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

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do you not believe the FDR is an important item of evidence, yes/no. What we are trying to sort out is - why is it Flight 77 on the wrong flight path?

Why indeed. You guys don't seem to be able to offer any explanation for that.

Why did the government claim the plane was on a different path?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

US government says the plane heading is a south path to the west of the Annex and the Citgo gas station and seconds later the plane crashed at the Pentagon.

You are contradicting yourself. You previously claimed that the government said the plane was heading southwest towards the pentgon.

It's a bit obvious that you don't have a good grasp of how directions work.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

To the eye it looks like a plane has crashed at the Pentagon but was that plane Flight 77? We assuming here also was only one plane in the area heading to the Pentagon?

And once again, you've contradicted your previous position.
You previously stated that it absolutley was flight 77.

You are so dishonest that you are willing to abbandon your previous claims at the drop of a hat if you think it can support a conspiracy.

Why do you have to do that?
Why believe in the conspiracy theory when you have to do so much lying and mental gymnastics?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not like he was the only witness and the only piece of evidence to a murder. Well over 100 people saw what happened. There is a vast amount of circumstantial, physical, and corroborating evidence of the event.

And even though the Pentagon security tape appears to show one engine on fire or at the very least heavy smoke coming off it when the object appears on the frame, the 100 eyewitnesses never noticed that considerable smoke? What likely happened here s people heard noises and saw an object over Washington DC When you go to the Pentagon there an interstate highway in the way, this not a place for walkers and sightseers, there likely only a few people in cars who saw a streak of an object hit the wall when its moving at 530 mph an hour.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

? What likely happened here s people heard noises and saw an object over Washington DC When you go to the Pentagon there an interstate highway in the way, this not a place for walkers and sightseers, there likely only a few people in cars who saw a streak of an object hit the wall when its moving at 530 mph an hour.

But they were completely and perfectly accurate when it comes to the planes position and heading...

Regardless, no witnesses claim what you now suddenly believe.
None report the plane flying over and away from the pentagon.

Ruby gray

King Mob wrote: »

Yea. You guys really don't like being asked questions and having pointed out to you when you're running away from them.

I imagine that's pretty annoying.

But I suppose ignoring is easier than considering why you can't answer these questions.

OH AREN'T YOU FUNNY.
You are the one running away from facts and cold hard evidence.


NAME SOMEBODY WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.


PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

King Mob

Ruby gray wrote: »

OH AREN'T YOU FUNNY.

That's a matter of taste.
I wasn't trying to be funny.

Ruby gray wrote: »

You are the one running away from facts and cold hard evidence.

But I'm not. I've explained this to you many many times. You keep ignoring the points.

We both know why you're ignoring them.

Ruby gray wrote: »

NAME SOMEBODY WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY ACROSS THE BRIDGE.

I don't know any who did. Never claimed otherwise.

Any chance you found the names of people who saw the plane fly up and over the pentagon?
As you yelled:

Ruby gray wrote: »

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are using a trick here. You are deliberately changing the parameters, this is because 9/11 truthers know that the flight path is easier to dispute that the Pentagon literally being struck by the aircraft - which is naturally why they do it. Which is bizarre behaviour when you think about it.

A plane heading to the Pentagon from two contrasting spots is a big deal. Debunkers of course downplay the FDR does not support the US government position
FDR showed flight 77 was heading along the path outlined by the US government, you be using it as evidence to discredit us here!!1! You being a hypocrite here.

Friends of yours claim missing data. Missing seconds of data, frames at the end, but where? The plane entire travel is indicated from the airport to the bridge at the Pentagon. There can’t be missing seconds from this tape like debunkers like to defend? If there was how come they have not produced this fresh animation in over a decade?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Friends of yours claim missing data. Missing seconds of data, frames at the end, but where? The plane entire travel is indicated from the airport to the bridge at the Pentagon. There can’t be missing seconds from this tape like debunkers like to defend? If there was how come they have not produced this fresh animation in over a decade?

But your conspiracy friend there just claimed that the entire set of data was fabricated.

Also, the flight data does not show the plane flying over and away from the pentagon? How is that possible if the data wasn't tampered with?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do you not believe the FDR is an important item of evidence, yes/no.

