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

Cheerful Spring

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Mystic Timberrrrrrrr predicts some very disappointing news in your very near future.

Dr Hulsey study is shown to the grand jury, its game over.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Damn, right I am.

And will be glorious when it not tossed out:)

Oh I fully agree. I'd love to see the 911 stuff go to court, but it's just too unlikely. Likewise people relished when the Holocaust denier Irving ended up in court, of course in one sense it was a loss because a crank made it to court, but on the flipside his Holocaust denial nonsense got exposed for what it was and he was torn to shreds

Court is not a pleasant setting for woo merchants and conspiracy types

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Hulsey study is shown to the grand jury, its game over.

Yes but you are starting to make these strange quasi-religious "predictions" which we've all seen before in various forms.

There have been more than a few posters predicting doomsday events, economic crises, immense conspiracy leaks, unraveling of society, hacks that reveal everything, etc, etc

But, quite sadly, these exciting world-changing events never come to fruition and the posters mostly just disappear or reg

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Oh I fully agree. I'd love to see the 911 stuff go to court, but it's just too unlikely. Likewise people relished when the Holocaust denier Irving ended up in court, of course in one sense it was a loss because a crank made it to court, but on the flipside his Holocaust denial nonsense got exposed for what it was and he was torn to shreds

Court is not a pleasant setting for woo merchants and conspiracy types

David Irving denied the Holocaust and claimed the Nazis were not bad people just misunderstood. He was never going to win in an English court claiming this to be true. The camps existed there no denying this and the Nazis were anti- Jew and they labelled other minorities inferior. He was denying this criminal behaviour.

9/11 and holocaust are totally different events not similar whatsoever.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes but you are starting to make these strange quasi-religious "predictions" which we've all seen before in various forms.

There have been more than a few posters predicting doomsday events, economic crises, immense conspiracy leaks, unraveling of society, hacks that reveal everything, etc, etc

But, quite sadly, these exciting world-changing events never come to fruition and the posters mostly just disappear or reg

Again I don't get your logic at all.

Please talk about the 9/11 evidence this what the thread is about.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Again I don't get your logic at all.

Please talk about the 9/11 evidence this what the thread is about.

We endlessly ask you about the this conspiracy theory (which changes all the time) and you ignore or deflect or play the above "games"

Here's an example

1. Who was flying the plane in your theory? name and evidence of that person

2. What speed was it going exactly, with evidence?

If you literally don't have a "conspiracy theory" what are you doing on these forums?

Again, I don't expect anything but deflection and pedantic mirrored comments

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is evidence they are looking at the allegations seriously.

:rolleyes: Bless your heart. No, it isn't. It's as easily 'evidence' that it's been filed in the magazine rack in the loo. Or evidence that all the truthers who brought forth this information were swept up in black vans and replaced with life model decoys or pod people.

18 U.S. Code § 3332 only provides,

(a) It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense [as was reported], the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.

That's it. And the letter was very short and dry. "We will comply with the letter of the law" not anything like 'your evidence is serious business' or 'I will recommend action be taken,' etc. - literally, the US Attorney's Office was only required to pass the complaint to the court by law, and could have easily as part of that (again, as granted in the law) said, 'I am legally obligated to inform you of this tinfoil nonsense, I advise the court take no further action.'

And, there is no evidence there has been any additional activity. Not that you've provided, not that the ae911truth.org site has dropped confetti and streamers from the ceiling for, or to ask for more donations based upon thereof. Nothing. Evidently it has been radio silence from the US Attorney's office and the Court in question. I imagine this will be the case for months if not years, in the intervening time truthers will interpret it similarly to you - 'oh, it must be a good sign,' until that sentiment devolves to 'wtf is going on' to 'the courts are in on the conspiracy - maybe we should donate more money!'



Until there is actually something truly substantial, beware errant juniper bushes and discarded sandals.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How many of you are aware a helicopter was spotted at the heliport near the west wall of the Pentagon? CNN first broadcast of the attack, the reporter said seven eyewitnesses told him they saw a helicopter and then moments later a explosion occurred.

