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

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A "deep black project event" - because giving a made-up scenario a made-up conspiracy sounding name definitely lends credibility

Ah the neocons under Bush, couldn't stop leaked memos coming out of the WH on an almost weekly basis, couldn't keep rendition a secret, couldn't plant WMDs in the desert, Rove and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz couldn't hold onto their respective jobs. A competent bunch.

Bush may not have known about this. Rumsfield group probably did. They had envisioned this scenario for America's future. It's blueprint of action.

You're ignoring the evidence though because your belief system can't comprehend it!

The FDR data from Flight 77 actually proves the Plane did not hit any light poles. You have to show me why the Flight 77 FDR data is fraudulent? This computer simulation came directly from the NTSB it can't be faked, in any way. Can dispute other stuff in the FDR data but not the position of the plane!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I not lying maybe you see things I never wrote. If you can find a quote where I said something different in this thread post it (quote me). I always stated the hole was 14 feet in height (first floor) not the width of the hole along the first floor of E ring.

Those diagrams are taken from the Pentagon performance report. How am i misrepresenting visual aids belonging to them? There visual aids taken from their report? Diagram clearly shows missing columns 10 and 11.

Do you not understand a plane has height?

Yes and the hole extends over two floors.
Which according to you makes it 28 ft tall, which is enough to fit the fuselage of the plane.

You have never bothered to confirm any measurements at any point because you were just told them by YouTube videos and you swallowed them all.

You have constantly lied, contradicted yourself and ignored questions.

I asked you to explain why they would just simply use a 757.
You ignore it because you know you have no answer.
There is no answer.
Point out all the "inconsistencies" you like, but if you can't answer that question, the conspiracy theory you are proposing is a joke.

King Mob

I like how a country with a powerful intelligence network and countless experts were somehow oblivious to this plot, yet random people on the Internet where able to crack it without leaving their keyboards.
(or actually researching apparently)

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have to show me

At the risk of repeating myself here. No, no I don't.

This is your "theory". It involves a fairly senile taxi driver, an "A3 Skywarrior" and now Rumsfeld.. keep going..

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself here. No, no I don't.

This is your "theory". It involves a fairly senile taxi driver, an "A3 Skywarrior" and now Rumsfeld.. keep going..

Yes, you do because you're disputing the FDR Flight 77 data! I don't even have to go any further than this to prove this attack was staged. The FDR data is proof the light poles were not knocked down by a plane. If the light poles were staged it very likely everything was a staged managed event.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes and the hole extends over two floors.
Which according to you makes it 28 ft tall, which is enough to fit the fuselage of the plane.

You have never bothered to confirm any measurements at any point because you were just told them by YouTube videos and you swallowed them all.

You have constantly lied, contradicted yourself and ignored questions.

I asked you to explain why they would just simply use a 757.
You ignore it because you know you have no answer.
There is no answer.
Point out all the "inconsistencies" you like, but if you can't answer that question, the conspiracy theory you are proposing is a joke.

Yes there evidence of a plane if the FDR Flight 77 is not fraudulent. The FDR data traces the flight path going North of the Navy Annex. This flight path takes the plane away from the flight path needed to take down light poles. The plane had to be in a Southward position.

I don't know maybe Skeptics did not notice where the plane position was? Mike West a well-known Skeptic clearly didn't.

Cheerful Spring

I post again side by side to show you guys.

NSTB Flight Data. Notice where the plane position is!


Mike West.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote:

This is your "theory". It involves a fairly senile taxi driver, an "A3 Skywarrior" and now Rumsfeld.. keep going..

To summarise:

The government decided to crash a plane into the Pentagon, but realise that this is impossible as the Sam sites there (that somehow never shoot down any of the planes flying over the Pentagon and definitely exist) would make it obvious if something gets through.

However rather than pick a different target that's more believable, they decide to turn of the totally real and not fictional missile batteries and just hope people won't notice.

Next they realise that a 757 can't do the complicated maneuver they want the plane to do for no reason. So rather than pick an easier, more possible flight plan, then change planes. They pick something smaller and of an entirely different design and hope no one notices.

But then they realise that people might notice, so they paint the plane white, or maybe silver or maybe half and half. Then they also add American Airlines livery just in case someone is looking close enough to see that, but somehow not close enough to notice the fact it's not a 757.

Then they add a bomb, which would have to be on the outside of the plane, making it look less like 757. Again this is for no reason.