It's an important piece of evidence. It's been examined (by experts and proper air crash investigators) and supports the fact that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

You, an internet lay-person, are trying to distort/twist the interpretation of the data in order to hint there's some discrepancy, in order to cast doubt on the event, in order to suggest some unspecified changeable conspiracy took place

There's no logic or reason or rational to that approach. You've decided the event is some sort of "conspiracy" in your head, and you keep trying to randomly discredit everything you can, in order to suggest "something else" happened. And as demonstrated you have zero interest in supporting that "something else"

An endless hamster wheel of blind denial and discreditation

To the eye it looks like a plane has crashed at the Pentagon but was that plane Flight 77? We assuming here also was only one plane in the area heading to the Pentagon?

You've just suggested a brand new theory. That an aircraft hit but it's not Flight 77 now, correct? and another one, "multiple aircraft"

What is your support evidence for this new theory?

This isn't the "multi-verse", multiple sequences of events didn't take place, on that day, one thing happened. If you are claiming a "different plane" hit the Pentagon, show us the credible supporting evidence for that

Denial and discrediting stuff is not supporting evidence of anything. This has been explained to you many times now

You can't endlessly deny e.g. the Battle of Hastings to hint that some conspiracy took place instead. Yet that's all you do here.

Dohnjoe

List is growing

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but from a "slightly different angle"
Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon
Flight 77 wasn't really Flight 77
There were multiple aircraft that day

It's like an incredulity based choose-your-own-adventure. I wonder what their wikipedia pages would look like, I am guessing very blank

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

List is growing

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but from a "slightly different angle"
Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon
Flight 77 wasn't really Flight 77
There were multiple aircraft that day

It's like an incredulity based choose-your-own-adventure. I wonder what their wikipedia pages would look like, I am guessing very blank

We've also had the idea that this rando taxi driver was part of the conspiracy and not part of the conspiracy.

Oh and also, it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and all the eyewitnesses that said otherwise were completely wrong. You can't trust eyewitness testimony don't you know.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Oh and also, it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and all the eyewitnesses that said otherwise were completely wrong. You can't trust eyewitness testimony don't you know.

I can't believe this has to be spelled out but it does..

Witnesses, for an event that e.g. happens in a few seconds, can be individually unreliable when it comes to precise details. An individual witness can also be wrong, or change their story.

This is why investigators always look at the consensus of witnesses. Along with all the other corroborating information.

For example a couple of witnesses claim they saw a corporate jet. That doesn't mean "ZOMG offiCiaL NarRatIve FalSe, it Was ANoTher PlaNe", it means those two witnesses, from their viewpoints, and proximity, and their limited information saw what they believed was a smaller aircraft.

There is obviously no other evidence of a corporate jet being hijacked or striking the Pentagon. The witness consensus is that a large aircraft of the type of Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, and there is a vast amount of other evidence supporting that. In fact, the evidence is completely conclusive without witness testimony.

Again, this is all elementary and should not need to be explained, but here we are, in a 9/11 thread where it seems to continually "fly over the heads" (sorry) of certain individuals

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I can't believe this has to be spelled out but it does..

Witnesses, for an event that e.g. happens in a few seconds, can be individually unreliable when it comes to precise details. An individual witness can also be wrong, or change their story.

This is why investigators always look at the consensus of witnesses. Along with all the other corroborating information.

For example a couple of witnesses claim they saw a corporate jet. That doesn't mean "ZOMG offiCiaL NarRatIve FalSe, it Was ANoTher PlaNe", it means those two witnesses, from their viewpoints, and proximity, and their limited information saw what they believed was a smaller aircraft.

There is obviously no other evidence of a corporate jet being hijacked or striking the Pentagon. The witness consensus is that a large aircraft of the type of Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, and there is a vast amount of other evidence supporting that. In fact, the evidence is completely conclusive without witness testimony.

Again, this is all elementary and should not need to be explained, but here we are, in a 9/11 thread where it seems to continually "fly over the heads" (sorry) of certain individuals

Yup.
These guys aren't stupid either, so they realise this too.
They know they can't answer these issues. They know they can't answer the questions. That's why they avoid them.

