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

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

,
Let's start with the missile hitting the Pentagon theory:

1. How many witnesses reported that a missile hit?
(1a. How many witnesses report that an aircraft swerved away from the Pentagon?)
2. Where was the missile fired from?
3. What was it's path?
4. What type of missile was it?
5. What missile parts were identified?

Why do conspiracy theorists not just put in a FOIA request to get the data from the missile? The conspiracy is powerless against them apparently

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

OK, but I'm going to lay out some ground rules.
You assert anything as truth, you're going to have to back it up, or I'll dismiss it as bull****.
You ignore any points or questions, I will take them as conceded or you are unable to answer them.
You post an hour long YouTube video or another poorly formatted picture, they will not be counted as a reply. You have to type out your points yourself.
You try to bring up another topic or point that is not directly and specificly connected to this one, this is you giving up.

So first we'll set aside the fact that all evidence, including the FDR you hold up as infallible all point to flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. We'll also set aside the fact that in all of these pages we've not see a single sensible explanation for why they would not just fly a 757 into the building.

First and foremost, there is no reason to doubt the hole was caused by the landing gear.
The front landing gear of planes are strong and dense compared to the rest of the plane, so if it was barrelling through the building, it's entirely possible for it to break through a brick wall while the larger, less sold parts of the plane break up.

Secondly, I'll just cut to the chase and assume that you are not going to furnish an alternative theory.
There is no viable alternative explanation. It could only be the landing gear as there is no evidence supporting anything other idea. Furthermore, we again have the conspiracy theory making zero sense. There's no reason why they would blow a suspicious looking hole on the Pentagon. There is no reason they'd take a picture of it, then release it.

So my questions are this:
1. why, beyond an argument from ignorance do you doubt the real explanation? Why couldn't the hole be caused by the landing gear?

2. Pretend the damage was cause by the landing gear, what do you expect the pictures to look like, and why beyond an argument from ignorance would you expect them to look like that?

Honestly, I'm betting you won't get 3 posts deep without trying to squirm away or starting to ignore questions.

Nobody cares about your ground rules only you. Your theory sucks.

1) landing gear was not down so the landing gear would have broken apart with the plane by the time it got to C ring. If the titanium engines did not survive the landing gear would not have.

2) it looks like a hollow charge blast occurred inside the building. A hollow charge would produce a deep cylindrical hole.

3) No landing wreckage was pictured near or outside the hole.

TheChizler

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

1) landing gear was not down so the landing gear would have broken apart with the plane by the time it got to C ring. If the titanium engines did not survive the landing gear would not have.

What difference would that make? A solid piece of metal is a solid piece of metal whether it's at an angle to other pieces of metal or not. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that on crashing stowed landing gear would disintegrate (or melt as you previously stated) while extended would remain whole?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nobody cares about your ground rules only you. Your theory sucks..

Wow, you didn't even last one post...

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

1) landing gear was not down so the landing gear would have broken apart with the plane by the time it got to C ring. If the titanium engines did not survive the landing gear would not have..

It's a baseless assertion that the landing gear would have broken apart.
The engines are big and wide, so they would be hitting a lot more stuff before hitting the brick wall. They would be plowing through the floors and supporting coloumns, getting damaged, breaking apart and losing momentum. While the relatively small and slender landing gear would be able to pass between these obstacles.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

2) it looks like a hollow charge blast occurred inside the building. A hollow charge would produce a deep cylindrical hole. .

Again a baseless assertion. You had no idea what a hollow charge is or what it looks like. The pictures do not even show a "deep cylindrical hole".
Further, as I pointed out and you quickly ignored, you cannot point to any reasoning for why they would do this.
There is no reason to use explosives on some random wall in the Pentagon. There is no reason why you would then take a picture and then release that picture.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

3) No landing wreckage was pictured near or outside the hole.

Again bull**** assertion.
There are pictures, its just taking far too much effort to find and post while on my phone for something you are going to blindly dismiss out of hand while also ignoring all of my points and questions.

Further, let's pretend there's no pictures. Why wouldn't the conspirators not plant some landing gear while they are planting the rest of the evidence you think they planted.
(Do you have any pics of them planting evidence btw?)

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Wow, you didn't even last one post...


It's a baseless assertion that the landing gear would have broken apart.
The engines are big and wide, so they would be hitting a lot more stuff before hitting the brick wall. They would be plowing through the floors and supporting coloumns, getting damaged, breaking apart and losing momentum. While the relatively small and slender landing gear would be able to pass between these obstacles.


Again a baseless assertion. You had no idea what a hollow charge is or what it looks like. The pictures do not even show a "deep cylindrical hole".
Further, as I pointed out and you quickly ignored, you cannot point to any reasoning for why they would do this.
There is no reason to use explosives on some random wall in the Pentagon. There is no reason why you would then take a picture and then release that picture.


Again bull**** assertion.
There are pictures, its just taking far too much effort to find and post while on my phone for something you are going to blindly dismiss out of hand while also ignoring all of my points and questions.

Further, let's pretend there's no pictures. Why wouldn't the conspirators not plant some landing gear while they are planting the rest of the evidence you think they planted.
(Do you have any pics of them planting evidence btw?)

I did some research last night and came across this landing gear embedded inside the building I found this picture on a French website. What part of the building is this not sure? The rest of the landing gear very likely underneath this rubble. I had to crop this picture down was too large to upload. From what I read the story has changed over the years.It was originally caused by the nose of the plane, then later changed to it was caused by one of the engines exiting there. From what I read the landing gear theory was proposed by a Popular Mechanic article about 9/11 yet this theory was not supported by the ASCE Pentagon building report. They just said the hole was likely the exit hole for the plane wreckage.