Then the whole thing goes down, but they decide that they need to make it more convincing. So they grab a random taxi driver and tell him to say he saw the plane knock over lightpoles.
Luckily no one notices them placing the evidence of a 757 despite the thousands of witnesses and dozens of cameras.

But then, whoopsies, despite being really careful to get all of the footage, they accidentally publish the wrong photos in the official reports that apparently prove the hole was too small. And whoopsies they forgot to get the flight data faked and correct. And whoopsies someone forgot to clue in the commissioners and tell them not to find anything
Butterfingers!

I hope the guys doing the twin towers did a better job.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring, you are now trying to gish Gallop away from the points I've made. You are fooling exactly no one.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful Spring, you are now trying to gish Gallop away from the points I've made. You are fooling exactly no one.

Why don't you ever talk about the evidence? I have answered everything you asked already, i only be repeating myself.

Do you think I faked the flight 77 FDR flight path? Don't you think this evidence is important? If the NTSB data is wrong as a Skeptic you should try to debunk it? The Flight 77 FDR proves beyond all doubt this event was staged. Again it up to you to show me why I am wrong!

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful Spring, you are now trying to gish Gallop away from the points I've made. You are fooling exactly no one.

Why don't you ever talk about the evidence? I have answered everything you asked already, i only be repeating myself.

You don't post evidence.
You post assertions, then avoid points and refuse to back stuff up. Then you lie and contradict yourself and ignore questions. Then you spew out dozens of factoids to avoid confronting how flimsy and stupid the conspiracy theory looks.

For example, it should be trivial for you to produce the measurements you used to reach the conclusion the hole is too small. Yet you refuse to do so and change those measurements constantly.

I'm trying to get you to focus on one point rather than chasing you around on dozens of unsupported claims.
But it's clear that you are incapable of defending any of your claims in any meaningful way.

So now rather than actually expend energy to debunk your conspiracy claims, I'll just point out the silly and hilarious implications of them, like above

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You don't post evidence.
You post assertions, then avoid points and refuse to back stuff up. Then you lie and contradict yourself and ignore questions. Then you spew out dozens of factoids to avoid confronting how flimsy and stupid the conspiracy theory looks.

For example, it should be trivial for you to produce the measurements you used to reach the conclusion the hole is too small. Yet you refuse to do so and change those measurements constantly.

I'm trying to get you to focus on one point rather than chasing you around on dozens of unsupported claims.
But it's clear that you are incapable of defending any of your claims in any meaningful way.

So now rather than actually expend energy to debunk your conspiracy claims, I'll just point out the silly and hilarious implications of them, like above

It called evidence is not just words I posted. I backing everything I say up with hard data including video, photography, quotes from eyewitnesses.

You have the video released by the NTSB to look at yourself and tell me where I am going wrong. You are choosing not to have a real debate. You prefer to maintain your belief system about 9/11 even though the evidence is there this was a staged event.

It hard to debate someone who refuses to even believe the NTSB video is real? What do you believe the truthers got the NTSB to release a fake computer simulation of flight 77 path to the Pentagon?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Again it up to you to show me why I am wrong!

Again nope.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It called evidence is not just words I posted. I backing everything I say up with hard data including video, photography, quotes from eyewitnesses.
.

Mm hmm?
So those measurements...?
Please give the exact numbers and sources from where you got them.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have the video released by the NTSB to look at yourself and tell me where I am going wrong. You are choosing not to have a real debate. You prefer to maintain your belief system about 9/11 even though the evidence is there this was a staged event.

Ok, let's pretend this is how you say it is.
What's the conspiracy theory explanation for it?
Why is it different?
Why was it released if it disproves the official story so blatantly?

If you ignore these questions, I'll just assume you can't answer them and there is no conspiracy explanation.

Dohnjoe

For anyone genuinely interested in this rabbit hole..

This interpretation of the FDR still stands; here (despite many attempts by P4T)

The fun beings here

jimmycrackcorm

Cheerful Spring wrote:

It called evidence is not just words I posted. I backing everything I say up with hard data including video, photography, quotes from eyewitnesses.

Now you're just making everything up. Your slipping up at your job.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Mm hmm?
So those measurements...?
Please give the exact numbers and sources from where you got them.

Ok, let's pretend this is how you say it is.
What's the conspiracy theory explanation for it?
Why is it different?
Why was it released if it disproves the official story so blatantly?