I just don't get why someone would do that.
Why believe in something you know isn't true and you know you can't make sense of?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's an important piece of evidence. It's been examined (by experts and proper air crash investigators) and supports the fact that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

You, an internet lay-person, are trying to distort/twist the interpretation of the data in order to hint there's some discrepancy, in order to cast doubt on the event, in order to suggest some unspecified changeable conspiracy took place

There's no logic or reason or rational to that approach. You've decided the event is some sort of "conspiracy" in your head, and you keep trying to randomly discredit everything you can, in order to suggest "something else" happened. And as demonstrated you have zero interest in supporting that "something else"

My suspicion is the agencies investigating the crash, did not cooperate, share the same notes here and people who decoded the FDR might not have been aware of the information we examining here. It very remote the NTSB crowd would research back where the plane was at precise time and place? The saw Flight 77 heading to the Pentagon and that as far there mind would delve into the content?

How does one warp and twist a visual image? I uploaded a FAA video screenshot- the plane over the top of the Navy Annex flying a north path to the east. Do you think i have uploaded a fraudulent image here? You posting lot of waffle here to make it read like we are crazy ones here for discussing it. But your posts are always like this so no surprise.

Invented a conspiracy? What have you provided to show the plane on the southside of the Navy Annex? We are pages in and still nothing to prove the official story correct.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Invented a conspiracy? What have you provided to show the plane on the southside of the Navy Annex? We are pages in and still nothing to prove the official story correct.

It's pages in and you guys haven't actually outlined your alternative story fully or coherently.
You yourself have changed your story completely at least 3 times now.

And most importantly you can't actually explain why the government would say the plane flew in on a different path.
You can't explain it. You know you can't explain it.

Cheerful Spring2

Flight 77 flying to the left, and above the top of the Navy Annex on 9/11 "heading a northpath to the east"

The FAA/ Norad animation made after the decoded the FDR.



If this is an accurate animation, the plane can't be flight 77, since the US government plane flying over the top of a highway and houses to the far right side of the Navy Annex. In their description the plane nowhere near the Navy Annex building.



Green/turquoise line is the official flight path. The red dots around the building is the Navy Annex ( notice there no plane heading that way compare with the FDR!)
Yellow lines. Is where eyewitnesses said they saw the plane.
The FDR appears to confirm the yellow line eyewitnesses are right?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Flight 77 flying to the left, and above the top of the Navy Annex on 9/11 "heading a northpath to the east"

You keep posting this cheerful, but it doesn't help you. It doesn't address the central problem.

The government have no reason to say the plane flew in on a different path than it did.
It literally makes no sense. You know it makes no sense.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

My suspicion is the agencies investigating the crash, did not cooperate

No one cares what your suspicions/beliefs are. There are people who suspect or believe the world is flat, it doesn't mean anything, its irrelevant.

What can be demonstrated with proper evidence?

For example, explain how the team that handled the forensic examination of the Pentagon, identifying the passengers and crew - how did they get it wrong?

Step by step from the ground up. Were they paid off? then explain who paid them with evidence. Did they not link the DNA correct? cool then demonstrate that with proper evidence

If you can't demonstrate it, then you are just making stuff up based on personal beliefs/suspicions

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

Explain what happened in this photo. Name the building in the photo, which face of the building is it, and what has just occurred according to you..

Why is there smoke coming out of it, etc..

King Mob

Yea Ruby random images with MSpaint all over it isn't going to be very convincing.
It also doesn't address any of the issues or questions you're running away from.
It doesn't solve the central problem. The government wouldn't lie about the flight path as they have no reason to.
It makes no sense for them to do so.
You know it makes zero sense, hence why you keep dodging the issue.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No one cares what your suspicions/beliefs are. There are people who suspect or believe the world is flat, it doesn't mean anything, its irrelevant.

What can be demonstrated with proper evidence?

For example, explain how the team that handled the forensic examination of the Pentagon, identifying the passengers and crew - how did they get it wrong?

Step by step from the ground up. Were they paid off? then explain who paid them with evidence. Did they not link the DNA correct? cool then demonstrate that with proper evidence

If you can't demonstrate it, then you are just making stuff up based on personal beliefs/suspicions

Still not getting it. If the airplane not on the path the US government says it was what else about the narrative is dubious.
You can’t have two airplanes at various spots heading to the Pentagon.