This helicopter incident is scrubbed from the official record. 9/11 commission report made no mention of it and yet multiple eyewitnesses just a few minutes after the attack told reporters they saw it before the explosion.

Source?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Source?

58 minutes listen there. I heard similar reports on other news stations. This incident totally scrubbed from the official record. Why was it there?

smurfjed

Is there any helicopter capable of firing a missile capable of doing that level of damage?

King Mob

smurfjed wrote: »

Is there any helicopter capable of firing a missile capable of doing that level of damage?

Nope.
So obviously it was carrying the space laser targeting device.

Overheal

smurfjed wrote: »

Is there any helicopter capable of firing a missile capable of doing that level of damage?

None whatsoever. And you’d be able to immediately distinguish between a armed helicopter and an unarmed helicopter. Not to mention anything big enough to do that kind of damage would have an advertised smoke trail back to the firing platform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._helicopter_armament_subsystems

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

58 minutes listen there. I heard similar reports on other news stations. This incident totally scrubbed from the official record. Why was it there?

Probably a helicopter going to the army helipad in the Pentagon. What relevance is it?

At 1h05m they mention a white jet over the White House, same thing, what relevance is it?

At 1h08m a witness claimed "whole building just exploded", no building was entirely destroyed by that time, so why would they say that? what relevance is it?

At 1h09m, reporter describes a "huge explosion", there wasn't one it was tower one collapsing

Live chaotic news on an extraordinary day. A lot of rumours, mistakes, speculation and irrelevant information.

The Nal

Helicopters near helipads. Wow!

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Probably a helicopter going to the army helipad in the Pentagon. What relevance is it?

At 1h05m they mention a white jet over the White House, same thing, what relevance is it?

At 1h08m a witness claimed "whole building just exploded", no building was entirely destroyed by that time, so why would they say that? what relevance is it?

At 1h09m, reporter describes a "huge explosion", there wasn't one it was tower one collapsing

Live chaotic news on an extraordinary day. A lot of rumours, mistakes, speculation and irrelevant information.

The helicopter was witnessed circling the area where the plane hit. And the reporter said a number of witnesses said it landed. The heliport is located on the same side of the Pentagon where the plane hit.

Never has been any official explantation why a helicopter was there in this area just before the explosion. It not false report CNN spoke to people who were outside the Pentagon before the attack, and plenty of people saw a military-style helicopter.

There was a white Jet above the White House, this was captured on TV. It was most likely a US military AWACS aircraft.

People define things differently. One Witness saying the whole building exploded, is just something they said in a panic. If they were on the ground looking up at it, the big fireball, you lose you mind and senses.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The helicopter was witnessed circling the area where the plane hit. And the reporter said a number of witnesses said it landed. The heliport is located on the same side of the Pentagon where the plane hit.

Never has been any official explantation why a helicopter was there in this area

There's no conspiracy explanation though.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Helicopters near helipads. Wow!

On another day not suspicious, on 9/11 and couple of minutes before the attack explantation is needed.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

On another day not suspicious, on 9/11 and couple of minutes before the attack explantation is needed.

But you don't have a conspiracy explanation.
So therefore, by your logic, the conspiracy theory is bull****...

The Nal

There were cars spotted in the carpark in the area too!

Skeptics of course ignore this.

Cheerful Spring2

smurfjed wrote: »

Is there any helicopter capable of firing a missile capable of doing that level of damage?

I fairly certain you will find military helicopters that can fire a missile. Helicopters were capable of firing missiles during the first Gulf war in 1991.There no evidence here a helicopter launched a missile.

Some people on here though will ignore a military style Helicopter was seen flying low to the ground where the impact occurred on 9/11.. No mention anywhere what it was doing. Explantation would be nice.

I don't believe they have no footage of the alleged plane. Perhaps this helicopter was doing something they want to keep a secret. I took these screenshots from a Youtube video and you clearly see the cameras on the roof. Cameras recording nothing too convenient for my liking.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Explantation would be nice.