If you ignore these questions, I'll just assume you can't answer them and there is no conspiracy explanation.

I did the measurements in this thread already maybe you missed that part?

Here is how I got 14 feet in height on the first floor. What else you need to know? 71 feet divided by 5 is 14 feet thereabouts.
https://pentagontours.osd.mil/Tours/facts-navigating.jsp US government website.

Maybe there is no conspiracy to the release of the NTSB data? Maybe they could not get their hands on the data it was too well-protected somewhere?. Tip someone off they are trying to carry out a crime was too risky? NTSB folks who released this maybe not aware of a plane knocking down light poles and how it's important to the official story? I don't expect everyone in government circles to be informed about 9/11, they just know the basics of what they saw on TV.

The problem is the NTSB flight data has Flight 77 (after it did the loop) drop altitude and then fly North of the Navy Annex building. The official narrative is plane was heading southward of the Navy Annex building, the opposite side. It can only line up to hit the 5 light poles that got knocked down if it was heading in that Southward direction.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

For anyone genuinely interested in this rabbit hole..

This interpretation of the FDR still stands; here (despite many attempts by P4T)

The fun beings here

Where is the information disputing the position of the plane? That Skeptic link has 109 pages who going to spend their time reading that. Since you posted this where do the Skeptics place the FDR plane near the Navy Annex?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe

This link you posted here http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

The data file shows a bank to the right, reaching about 6 degrees, while the plane is passing
the Navy Annex. This apparently was so brief as to have had little effect. After passing the
Annex, which occurs at about 4 seconds prior to impact, the bank declines to about 3
degrees. This is held for the last 3 seconds, and then the final recorded bank angle shows a
sudden drop to zero. It is therefore surprising to see that the ASCE Pentagon Building
Performance Report includes a sketch (Fig. 3) showing a left bank

Passing what side of the Navy Annex though? Did he leave this out?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I did the measurements in this thread already maybe you missed that part?

Here is how I got 14 feet in height on the first floor. What else you need to know? 71 feet divided by 5 is 14 feet thereabouts.
https://pentagontours.osd.mil/Tours/facts-navigating.jsp US government website.

Lol. "Thereabouts"
Bang up research there.

So now how did you reach the conclusions that the damage to the second floor is too small? How wide is the gap on the second floor?
If the plane hit where it is scraping the ground would it be wide and tall enough to fit the fuselage of the 757? Yes or no?
If no, why not?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Maybe there is no conspiracy to the release of the NTSB data? .

Not what you said earlier. I smell more back tracking.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Maybe they could not get their hands on the data it was too well-protected somewhere?.
.

Why wouldn't they? They apparently had access to literally everything else. Why would they not have access to that?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Tip someone off they are trying to carry out a crime was too risky?.

Lol. But using an entirely different plane to attack a place that's obviously unattackable in a way that's impossible for a normal plane to do so for no reason is not risking tipping someone off?
Leaving this evidence out for conspiracy theorists to use isn't tipping someone off?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

NTSB folks who released this maybe not aware of a plane knocking down light poles and how it's important to the official story? I don't expect everyone in government circles to be informed about 9/11, they just know the basics of what they saw on TV.

So why couldn't they stop it from being released? NTSB are just uncorruptable and too powerful to be controlled?
If that's the case why would they say that this is the data from flight 77 if that plane wasn't the one that flew into the building?
Surely it would indicate that it's from a different plane?

mickdw

Very interesting thread. Lots of angles being debated however until I see a photo or video of the plane heading at the Pentagon, I'm coming down firmly on the side of it being a con job.
It's just mind boggling that no footage is available.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. "Thereabouts"
Bang up research there.

So now how did you reach the conclusions that the damage to the second floor is too small? How wide is the gap on the second floor?
If the plane hit where it is scraping the ground would it be wide and tall enough to fit the fuselage of the 757? Yes or no?
If no, why not?

Not what you said earlier. I smell more back tracking.

Why wouldn't they? They apparently had access to literally everything else. Why would they not have access to that?


Lol. But using an entirely different plane to attack a place that's obviously unattackable in a way that's impossible for a normal plane to do so for no reason is not risking tipping someone off?
Leaving this evidence out for conspiracy theorists to use isn't tipping someone off?