Ruby gray

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Flight 77 flying to the left, and above the top of the Navy Annex on 9/11 "heading a northpath to the east"

The FAA/ Norad animation made after the decoded the FDR.



If this is an accurate animation, the plane can't be flight 77, since the US government plane flying over the top of a highway and houses to the far right side of the Navy Annex. In their description the plane nowhere near the Navy Annex building.



Green/turquoise line is the official flight path. The red dots around the building is the Navy Annex ( notice there no plane heading that way compare with the FDR!)
Yellow lines. Is where eyewitnesses said they saw the plane.
The FDR appears to confirm the yellow line eyewitnesses are right?

Indeed!!
And there are many more eyewitnesses who can be proven to have seen the plane fly perpendicular to the west wall of the Pentagon, hundreds of metres away from that official flightpath which nobody ever did see.

Ruby gray

King Mob wrote: »

Yea Ruby random images with MSpaint all over it isn't going to be very convincing.
It also doesn't address any of the issues or questions you're running away from.
It doesn't solve the central problem. The government wouldn't lie about the flight path as they have no reason to.
It makes no sense for them to do so.
You know it makes zero sense, hence why you keep dodging the issue.

The synapses are clearly misfiring.
You have absolutely everything backwards.

King Mob

Ruby gray wrote: »

The synapses are clearly misfiring.
You have absolutely everything backwards.

Nope. You're just avoiding the question because you can't answer it.

You know you can't answer it. You know it's a major issue for your conspiracy beliefs.
Everyone else know it too.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Still not getting it. If the airplane not on the path the US government says it was what else about the narrative is dubious.
You can’t have two airplanes at various spots heading to the Pentagon.

Cheerful, the "north" path is the one you guys have been claiming is the "real one."

The official flight path is to the south of that.

Again, I think this is a result of you not understanding something basic like compass directions and how to correctly say them.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Still not getting it.

You just claimed there was multiple aircraft or another aircraft from flight 77

What is your evidence there was multiple aircraft?

What is your evidence there was "another" aircraft?

To make things even more incredible, you've spent months and months stating, as fact, that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Yet here you are agreeing with someone who claims a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

Which is it?

Is it Shrodingers plane, it both missed the Pentagon and hit the Pentagon?

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

And again, what is this building and what has just happened to it?

Ruby gray

Many people know that there were several eyewitnesses at the CITGO GAS STATION who saw the plane flying to the NORTH of the station, on a flightpath absolutely irrecooncilable with the government's story which claims the plane flew across the Columbia Pike overpass bridge.

Citizen Investigation Team interviewed three of these witnesses on video -

PPO Sergeant William Lagasse

PPO Sergeant Chadwick Brooks

CITGO employee Robert Turcios.


Most people are unaware that there was another significant, identifiable eyewitness there, on the opposite sideof the gas pump where Lagasse was.

This was STATE TROOPER MYRLIN WIMBISH.

His location is positively confirmed on the CCTV footage.

Wimbish testified that he was at the gas pump facing west, when he saw the plane flying directly towards him over the Navy Annex.

As the plane was flying past, the sun reflected off its silver fuselage, southwest onto Wimbish's car, and up onto the ceiling under the canopy. This was caught in a frame of the video.

We then immediately see Wimbish's car pull away, and also the cashier staff rushing to the door. They had testified that the building shook from the noise as the plane flew over, and they ran to see what was happening.

About 20 seconds later, after he had radioed the Pentagon, Lagasse reversed out of the station and headed to the Pentagon.

Wimbish was not an eyewitness to a plane impact. He was facing the wrong direction.

But he was absolutely a NORTH OF CITGO EYEWITNESS.

King Mob

Ruby gray wrote: »

Many people know...

And now we've entered the stage where you're just going to ignore any dissenting though or questions and will only regurgitate factoids you have learned from conspiracy websites.

Why do this when you know your conspiracy doesn't make any sense and you can neither explain it or defend it?