Yes it would.
But there's no conspiracy explanation.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I fairly certain you will find military helicopters that can fire a missile. Helicopters were capable of firing missiles during the first Gulf war in 1991.There no evidence here a helicopter launched a missile.

Some people on here though will ignore a military style Helicopter was seen flying low to the ground where the impact occurred on 9/11.. No mention anywhere what it was doing. Explantation would be nice.

What explanation is needed? A helicopter in regular air traffic space, an airliner slams into the Pentagon and any curious functioning adult would go have a look.

There is no helicopter borne ordnance that could have possibly caused the damage incurred, so I have no clue what you’re getting at.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

What explanation is needed? A helicopter in regular air traffic space, an airliner slams into the Pentagon and any curious functioning adult would go have a look.

There is no helicopter borne ordnance that could have possibly caused the damage incurred, so I have no clue what you’re getting at.

We don't deserve to know why a helicopter was circling the Pentagon before 9.37am- when the attack occurred?

The eyewitness said it went behind the building and looked like it was landing for a period. You may not care i do. By all accounts the airspace around the Pentagon is restricted and you need permission to land. They landed for a period to do something, exactly what is unknown. This incident scrubbed from the official account .

Helicopters were capable of firing missiles in the 80s. Plenty of video you can find will show you this to be true. What difficult about firing a missile with improved explosive payload? This is just speculation and already said there no evidence a helicopter fired a missile. The incident happened and we need to find out why it was there before the attack?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The incident happened and we need to find out why it was there before the attack?

So what's the conspiracy explanation?

Do you not know?

Cheerful Spring2

I don't have a conspiracy explantation. The military style helicopter took off from somewhere and travelled to the Pentagon and starting going behind the building before the attack.

To claim the helicopter fired a missile you need evidence first. I prefer an explantation from a official source why it landed?

The cameras not capturing the plane never made any sense. There cameras everywhere on the Pentagon roof, on the firehouse building right next to the damaged wall. There highway cameras. None of them captured the outline of the plane i find highly suspicious.We got grainy out of focus security post video in 2007, six years after 9/11. Why did take so long to release it?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't have a conspiracy explantation.

Then your conspiracy theory is nonsense according to your own logic.

Case closed.

smurfjed

Look at the attachment, I'm very familiar with helicopters with missiles. But those missiles are no way near capable of causing the damage that you are talking about.

As for the helicopter, did you ever visit Washington DC prior to 911? Military helicopters were commonly used to transport military personnel to / from the Pentagon.

Cheerful Spring2

smurfjed wrote: »

Look at the attachment, I'm very familiar with helicopters with missiles. But those missiles are no way near capable of causing the damage that you are talking about.

As for the helicopter, did you ever visit Washington DC prior to 911? Military helicopters were commonly used to transport military personnel to / from the Pentagon.

This operation is a hypothetical. If went down then it highly likely the helicopter would have got refitted to fire this missile or something similar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

This is just speculation and i never said it accurate this helicopter fired a missile at the wall. I tend to believe nowadays a big sized plane hit the wall but still have lingering doubts about the true nature of the event.

My complaint is.
The direction the plane came in from i dispute and still curious why there no footage of the plane? If something was happening on the ground that day, then they will want to keep the camera footage to themselves to protect a covert operation. There no excuse why all the cameras failed to record events leading up to the attack. Pentagon is the US miilitary headquarters and the four cameras on the rooftop failing to record i find highly suspect. The excuse they gave for the highway camera not recording the plane was the camera had no tape? Again just happened to not have tape on 9/11?

Again if the helicopter was dropping of an important general or government official,then we should be told. Scrubbing the incident from the record fuels conspiracy theories. Right after the attack witnessses told CNN they saw a helicopter behind the building and minutes later a big explosion happened. The helicopter was in the vincity and seen before the attack, so we need an explanation about why it was there.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is just speculation and i never said it accurate this helicopter fired a missile at the wall. I tend to believe nowadays a big sized plane hit the wall but still have lingering doubts about the true nature of the event.

You previously claimed that it was an entirely different plane while the real plane flew over the pentagon and away.
You claimed that as 100% fact.