So why couldn't they stop it from being released? NTSB are just uncorruptable and too powerful to be controlled?
If that's the case why would they say that this is the data from flight 77 if that plane wasn't the one that flew into the building?
Surely it would indicate that it's from a different plane?

14x5=70 feet. 1 feet is out not important.

I said the hole on the second floor has an obstruction blocking it shaped like a T., the hole is split into two kind off. Wide enough maybe? Plane parts got through those gaps is not visible though. We also don't know if the second floor collapsed? I found a measurement online for the diameter of the second hole was 15 feet. But Skeptics claim it was 20 feet across so we left with people fighting over the size of the hole on the second floor. The back tail of the plane is about 36 feet there no noticeable markings on the wall above the first floor showing damage, why did the top part not break off? We also can't ignore the damage on the first floor E ring. You can't just pick one area of the building's damage and focus on that everything about the facade damage matters. The missing columns 10 and 11 don't add up either and where did the planes 125 feet wings go surely if the end of the wing broke off this would be visible damage outside the building?

You asking questions I can't answer I don't have inside knowledge. We can piece together a motive though for this event and can figure who some of the players involved are, based on their actions and motivations and belief system.

The Flight 77 Data got out don't ask me how and why it's available. It's out right now for everyone to review and the data clearly not supporting the government flight path for Flight 77 and knocking down light poles. Anyone who thinks differently has to provide an alternative explanation.

King Mob

No **** I'm asking questions you can't answer!
You can't answer them because the conspiracy makes no sense!

If a conspiracy like you are suggesting existed, then the flight data would either be faked to look exactly like it should, so as not to leave you keyboard detectives evidence. Or failing that, it would simply not be released.
They would not release information that would expose the conspiracy.

You cannot even speculate why they would do this because it makes no sense.
Your camp has had 17 years to speculate on this still and they cannot produce anything that isn't laughably silly.

You are the one who needs to provide an alternate explanation and you have just admitted you cannot do that.

Because the conspiracy theory is a joke.

Now back to the question you keep dodging and dancing around.
You have stated that the hole was definitely too small, but now it seems youre using a lot of ifs and maybes and are relying on stuff you half remembered seeing on the Internet.
You were lying when you said you did research.
Half remembering crap from the Internet without checking it is not research

The hole that extends from the first floor to the second floor is large enough for the fuselage. You claiming otherwise is a lie.

King Mob

Spring, could you detail what you think the FDR is from?
Is it from the real flight 77?
The A3 you think existed?
Is it entirely fabricated?

TheChizler

King Mob wrote: »

Spring, could you detail what you think the FDR is from?
Is it from the real flight 77?
The A3 you think existed?
Is it entirely fabricated?

And how the data seemingly fitted with the number and types of sensors that would be found in a 757 rather than the smaller military plane, unless you're saying the NTSB are both competent enough to suit you as evidence but incompetent enough to not be able to tell the two aircraft apart.

King Mob

TheChizler wrote: »

And how the data seemingly fitted with the number and types of sensors that would be found in a 757 rather than the smaller military plane, unless you're saying the NTSB are both competent enough to suit you as evidence but incompetent enough to not be able to tell the two aircraft apart.

Yup. All of those options are incompatible with the conspiracy theory.

It can't be Flight 77, nor could be be another 757, as that would negate the reasons to believe the conspiracy theory.

It can't be fabricated either, as it wouldn't make sense for the conspirators to make evidence that doesn't match their story and is certainly doesn't make sense for them to release it after a freedom of information act.

So that leaves it being the FDR from another plane. But as you point out, that can't be the case either as the people analyzing it would have to be in on the conspiracy as well. There's no way that they would be able to go through the data and not notice something is amiss if it wasn't blatantly obvious to them it was a different plane.
And if they were in on it, then they would have easily been able to alter the data, or failing that, prevent it's release by for example, claiming the data was damaged beyond recovery.
The only other way this could work is if they were as you say, so incompetent that they couldn't tell it was a different plane. In which case it begs the question of why trust their analysis at all if they are that bad. How did they even get the job as a forensic aircrash investigator if they can't tell one plane from the other.

And all of these options are predicated on the notion that the conspirators had to fly the plane in a way that's impossible for a 757 and doesn't match the official story, but then they also couldn't just change the official story to match the data or choose an easier flight path.
We have not seen a single sensible reason for why this might be.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Spring, could you detail what you think the FDR is from?
Is it from the real flight 77?
The A3 you think existed?
Is it entirely fabricated?