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

Many people know that there were many eyewitnesses at the CITGO GAS STATION who saw the plane flying to the NORTH of the station, on a flightpath absolutely irrecooncilable with the government's story which claims the plane flew across the Columbia Pike overpass bridge.

Many people don't know. Why? because this flight path and selective quoting and perceptions of witnesses is a niche denial of events created entirely by 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

These 911 conspiracy theorists can't answer basic questions on their theory, can't provide proper evidence, they can't even describe the theory in any detail, sound familiar?

It's simply an exercise in playing "he said, she said" with witness statements for no other reason that to muddy the waters in order to hint that something else, unspecified, must have happened

I'll ask again but you keep avoiding basic questions

1. How many witnesses saw the plane flying over the Pentagon?

and

2. What happened to this plane that allegedly flew over the Pentagon? what happened to the Pentagon?

Remember this is the equivalent of someone playing with witness/survivor statements about the Titanic in order to fabricate perceived contradictions in order to state that it didn't hit an iceberg... and then never answering a single question about that theory

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Many people don't know. Why? because this flight path and selective quoting and perceptions of witnesses is a niche denial of events created entirely by 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

And AFAIR, these pictures are from a crowd who are arguing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon. Something which cheerful has denied previously and described as crazy.
Not sure if that's something ruby subscribes to, as they have not been very open or forthcoming about their beliefs for some reason.

Also I'm not sure if that conspiracy crowd also subscribe to the notion of holographic planes, but their images sure are used a lot by those who do...

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

And AFAIR, these pictures are from a crowd who are arguing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon. Something which cheerful has denied previously and described as crazy.
Not sure if that's something ruby subscribes to, as they have not been very open or forthcoming about their beliefs for some reason.

Also I'm not sure if that conspiracy crowd also subscribe to the notion of holographic planes, but their images sure are used a lot by those who do...

Note how neither are not addressing the damage to the Pentagon (or any other questions) The level of sheer dishonesty here is staggering.

Malaysian Airliners flight 370 - that's a mystery, we still don't know what happened, look it up on any reference, wikipedia, etc, to this day it's an open case.

But the Pentagon attack? we know what happened, there is no mystery, case is closed. Yet here we have individuals suggesting something else happened, but they won't even explain what that something is..

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

But the Pentagon attack? we know what happened, there is no mystery, case is closed. Yet here we have individuals suggesting something else happened, but they won't even explain what that something is..

I think there's a few possibilities here:

They know what they believe can't stand up to even the barest level of questioning thus are purposefully avoiding being open about it.

They don't actually have a solid belief as that isn't as important as it being a conspiracy in the first place. Anything will do as long as it's a conspiracy and they can flip back and forth between beliefs when it suits.

They are only regurgitating what they are told by conspiracy theory websites who don't supply a solid alternative narrative for the same reasons above.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You just claimed there was multiple aircraft or another aircraft from flight 77

What is your evidence there was multiple aircraft?

What is your evidence there was "another" aircraft?

To make things even more incredible, you've spent months and months stating, as fact, that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Yet here you are agreeing with someone who claims a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

Which is it?

Is it Shrodingers plane, it both missed the Pentagon and hit the Pentagon?

A flight data recorder (FDR; also ADR, for accident data recorder) is an electronic device employed to record instructions sent to any electronic systems on an aircraft. The data recorded by the FDR are used for accident and incident investigation.

The airplane can only be on the south-side for the official story to be true:cool:

Unfortunately for Dohnjoe and friends the FDR does not show it on that side. You have to show us evidence the NTSB animation released is not genuine and true? You apparently cannot see why the official story disputed here

Yes but feelings have nothing to do with it.. If flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon it did not crash in the way the government said it did.

The Northside plane direction true, or the Southside direction true., which is it?

The only way people see two planes, there was two planes flying to the Pentagon at the same time of the day?

The Northside direction is legitimate, then Ruby version of what happened at the Pentagon makes a lot more sense.

Southside direction does not support Ruby conspiracy. I just want to know where the plane was i have little care for feelings here and what you believe happened here Dohnjoe.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The airplane can only be on the south-side for the official story to be true:cool:

According to you did Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon or not?

Was it flight 77?

Were there multiple planes?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to you did Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon or not?

Was it flight 77?

Were there multiple planes?