But doesn't matter anyway as your conspiracy theory is invalid as you can't explain the helicopter in your narrative.

I like how you are pretending to be informed about missiles and helicopters now too.
Is there anything you're not an expert in?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Again if the helicopter was dropping of an important general or government official,then we should be told. Scrubbing the incident from the record fuels conspiracy theories..

It's already been established what happened, beyond any reasonable doubt, so there isn't a need to explain the movement of every other vehicle/aircraft on the day.

What you are always attempting to do here is scour the event looking for anything that can't be fully explained to you in order to cast doubt on the whole thing. Out of all those random fragments you find you then try to "build" some vague conspiracy, but you never can because they all contradict each other

Regardless of having no conspiracy theory, you're just happy to keep scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything that is "out of place" in order to keep the fantasy alive. You want this helicopter explained? that's the explanation right there.

The Nal

A military helicopter at a military building on a helipad built specifically for helicopters. And?

As for the direction of the plane, please do explain the eyewitnesses to me. You know, all the people who saw the plane coming in from that direction.

Plants?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't believe they have no footage of the alleged plane. Perhaps this helicopter was doing something they want to keep a secret. I took these screenshots from a Youtube video and you clearly see the cameras on the roof. Cameras recording nothing too convenient for my liking.

What was the viewing area of that camera. How far was it from the impact? What was the frame per second capture rate of that particular camera?

Overheal

So the real plane got real close and veered away at the last minute while a second plane slammed into the side of the pentagon and an attack helicopter fired rockets at the wall for good measure but somehow we only have an eyewitness account about a helicopter, no firing, and no second plane theory.

And no, it would be physically impossible to enhance the payload of helicopter ordnance to do that damage.another fantasy about a secret superweapon that the military somehow had in their back pocket to use but only the one time and never again since

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

And no, it would be physically impossible to enhance the payload of helicopter ordnance to do that damage.

You'd swear that the explosive output of a chemical explosive was limited by both the mass of the reactive chemical ingredients and it's delivery system!!!!

None of that matters when the helicopter was obviously firing warheads of the magic silently eXplosive nano thermite!!

It not only fits the available info, it confirms WTC7 was an inside job and that the pentagon was the off-site storage!!!

I mean why else would military "style" helicopter be anywhere near a military building's landing pad?

Overheal

banie01 wrote: »

You'd swear that the explosive output of a chemical explosive was limited by both the mass of the reactive chemical ingredients and it's delivery system!!!!

That’s exactly the kind of lie They want you to believe! Stay woke

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's already been established what happened, beyond any reasonable doubt, so there isn't a need to explain the movement of every other vehicle/aircraft on the day.

What you are always attempting to do here is scour the event looking for anything that can't be fully explained to you in order to cast doubt on the whole thing. Out of all those random fragments you find you then try to "build" some vague conspiracy, but you never can because they all contradict each other

Regardless of having no conspiracy theory, you're just happy to keep scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything that is "out of place" in order to keep the fantasy alive. You want this helicopter explained? that's the explanation right there.

When I have already said I don’t believe it World Trade Center seven collapsed due to fire. Then not strange I would question the events at the Pentagon! You accepted the official line about everything and that’s fine, you have an opinion and I have mine. Remember the events are not confined to one day. There a backstory, and i gone over this already, the CIA brass allowed this attack to go ahead. I don’t believe for one second 9/11 was a surprise attack.

You guys can’t provide a official government explantation to why the helicopter was circling and landing minutes before the attack at the Pentagon. Terrible person, I am for asking a question!

Despite what Nal says 80 witnesses did not see a plane hit the Pentagon wall. They saw a plane flying high up in the air, above a build up residental area of Wsshington DC. Plenty of eyewitness ( not 80) saw a plane hit the Pentagon, but they’ll have to be close enough to the scene to see it hit directly.

Kingmob account is not accurate. When I first discussed the Pentagon attacks. I was not aware dozen or more Pentagon eyewitnesses had sighted a commercial sized plane flying low to the ground- heading a direction “North East” and flying towards the Pentagon. The plane passed north of the navy annex and north of the Citgo gas service station and finally crashed most likey at the Pentagon. The CIT guys claim it flew over and kept going.

