight level?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

False there was no skid marks across the lawn. The grass was pristine with pieces of the plane on it.

If the plane hit the grass it would have broken up there.

So we have 100 odd people who all saw it happen, which obviously includes the direction, and pieces of the AA plane and pieces of bodies everywhere etc.

What exatly is the issue?

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

You can also go to Google Earth and confirm the ground elevation across the highway and on the approach (9/11 memorial) is fairly level at 11 m, or 36 feet. With the construction height of the Pentagon being 71 feet, that's 107 feet ASL.

This paper addresses directly the altitude conspiracy and bunks it fairly hard.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

My guesstimated numbers from last year when I was arguing the ASL point originally fits quite well with those figures.
My 1st time seeing that paper, thanks for sharing.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It too high to hit light poles on the bridge. Notice its height over the highway. Its even higher due to adjustment of pressure in Washington DC (480 feet high)

Lightpoles were hit (80 feet above sea level) 40 feet in height, the official story!

You're assuming its right above the highway yet, in that final frame of FDR.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

You can also go to Google Earth and confirm the ground elevation across the highway and on the approach (9/11 memorial) is fairly level at 11 m, or 36 feet. With the construction height of the Pentagon being 71 feet, that's 107 feet ASL.

This paper addresses directly the altitude conspiracy and bunks it fairly hard.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

How can this plane 480 feet in the air hit light poles 80 feet (ASL) at its tallest height located at the bridge?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How can this plane 480 feet in the air hit light poles 80 feet (ASL) at its tallest height located at the bridge?

How is the plane 480 feet in the air? It is 180 feet in the air, based on the altimeter, which isn't even its true altitude as established in the paper I posted in my previous post - in which the true altitude value is confirmed to be highly misleading, referencing earlier flights by the plane that were recorded in the FDR, to Chicago and LA.

banie01

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How can this plane 480 feet in the air hit light poles 80 feet (ASL) at its tallest height located at the bridge?

I love how the ASL height of the poles is only relevant when CS chooses to ignore the actual ASL height of the aircraft...

Overheal

And let's step back from that:

If the plane flew over the pentagon at such low altitudes, why are there no throngs of eyewitnesses to confirm that? The plane's vector had it going straight for the 395 bridge, and/or downtown DC.

The Nal

Overheal wrote: »

And let's step back from that:

If the plane flew over the pentagon at such low altitudes, why are there no throngs of eyewitnesses to confirm that? The plane's vector had it going straight for the 395 bridge, and/or downtown DC.

Theyre all part of the conspiracy.

Overheal

Of course.

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

And let's step back from that:

If the plane flew over the pentagon at such low altitudes, why are there no throngs of eyewitnesses to confirm that? The plane's vector had it going straight for the 395 bridge, and/or downtown DC.

Cheerful claims to have a long list of witnesses that support the alternate flight path. But when pressed for it, it turned out to just be a youtube video of people pointing off screen followed by a crayon drawing of what he claims to be a combination of those statements.
He also ignores that this video was compiled by cranks who believe that the pentagon was hit by a missile, a conspiracy he claims to no longer believe in.

Overheal

Well that's what happens when you are married to confirmation bias.

Overheal

I like how truther's believe in ground effect being strong enough to push the multi-ton plane up enough to not hit the pentagon, but too weak to influence the readout on the pitot tubes responsible for altitude.

The Nal

The real flight 77 flew over the Pentagon. This wouldve been seen by a few hundred people. All part of the plot. It then landed safely somewhere else and the passengers were then either murdered or put into some sort of witness protection type thing and are there to this day.

At the exact point when the plane flew over, "they" flew a missile or another plane into the Pentagon, quickly ran about knocking down lamposts and a tree, scattering plane parts and pieces of human bodies about the place and the 100 odd witnesses in various locations were all planted by the government. They somehow made sure that not one regular citizen was in the vicinity at the time.

Wake up.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

How is the plane 480 feet in the air? It is 180 feet in the air, based on the altimeter, which isn't even its true altitude as established in the paper I posted in my previous post - in which the true altitude value is confirmed to be highly misleading, referencing earlier flights by the plane that were recorded in the FDR, to Chicago and LA.

Read their statements in the paper.

Example from their paper.



They even admit here the altimeter reading placed the plane too high to hit light poles. Then wrote an excuse to why that is. There new improved excuse is the radio height placed the plane lower at altitude.

Strut and Legge claims were debated on the pilot for truth forum. Strut even posted there for a while and it did not go well for him. I posted links to the debate. He even admitted their own corrections still had the plane too high to hit poles and he did understand aviation terms and posted false info. When debunkers are confronted by real professional pilots their arguments fall apart.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

The real flight 77 flew over the Pentagon. This wouldve been seen by a few hundred people. All part of the plot. It then landed safely somewhere else and the passengers were then either murdered or put into some sort of witness protection type thing and are there to this day.