Is the FDR supporting the official flight path? You refuse to give us an honest. answer.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is the FDR supporting the official flight path? You refuse to give us an honest. answer.

The FDR data corroborates the ATC and flight radar data, we know the approximate route Hani took.

Note the simple questions and answers:

Did a plane hit the Pentagon? Yes
Which side? the western side
Which plane? AA Flight 77
Piloted by who? Hani Hanjour
What time? Approx 9:37 Sept 11

Yet in your personal imagination that did happen and it didn't happen. The plane flew over, the plane flew into, there were multiple planes, flight 77 "didn't exist"..

You literally post a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon - then you also entertain that it didn't..

So did a plane hit the Pentagon or not? and which plane was it?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The FDR data corroborates the ATC and flight radar data, we know the approximate route Hani took.

Note the simple questions and answers:

Did a plane hit the Pentagon? Yes
Which side? the western side
Which plane? AA Flight 77
Piloted by who? Hani Hanjour
What time? Approx 9:37 Sept 11

Yet in your personal imagination that did happen and it didn't happen. The plane flew over, the plane flew into, there were multiple planes, flight 77 "didn't exist"..

You literally post a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon - then you also entertain that it didn't..

So did a plane hit the Pentagon or not? and which plane was it?

Hani was not photographed in the airplane cabin pilot seat, so how you can say 100 percent he was the pilot?
The only evidence Hani was even there to hijack a plane is the few minutes of Dulles Airport tape the US government releases that show men going through the security baggage gate. That tape has no date of the month or timestamp. From Insurance company files the hijackers boarded flights from Dulles airport pre 9/11 attack. Is the footage from 9/11? Why would they even carry luggage bags when they’re going to die onboard the plane?

Route matters here because the South path plane knocking over the 5 light poles in a particular pattern. The northside plane can’t knock the 5 light poles the same way the US government depicted in their diagrams. The direction actually matters plenty, you have not got that point yet and probably never will!!!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hani was not photographed in the airplane cabin pilot seat, so how you can say 100 percent he was the pilot?

Who was then?
Was there a pilot seat.

Could you post all of the photos you have of the plane flying along the path you believe?
And the photos of the plane flying over the pentagon and away.
And the photos of people planting the fake evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hani was not photographed in the airplane cabin pilot seat, so how you can say 100 percent he was the pilot?

How do historians know Henry the Eighth existed if there's no photograph of him?

How are thousands of people convicted of murder when there's no photograph of them at the murder scene or committing the murder?

Think.

These types of comments display a shocking lack of understanding about basic concepts

The Nal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

How do historians know Henry the Eighth existed if there's no photograph of him?

How are thousands of people convicted of murder when there's no photograph of them at the murder scene or committing the murder?

Think.

These types of comments display a shocking lack of understanding about basic concepts

Even if there was a photo, its authenticity would be disputed. Such as the airport video of them going through security, Oswalds back yard photos etc.

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

Even if there was a photo, its authenticity would be disputed. Such as the airport video of them going through security, Oswalds back yard photos etc.

"Hold on Hani, don't crash yet, we need to take a photo of you in the pilot's seat"

- "Why??"

"In the future there will be conspiracy theorists who won't believe it's you.."

- "What!? I boarded the plane in my own name! I purchased a first class ticket! I was filmed going through the metal detector! I am friends and roommates with the other hijackers! I trained to fly planes with them! I took constant cross-country flights with them to test security! My DNA will be found in the wreckage! any basic investigation will immediately show it's me with no other suspects, plus I'll be dead, how in ****s name will anything think it's not me?"

"Trust me, we need that photo"

The Nal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Hold on Hani, don't crash yet, we need to take a photo of you in the pilot's seat"

- "Why??"

"In the future there will be conspiracy theorists who won't believe it's you.."

- "What!? I boarded the plane in my own name! I purchased a first class ticket! I was filmed going through the metal detector! I am friends and roommates with the other hijackers! I trained to fly planes with them! I took constant cross-country flights with them to test security! My DNA will be found in the wreckage! any basic investigation will immediately show it's me with no other suspects, plus I'll be dead, how in ****s name will anything think it's not me?"