FDR computer simulation data is allegedly Flight 77. I have no evidence it doctored data? The FDR flight 77 Data is showing discrepancies when Flight 77 approached the Pentagon after it finished a 360 U turn. Am I discussing this with a well-known Skeptic (not on this site) at the moment privately to figure out what could have caused that course change seen on the NTSB footage? We know the NTSB computer simulation is legitimate though, it came with an FOIA reply Letter.

I have got some answers back, but the discussion is not finished, so I talk about what was said when he gets back to me again and we finish up our conversation.

Cheerful Spring

TheChizler wrote: »

And how the data seemingly fitted with the number and types of sensors that would be found in a 757 rather than the smaller military plane, unless you're saying the NTSB are both competent enough to suit you as evidence but incompetent enough to not be able to tell the two aircraft apart.

Flight 77 flight data has a plane flying on the Northeast side of the Navy Annex. The official version it approached the opposite side (Southwest) If it was Northeast it could not have knocked down the 5 light poles we saw on 9/11 photographs. The Data also has the plane travelling too high to hit the Pentagon on the first floor. If the data is not incorrect the plane would have gone over the building and kept going or it smashed into the wall at the very top of the Pentagon? The only way I can figure this out is finding out what the skeptic analysis is, I already know what the truther camp believes happened.

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

until I see a photo or video of the plane heading at the Pentagon, I'm coming down firmly on the side of it being a con job.
It's just mind boggling that no footage is available.

Most security cameras are pointed downwards. Apparently there were about 12 security cameras which actually caught the plane hitting Pentagon. Seems 2 or 3 have been released so far, the quality is pretty awful, so I am not expecting much from the others

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Most security cameras are pointed downwards. Apparently there were about 12 security cameras which actually caught the plane hitting Pentagon. Seems 2 or 3 have been released so far, the quality is pretty awful, so I am not expecting much from the others

Ya right this camera would have captured the plane no problem.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Ya right

More argument from incredulity. We've only seen 2 or 3 shots of a plane hitting the Pentagon (pretty grainy, low frame affairs) Perhaps they have better footage of it, perhaps not. They don't have to release it, there is absolutely no need.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

. They don't have to release it, there is absolutely no need.

mickdw

One low grade camera looking somewhat directly at the line of flight or from behind like the photo attached above would have clearly captured the plane.
The only one I've seen is the side on image which shows nothing of the plane.

I believe clear footage exists of the pentagon being hit. I also believe that should such footage be released and show the expected airliner, it would go a long way in putting to bed a lot of questions around the whole event.
I therefore have to ask - why no footage released.

Cheerful Spring

I going to tell you to know how it could be possible to rig the Twin Towers to blow. While they could be innocent there is a story that i print surely suggests otherwise. Isreali spies posing as Art Students were given access to empty Rooms above the 90 floor in the North Tower. Coincidentally the same area the North Tower was hit by the first plane.

Here they are pre/911 in the North Tower







UP to 200 young Israelis, some of them former members of military intelligence units, have been arrested in America in the past year, a leaked government report disclosed yesterday.

Some had used cover stories to gain access to sensitive government buildings and the homes of American officials. The report said the actions of some of the Israelis, most of whom had outstayed tourist visas, "may well be an organised intelligence-gathering activity".

The leaked report was compiled by the Drug Enforcement Administration after some of its offices were allegedly targeted by Israelis posing as art students. "That these people are now travelling in the US selling art seems not to fit their background," the DEA report said.


Isreali Spy onboard Flight 11 9B seat that hit the first tower. What strange picture this is. The image behind looks like the towers and his wearing a watch called Hijacker and it's on the time 11

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FDR computer simulation data is allegedly Flight 77. I have no evidence it doctored data? The FDR flight 77 Data is showing discrepancies when Flight 77 approached the Pentagon after it finished a 360 U turn.

It has to be one of those three options however.
You are excluding the idea that it's faked or doctored.

So that leaves either it being the real Flight 77, or it's from your imaginary A3.
Which is it?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Am I discussing this with a well-known Skeptic (not on this site) at the moment privately to figure out what could have caused that course change seen on the NTSB footage?

Mm hmm. We believe you. :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

We know the NTSB computer simulation is legitimate though, it came with an FOIA reply Letter.