At the exact point when the plane flew over, "they" flew a missile into the Pentagon, quickly ran about knocking down lamposts and a tree, scattering plane parts and pieces of human bodies about the place and the 100 odd witnesses in various locations were all planted by the government. They somehow made sure that not one regular citizen was in the vicinity at the time.

Wake up.

And also going to one rando taxi driver and telling him what to say.

Why they did that... well only cheerful knows....

smurfjed

Debunkers they claim the magnetic heading was not adjusted by the NTSB. They claim they made mistakes with no evidence whatsoever provided to prove this. In the FDR animation, the magnetic heading is 70 degrees (the true course is 61,5 degrees to the east) 9.5 or 10 degrees is the adjustment it been a while since I looked this up though.

The FDR which is a read out rather than calculated data, shows BOTH the Magnetic and True headings.

Airplanes fly using MAGNETIC headings and if you were using a Lambert Conformal Conic Projection or a Mercator projection you would have to apply the variation between TRUE and MAGNETIC to plot the track on those maps, so once again I don't see where this argument is going?

smurfjed

You use an incorrect value to skew a result in favour of your theory?
Why not redo your calculations with the data for a more relevant Datum point? Such as Ronald Reagan Airport

How is Ronald Reagan a more appropriate pressure datum?

smurfjed

How can this plane 480 feet in the air hit light poles 80 feet (ASL) at its tallest height located at the bridge?

At the start of my interaction with you, you talked about Jetblast, so how do you know that the aircraft actually hit anything enroute to the building?

Plus didn't we agree that your arithmetic for the heights needs to be to a few more decimal places and not a rule of thumb.

Cheerful Spring

smurfjed wrote: »

The FDR which is a read out rather than calculated data, shows BOTH the Magnetic and True headings.

Airplanes fly using MAGNETIC headings and if you were using a Lambert Conformal Conic Projection or a Mercator projection you would have to apply the variation between TRUE and MAGNETIC to plot the track on those maps, so once again I don't see where this argument is going?

Not on the NTSB Animation., it heading 70 degrees. The plane is not on the correct side in the animation for the official story to be true. What I heard the CV file read 61.5 degrees east. When it should be 80 degrees west for the official story. The debunkers claim the NTSB are incompetent buffoons.

banie01

smurfjed wrote: »

How is Ronald Reagan a more appropriate pressure datum?

My reasoning for thinking it's a more appropriate datum point is below.

banie01 wrote: »

Why are you adjusting for Washington DC?
The DC datum point is @4 miles away from the Pentagon on the opposite riverbank and on a hill.

The Pentagon is located on the riverbank of an estuary as is the conveniently adjacent Ronald Reagan Airport.
Same side of the river, very similar elevation and a datum point of 16ft ASL
Surely it's the logical Datum point to use for your "calculation" rather than DC?

King Mob

smurfjed wrote: »

At the start of my interaction with you, you talked about Jetblast, so how do you know that the aircraft actually hit anything enroute to the building?

The plane hit several light posts and a generator on the way in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

While level above the ground and seconds from the crash, the wings knocked over five street lampposts and the right wing struck a portable generator, creating a smoke trail seconds before smashing into the Pentagon.[38][39]

Cheerful contends that the plane did not in fact hit these things and that the accounts and evidence for such were fabricated by the conspirators.
He has not offered anything to support this notion or any plausible reason for why they would do this.

Cheerful Spring

smurfjed wrote: »

At the start of my interaction with you, you talked about Jetblast, so how do you know that the aircraft actually hit anything enroute to the building?

Plus didn't we agree that your arithmetic for the heights needs to be to a few more decimal places and not a rule of thumb.

Despite what Kingmob said I have provided evidence plenty of times over the year.

Two Pentagon police officers (credible people) who have no reason to lie said the plane was not on the southside 0 chance and this is the official story it came in from the south? Then even drew the path the plane took please watch.

They were adamant it came from the northeast side, bypassing the light poles and hit the Pentagon.

The Nal

What about the other 102 people? Are they liars? Part of a plot?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Despite what Kingmob said I have provided evidence plenty of times over the year.

Only in the fantasy world in which you live alone.
You also have not provided any plausible reason for why the conspirators would do such a thing or provided any plausible theory for how they managed to fake it.
You attempted to do so once, it was comedic.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Read their statements in the paper.

Example from their paper.



They even admit here the altimeter reading placed the plane too high to hit light poles. Then wrote an excuse to why that is. There new improved excuse is the radio height placed the plane lower at altitude.

Strut and Legge claims were debated on the pilot for truth forum. Strut even posted there for a while and it did not go well for him. I posted links to the debate. He even admitted their own corrections still had the plane too high to hit poles and he did understand aviation terms and posted false info. When debunkers are confronted by real professional pilots their arguments fall apart.