"Trust me, we need that photo"

Lets not forget that some people (Cheerful) claims that the a lack of footage not showing Tower 7 being rigged with explosives is proof that Tower 7 was rigged with explosives.

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

Lets not forget that some people (Cheerful) claims that the a lack of footage not showing Tower 7 being rigged with explosives is proof that Tower 7 was rigged with explosives.

But wait Cheerful 100% believes people planted explosives in the building but doesn't have photographic evidence of them planting explosives..

So how does that work?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

How do historians know Henry the Eighth existed if there's no photograph of him?

How are thousands of people convicted of murder when there's no photograph of them at the murder scene or committing the murder?

Think.

These types of comments display a shocking lack of understanding about basic concepts

You love your comparisons and analogies

It’s a silly observation and comparison when they’re a good deal of evidence to show Henry VIII was the King of England. You’re claiming in this instance to know 100 percent, the pilot of Flight 77 was Hani Hanjour? Where you onboard the plane to see it?

Forgetting here is this information told is unsound when it's the neoconservatives belief. The neocons managed and controlled all the 9/11 investigations after Sep 11th. These same leaders lied continually about everything after 9/11 but for 9/11 they had a conscience and told the truth there?

Hani Hanjour hijacked a plane. The video is the only evidence for it. That video absent all identification markings like date, time, and so forth. It can’t be substantiated to be from that day with no date and time here. You not interested in have all the details of a crime.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You’re claiming in this instance to know 100 percent, the pilot of Flight 77 was Hani Hanjour? Where you onboard the plane to see it?

No I'm not, you're attributing that falsely to me.

The evidence points to Hani piloting the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, there are no other suspects, there is no other credible theory. Therefore it's currently widely accepted that Hani piloted the flight.

If you look it up on any credible site, that's the information you will find, because that's what the evidence supports. That's the conclusion I support.

We don't say 100% or 1000% because technically it's possible one of the other terrorists literally took the controls at some stage in the flight. It's clear from your comments that you have extreme difficulty understanding any of these basic nuances (or you are wilfully misunderstanding them). No one can help you with that but yourself.

Cheerful Spring2

The Nal wrote: »

Lets not forget that some people (Cheerful) claims that the a lack of footage not showing Tower 7 being rigged with explosives is proof that Tower 7 was rigged with explosives.

We have good deal of proof for a conspiracy. The structural collapse published by NIST is impossible. They even admit on video they had to invent a new progressive collapse here to illustrate the collapse on that day. They removed construction fittings from the structural steel and that’s highly irregular practice to model a break that way. You model that building with its fittings in place, that how the building was before 9/11.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No I'm not, you're attributing that falsely to me.

The evidence points to Hani piloting the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, there are no other suspects, there is no other credible theory. Therefore it's currently widely accepted that Hani piloted the flight.

If you look it up on any credible site, that's the information you will find, because that's what the evidence supports. That's the conclusion I support.

The only evidence is the unverified security video. There no footage of Hani in other places at this airport. The men seem to have superpowers to avoid all the cameras outside the airport, duty free and walk areas. Are we saying here this only footage of the men at the airport?

Why would the tape have no time and date? Airport tape with no date and time doesn't make sense.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The only evidence is the unverified security video. There no footage of Hani in other places at this airport. The men seem to have superpowers to avoid all the cameras outside the airport, duty free and walk areas. Are we saying here this only footage of the men at the airport?

Why would the tape have no time and date? Airport tape with no date and time doesn't make sense.

So then who did pilot the plane? Where is the photos you have of this person?

Or if you are not completely changing your stance, could you provide a photo of the missile being launched?

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We have good deal of proof for a conspiracy.

We don't. There is no proof. There isn't even any credible evidence. Its been 19 years. No one has come forward. This conspiracy would've had to involve so many people, someone would've talked or slipped up.

Washington is the leakiest city in the world. With every passing year a conspiracy becomes less likely. Hence why the truther movement is dead, apart from the odd internet forum.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

We don't. There is no proof. There isn't even any credible evidence. Its been 19 years. No one has come forward. This conspiracy would've had to involve so many people, someone would've talked or slipped up.

We're also waiting for a coherent, rational alternative explanation for events.