Lol, why?
Why would it being a FOIA thing prevent the conspirators from stopping it or tampering with it or outright faking it?
How do you know for a fact it's real?

And I take it that now you've ignored the points again, you've conceded that the damage to the pentagon is consistent with a normal 757 crashing into it.

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

it would go a long way in putting to bed a lot of questions around the whole event.

Plenty of footage of 911 has existed since day 1, didn't deter the conspiracy theorists in the slightest

There are "questions" about whether vaccinations work, whether the Sandy Hook shooting was a false flag, whether the Holocaust was a hoax.. the presence of questions doesn't mean much

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

I believe clear footage exists of the pentagon being hit. I also believe that should such footage be released and show the expected airliner, it would go a long way in putting to bed a lot of questions around the whole event.

Not really. We have footage of the planes hitting the twin towers, yet there's accusations of that being faked, the planes being different or having "pods" or that the planes are holograms and the towers were destroyed by space lasers.
If the footage existed and was released and it was clear as day, it wouldn't convince anyone.

mickdw wrote: »

I therefore have to ask - why no footage released.

So what's the conspiracy theory answer?
Why couldn't they set up a few extra cameras to make sure they got the footage?
Why couldn't they have faked the footage beforehand or at any time between then and now?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

It has to be one of those three options however.
You are excluding the idea that it's faked or doctored.

So that leaves either it being the real Flight 77, or it's from your imaginary A3.
Which is it?


Mm hmm. We believe you. :rolleyes:


Lol, why?
Why would it being a FOIA thing prevent the conspirators from stopping it or tampering with it or outright faking it?
How do you know for a fact it's real?

And I take it that now you've ignored the points again, you've conceded that the damage to the pentagon is consistent with a normal 757 crashing into it.

It came from NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) I believe it real because it confirms what i believe the Pentagon attack was staged. The Data is available to both camps to review so it not faked or doctored by us meaning Skeptics or Truthers.

Get off your high horse i asked you about dozen or more questions and you've ignored me. I have an answer for you about that wall, but i can not be bothered to discuss this with you any further till we have fair debate.

King Mob

Then answer this question. I've only asked it three times.

From what did the FDR come from?
A 757 or an A3?

Both answers leave you with problems, bit we'll take it one step at a time.

TheChizler

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I believe it real because it confirms what i believe the Pentagon attack was staged.

That basically sums up the evidential standard required for pretty much any conspiracy theorist. Isn't it nice to make an honest statement for once?

Cheerful Spring

TheChizler wrote: »

That basically sums up the evidential standard required for pretty much any conspiracy theorist. Isn't it nice to make an honest statement for once?

The Flight 77 data was released by a government connected agency? I not sure then why you refuse to listen if you think the official record is accurate? Are you not expecting to see a commercial airliner flying South West of the Navy Annex? What i see is a plane flying North East.

Still talking to my Skeptic friend and he questioned the data now, so he only used this evidence when it suited them. I thought Skeptics said the FDR was evidence a plane crashed at the Pentagon? Now he does not want to acknowledge this could be where the plane actually was on the day? He just wants to ignore that and says a plane on that side can't account for the damage at the Pentagon and knocked down light poles (no **** sherlock)

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Then answer this question. I've only asked it three times.

From what did the FDR come from?
A 757 or an A3?

Both answers leave you with problems, bit we'll take it one step at a time.

757-200 plane, what else it came from the NTSB. It doesn't leave me with problems. The data shows a 757 plane approaching the Pentagon, but not where it alleged to be from the 9/11 commission.

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

I believe clear footage exists of the pentagon being hit. I also believe that should such footage be released and show the expected airliner, it would go a long way in putting to bed a lot of questions around the whole event.

Not really. We have footage of the planes hitting the twin towers, yet there's accusations of that being faked, the planes being different or having "pods" or that the planes are holograms and the towers were destroyed by space lasers.
If the footage existed and was released and it was clear as day, it wouldn't convince anyone.

mickdw wrote: »

I therefore have to ask - why no footage released.

So what's the conspiracy theory answer?
Why couldn't they set up a few extra cameras to make sure they got the footage?
Why couldn't they have faked the footage beforehand or at any time between then and now?