In other words you’re presented with academic evidence and dismiss it out of hand.

How you feel a conversation of a truther forum went for a skeptic isn’t proof of anything. Case and point, your conversations on this forum end woefully for you, by your logic that means your own argument fails.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

In other words you’re presented with academic evidence and dismiss it out of hand.

How you feel a conversation of a truther forum went for a skeptic isn’t proof of anything. Case and point, your conversations on this forum end woefully for you, by your logic that means your own argument fails.

Not true because Strut debated using his own acccount on the pilot for truth. You can see him debating his evidence and was not good for him.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true because Strut debated using his own acccount on the pilot for truth. You can see him debating his evidence and was not good for him.

How do you explain away all of the eye witnesses?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have provided evidence plenty of times over the year.

You haven't.

1. Who was flying your plane?

2. What speed was it doing when it hit the Pentagon?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

How do you explain away all of the eye witnesses?

I don't, a plane was seen. The northside side witnesses saw the plane it was not a missile or a hologram Northside plane hit the Pentagon. There no reason to believe the northside plane flew past the Pentagon.

smurfjed

Interesting video, thanks for sharing.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true because Strut debated using his own acccount on the pilot for truth. You can see him debating his evidence and was not good for him.

Not good for him... how?

These threads aren’t good for you.

That he didn’t manage to convert a bunch of die-hard truthers about reality doesn’t mean dick.

smurfjed

Look at page 24 of the FDR readout, it shows the aircraft turning prior to those last seconds, yet neither of those two witnesses said anything about a turn? How come?

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Not good for him... how?

These threads aren’t good for you.

That he didn’t manage to convert a bunch of die-hard truthers about reality doesn’t mean dick.

Why don't you see for yourself why? I provided the links to every debate.

martingriff

The Nal wrote: »

The real flight 77 flew over the Pentagon. This wouldve been seen by a few hundred people. All part of the plot. It then landed safely somewhere else and the passengers were then either murdered or put into some sort of witness protection type thing and are there to this day.

At the exact point when the plane flew over, "they" flew a missile or another plane into the Pentagon, quickly ran about knocking down lamposts and a tree, scattering plane parts and pieces of human bodies about the place and the 100 odd witnesses in various locations were all planted by the government. They somehow made sure that not one regular citizen was in the vicinity at the time.

Wake up.

You forgot that they managed to keep all these people quiet all this time

smurfjed

Does anyone have a link to the FDR CSV file rather than a plotted PDF document?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why don't you see for yourself why? I provided the links to every debate.

Because it means precisely dick.

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

Not good for him... how?

These threads aren’t good for you.

That he didn’t manage to convert a bunch of die-hard truthers about reality doesn’t mean dick.

Yup, plus the international skeptic thread is up to date, there's no confusion over this

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047&page=109

Cheerful Spring

smurfjed wrote: »

Look at page 24 of the FDR readout, it shows the aircraft turning prior to those last seconds, yet neither of those two witnesses said anything about a turn? How come?

Their location was the Cisco petrol station. Further, up ahead of this the plane did a bank to the right to hit the Pentagon. There more eyewitnesses I provide the video if you need it?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Their location was the Cisco petrol station. Further, up ahead of this the plane did a bank to the right to hit the Pentagon. There more eyewitnesses I provide the video if you need it?

Care to draw this alleged flight path?

Dohnjoe

Incoming maps with childlike mspaint red and green lines drawn all over them

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Incoming maps with childlike mspaint red and green lines drawn all over them

Unless it's the one he stole from other conspiracy theorists who disagree with his version of the conspiracy entirely.

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Unless it's the one he stole from other conspiracy theorists who disagree with his version of the conspiracy entirely.

Bingo. “Here’s evidence from these guys who are establishing that my version of the conspiracy is pure bunk”

smurfjed

So how did the NTSB plot their route? Radar or the INS positions shown in the FDR? Remembering TRANSPORT ERROR, that unfortunately wouldn't have given them a good starting point.

King Mob

smurfjed wrote: »

So how did the NTSB plot their route? Radar or the INS positions shown in the FDR? Remembering TRANSPORT ERROR, that unfortunately wouldn't have given them a good starting point.

In the animation, it uses the data from the FDR.

The Nal

Im not sure what his theory is here? A plane did hit the Pentagon but came from a different direction, despite a hundred eye witnesses seeing it hit the building and many many more who saw the plane and its flight path?

smurfjed

it uses the data from the FDR.

Which uses the INS, so the margin of error is huge. It's not really a reliable source of position strange as that may sound

Old Irish exams, we used to have to draw and annotate a working 3 ring gyro INS and explain how it works

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

Im not sure what his theory is here? A plane did hit the Pentagon but came from a different direction, despite a hundred eye witnesses seeing it hit the building and many many more who saw the plane and its flight path?

That's pretty much it.