When I first looked into it, the only available information I had was a plane crashed at the Pentagon heading “southwest, and was totally clueless multiple eyewitnesses were disputing the official account direction and sighting of the plane on video. Observable damage finally made sense to me if the plane came in from the northeast, levelled out and hit the wall head on.

This alternative direction of course is problematic as it claimed the southwest plane knocked down multiple lightpoles coming in at angle and one of the poles pieces fell on a taxi cab, damaged the window and cab driver was Lloyd England. Lloyd England later when questioned about this incident claimed on video, his taxi cab was moved from where it happened and the pole incident actually happened northeast of the Pentagon at a crossroad junction near the cementry. Lloyd even said off camera, he was secretly recorded, and he was hestitant to talk more about it on camera. He claimed the event was planned and he was hinting he was unwittingly involved in a conspiracy.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Despite what Nal says 80 witnesses did not see a plane hit the Pentagon wall. They saw a plane flying high up in the air, above a build up residental area of Wsshington DC. Plenty of eyewitness ( not 80) saw a plane hit the Pentagon, but they’ll have to be close enough to the scene to see it hit directly.

About 90 people saw something hit the building from that direction. 45 described airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring" etc.

25 described it specifically as an American Airlines jet.

25 people. Explain that please.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

When I have already said I don’t believe it World Trade Center seven collapsed due to fire. Then not strange I would question the events at the Pentagon!

You aren't questioning the event in any reasonable fashion to get the truth, you are doing so purely to cast doubt. Attacking the facts is the only way for your nebulous conspiracy to exist. A conspiracy you can't even be bothered to explain or detail.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

About 90 people saw something hit the building from that direction. 45 described airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring" etc.

25 described it specifically as an American Airlines jet.

25 people. Explain that please.

90 people saw the plane heading southwest provide a link then?

Are the CIT eyewitnesses interviews included. They interviewed Pentagon police officers, construction workers, gas station workers and they saw a larged sized commercial jet heading northeast towards the Pentagon. Was it flight 77 heading northeast i don't rule this out. I dispute the direction the plane was heading.

This is all backed up by the FDR and FAA radar animations. The plane was heading northeast in the animations provided. Since the animations came out years later after the 9/11 commission report got released. The debate where the plane was is confined to Skeptic and conspiracy forums and nobody working for the NTSB ( National Transportation Safety Board) has clarified why the plane heading northeast as far as i am aware?

Dohnjoe

Note the misdirection. This discussion was about the helicopter, now it's been carefully drawn back to the "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but from a slightly different direction", which is the laziest 911 conspiracy theory I have ever come across

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

90 people saw the plane heading southwest provide a link then?

Are the CIT eyewitnesses interviews included. They interviewed Pentagon police officers, construction workers, gas station workers and they saw a larged sized commercial jet heading northeast towards the Pentagon. Was it flight 77 heading northeast i don't rule this out. I dispute the direction the plane was heading.

This is all backed up by the FDR and FAA radar animations. The plane was heading northeast in the animations provided. Since the animations came out years later after the 9/11 commission report got released. The debate where the plane was is confined to Skeptic and conspiracy forums and nobody working for the NTSB ( National Transportation Safety Board) has clarified why the plane heading northeast as far as i am aware?

The damage trail establishes the plane path

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Note the misdirection. This discussion was about the helicopter, now it's been carefully drawn back to the "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but from a slightly different direction", which is the laziest 911 conspiracy theory I have ever come across

Its not even a conspiracy theory. A plane flying from the north or wherever, just missing the Pentagon and flying away (and then killing everyone on board elsewhere) while nobody noticed as a missile or something hit it instead is just silly.

Im still waiting on answers for my questions about the camera that CS said should've captured the crash.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Note the misdirection. This discussion was about the helicopter, now it's been carefully drawn back to the "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but from a slightly different direction", which is the laziest 911 conspiracy theory I have ever come across

You calling it lazy conspiracy, yet you were not there on 9/11.