Ah come on. Clear footage of a plane hitting would put the issue to rest for all but the more hardcore observers. It's only a small percentage that believe planes didn't hit the towers.
I'm certainly satisfied that airliners went into the towers. I'm not satisfied that an airliner went into the Pentagon.
I don't know anything of the flight data mentioned earlier but would love to see some detail on it.
If there are discrepancies in the data around the time it would be near the pentagon, well it only adds fuel to the conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

If there are discrepancies in the data around the time it would be near the pentagon, well it only adds fuel to the conspiracy.

This is NTSB computer simulation of the flight from takeoff at the airport to its final destination.

There are two errors in the data that don't line up with the 9/11 commission findings

This the plane northeast of the Navy Annex. The plane should be on the opposite side to strike 5 light poles.




Plane too high in altitude 180 feet here just 1 to 2 seconds before striking the Pentagon

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

757-200 plane, what else it came from the NTSB. It doesn't leave me with problems. The data shows a 757 plane approaching the Pentagon, but not where it alleged to be from the 9/11 commission.

Ok, so it's not a A3 Skyhunter like you claimed earlier.
And a 757 did crash into the Pentagon.

I'm a bit confused on your position now. Have you changed your mind at some point?

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

I'm certainly satisfied that airliners went into the towers. I'm not satisfied that an airliner went into the Pentagon.

Again, leaving aside the mountain of evidence you have to ignore that indicates that it was a 757, including the FDR we are talking about...

Why would they use a different plane than a 757?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so it's not a A3 Skyhunter like you claimed earlier.
And a 757 did crash into the Pentagon.

I'm a bit confused on your position now. Have you changed your mind at some point?

The flight data is showing a 757 but it does not show it crashed at the spot ( 9/11 commission said it did) the simulation ends two seconds before the crash. At that altitude 180 feet it flew over the Pentagon and kept going or it crashed at the very top edge of the Pentagon? There no way the plane at 180 feet can drop to 30 feet in two seconds. And data shows no 757 was on a path to knock down five light poles. Two of the light poles are located near the bridge on the highway. So NTSB data for me back up Lloyd England off-camera comment he was involved in a planned event.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The flight data is showing a 757 but it does not show it crashed at the spot ( 9/11 commission said it did) the simulation ends two seconds before the crash. At that alitude 180 feet it flew over the Pentagon and kept going or it crashed at the very top edge of the Pentagon? There no way the plane at 180 feet can drop to 30 feet in two seconds. And data shows no 757 was on a path to knock down five light poles. Two of the lightpoles are located near the bridge on the highway. So NTSB data for me backs up Lloyd England off camera comment he was involved in a planned event.

So there was two planes?
So where did they get the FDR from if the plane didn't crash? Why would the NTSB not mention the fact the plan didn't crash?

What happened to the rest of the data when the plane flew away? Remember, you claimed it was impossible for it to be altered or manipulated. So by your claim, there should be a long stretch of data after the plane missed the Pentagon. What happened to that?

And again, why would they hand the data over?

You also never explained why they would involve a random taxi driver. Look at that, you've dodged so many questions we came all the way around again!

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So there was two planes?
So where did they get the FDR from if the plane didn't crash?
Why would they hand it over?

You also never explained why they would involve a random taxi driver. Look at that, you've dodged so many questions we came all the way around again?

Just for argument the 757 crashed into the Pentagon and did not go inside it exploded outside the building?

The problem, right now is the The flight Data is showing a different approach of flight to the Pentagon. The plane going North East is avoiding 5 lightpoles altogether was the plane a second event? Did a explosion inside the building occur before the plane arrived?

Well we don't know if he is just a random taxi driver. Off camera he said he we came across the highway together? Investigator asked was this planned, he said it was planned? If he was just caught up in an event it just happened. Why when asked would he say it was planned?

Dohnjoe

The details of the flight data recorder (and misinterpretation of that data) are, as mentioned, detailed here

For the lazy, 90% of it is covered on the first page

To repeat, conspiracy theorists commonly believe that finding one mistake, one data error, one missing piece of data, one anomaly, one witness saying something strange.. anything at all, no matter how tiny and ultimately insignificant proves the entire thing is an unspecified "inside job" regardless of all the other evidence

They approach a situation backwards. It's a conspiracy and anything that can't be 100% explained to them personally means it's a conspiracy

Rational people do not approach an investigation in this manner. They also realise that not every tiny detail can be accounted for or explained post-fact. They understand that the weight of evidence, the fact that evidence corroborates and correlates with other evidence and the consensus of experts is part of the process of building the true picture. Not working backwards from a "conspiracy" every time.