These two Pentagon police officers saw the plane that day heading northeast not southwest. Did someone get to them to tell a different story?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You calling it lazy conspiracy, yet you were not there on 9/11.

These two Pentagon police officers saw the plane that day heading northeast not southwest. Did someone get to them to tell a different story?

What about the 25 people who saw the plane hit? What about the damage trail?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You calling it lazy conspiracy, yet you were not there on 9/11.

These two Pentagon police officers saw the plane that day heading northeast not southwest. Did someone get to them to tell a different story?

In fact it is far more likely the CT filmmakers incentivized or massaged them to say what they wanted to for the cameras

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

These two Pentagon police officers saw the plane that day heading northeast not southwest. Did someone get to them to tell a different story?

They were mistaken.

Here's a simple test of critical thinking..

1. If 97 witnesses say they saw X and 3 witnesses say they saw Y - based on that alone you think it's fairly 50/50 between X and Y?

or would you say X is much more likely

2. If what the 97 witnesses saw is backed up by every other piece of evidence, and what the 3 witnesses saw is backed up by nothing else, is it 50/50?

or would you say X is exponentially more likely and Y is almost impossible

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

The damage trail establishes the plane path



Its not even a conspiracy theory. A plane flying from the north or wherever, just missing the Pentagon and flying away (and then killing everyone on board elsewhere) while nobody noticed as a missile or something hit it instead is just silly.

Im still waiting on answers for my questions about the camera that CS said should've captured the crash.

Got no link then to confirm your 90 witnesses seeing a plane heading southwest?

I provided a picture, You can even see the camera on top of the roof behind the water, it just blocked out. It pointing down where the plane hit.

Have to use my paint again to highlight the cameras.

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

Its not even a conspiracy theory. A plane flying from the north or wherever, just missing the Pentagon and flying away (and then killing everyone on board elsewhere) while nobody noticed as a missile or something hit it instead is just silly.

The conspiracy is that everything happened exactly as it did on 911, but that the plane hit the Pentagon from a slightly different angle - and that's the conspiracy. The "powers-that-be" went to massive risk and effort to conceal the plane's true path, in order to push a false narrative that it hit from another angle.

With no explanation whatsoever why they would do it. The laziness comes from the fact that's it's the "least difficult" nonsense to push. (The missile, the military plane, a second plane, etc conversely require too much brain power to make up)

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

In fact it is far more likely the CT filmmakers incentivized or massaged them to say what they wanted to for the cameras

I thought you don't believe in conspiracies? So they convinced two active Pentagon cops to change their story thats interesting take on things. I see no evidence they coached them. They would have to have coached 13 other eyewitnesses also then? All the eyewitnesses worked in the area they were easy to find and locate and there probably many more who never got interviewed.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Got no link then to confirm your 90 witnesses seeing a plane heading southwest?

Easily available with a quick google, as you know.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.html

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I provided a picture,

lol

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You can even see the camera on top of the roof behind the water, it just blocked out. It pointing down where the plane hit.

Have to use my paint again to highlight the cameras.

I know there were cameras there. Everyone knows there were cameras.

Answer this

What was the viewing area of the cameras? How far were they from the impact? What was the frame per second capture rate of those particular cameras?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I thought you don't believe in conspiracies? So they convinced two active Pentagon cops to change their story thats interesting take on things. I see no evidence they coached them. They would have to have coached 13 other eyewitnesses also then? All the eyewitnesses worked in the area they were easy to find and locate and there probably many more who never got interviewed.

wonder why they never got interviewed :rolleyes:

Never claimed to be a disbeliever of conspiracies, I just happen to have a well educated belief in science, the claims you’ve made on this forum hinge on the laws of physics being distorted. Not so with coaxing a security guard to draw something like you want him to.

smurfjed

This operation is a hypothetical. If went down then it highly likely the helicopter would have got refitted to fire this missile or something similar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

You do realise that the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator is bloody huge and needs a massive aircraft such as a C130 to carry it.