I also listened to eyewitness accounts last night and I now convinced the plane (probably 757) hit the Pentagon coming from an NE position. The plane travelled, in a straight line with slight twisting by the pilot positioned the plane to slam into the Pentagon. The damage lines up with a plane coming straight at the building.

This is drawing by a Pentagon police officer was he saw the plane and where it was heading. Black line.



While a 757 commercial airliner crashed at the Pentagon, it looks highly likely now the 5 Lightpoles was a staged event! It was impossible for a commercial airliner flying North East to be anywhere near the light poles. Why were the light poles staged? Can only mean there has to another event at the Pentagon were not noticing or missed?

King Mob

Good for you for changing your mind when presented with evidence.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

From what I read the story has changed over the years.It was originally caused by the nose of the plane, then later changed to it was caused by one of the engines exiting there. From what I read the landing gear theory was proposed by a Popular Mechanic article about 9/11 yet this theory was not supported by the ASCE Pentagon building report. They just said the hole was likely the exit hole for the plane wreckage.

Sources please.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

While a 757 commercial airliner crashed at the Pentagon, it looks highly likely now the 5 Lightpoles was a staged event! It was impossible for a commercial airliner flying North East to be anywhere near the light poles. Why were the light poles staged? Can only mean there has to another event at the Pentagon were not noticing or missed?

Lol, why would they need to stage this event if a 757 hit the building?
Is this not distracting enough by itself?
How would staging light poles being knocked down distract from anything?
Why not just fly the plane along the path that would knock down the lights?
Or why not just claim the plane flew down the path that you think it did in conspiracy world?

It can't only mean that as there's other explanations and the conspiracy theory makes zero sense and explains nothing.
Maybe there's just more to it and you're relying on faulty evidence and logic like you did when you claimed for a fact that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon?
Or when you claimed it was an A3.
Or when you claimed that there were SAM sites at the pentagon...
etc etc etc...

There's no reason why they would stage the lamps falling down. It adds nothing to their story. It only gives clues to armchair detectives.

The only reason you're clinging to it is that you're desperate to find something, anything to prove a conspiracy, even when it's silly and makes no sense.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Good for you for changing your mind when presented with evidence.

Sources please.

Lol, why would they need to stage this event if a 757 hit the building?
Is this not distracting enough by itself?
How would staging light poles being knocked down distract from anything?

It can't only mean that as there's other explanations and the conspiracy theory makes zero sense and explains nothing.
Maybe there's just more to it and you're relying on faulty evidence and logic like you did when you claimed for a fact that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon?
Or when you claimed it was an A3.
Or when you claimed that there were SAM sites at the pentagon...
etc etc etc...

http://www.attivissimo.net/9-11/PentagonBuildingPerformanceReport.pdf
"There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2 (figure 5.16). The wall failure was approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building.

The problem now is the FDR showing a plane heading NE to the Pentagon and 10 Eyewitnesses I listen to saw the plane NE of the Cisco Petrol station ( This is NE of the Navy Annex)

So the FDR data and Pentagon eyewitnesses accounts are contradicting the official narrative the plane knocked down 5 light poles on a South West path.

Everything still supports a conspiracy only a 757 plane was involved, in this event.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

So the FDR data and eyewitnesses account are contradicting the official narrative the plane knocked down 5 light poles on a South West path.

Everything still supports a conspiracy only a 757 plane was involved, in this event.

But how can these things support a conspiracy when you cannot explain how they support a conspiracy?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But how can these things support a conspiracy when you cannot explain how they support a conspiracy?

It's impossible the plane knocked down 5 light poles if the plane was heading NE to strike the Pentagon. The light pole event has to be staged. Something else happened inside the building prior or just after the plane crashed. The conspirators obviously need the plane coming in an SW path to explain something away that occurred inside the building?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's impossible the plane knocked down 5 light poles if the plane was heading NE to strike the Pentagon. The light pole event has to be staged.

You also said that it's impossible for a 757 to crash into the Pentagon

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Something else happened inside the building prior or just after the plane crashed.

This is just a fantasy you are dreaming up.
What happened inside the building? What evidence do you have that it occured?

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The conspirators obviously need the plane coming in an SW path to explain something away that occurred inside the building?

But this is a contradiction.
The only reason you know about this imaginary event is because you think that they tried to distract from it.

If the conspirators had just flown a plane into the building, and did not contradict the flight data and did not knock over the light poles, what would indicate that your unknown event even existed?
Nothing.

This idea makes the conspiracy theory even dumber.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

You also said that it's impossible for a 757 to crash into the Pentagon


This is just a fantasy you are dreaming up.
What happened inside the building? What evidence do you have that it occured?


But this is a contradiction.
The only reason you know about this imaginary event is because you think that they tried to distract from it.

If the conspirators had just flown a plane into the building, and did not contradict the flight data and did not knock over the light poles, what would indicate that your unknown event even existed?
Nothing.

This idea makes the conspiracy theory even dumber.

I didn't say it was impossible. I said the plane parts could match up with another plane which is true, and I theorized in this thread another event in the Pentagon happened.

Let's us not forget you guys in this thread earlier were shouting FDR is evidence a plane crashed there and suddenly when the FDR doesn't support the official narrative you guys don't want to talk about that?

FDR data: Does not support the official narrative

Eyewitness accounts: don't support the official narrative.

The logical conclusion is the 5 light poles were staged to cover up something else that happened inside the building ie a bomb or bombs going off ora missile hit, I don't know? No disputing the evidence is the plane hit the building NE. So there is a conspiracy to hide something that happened.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I didn't say it was impossible. I said the plane parts could match up with another plane which is true, and I theorized in this thread another event in the Pentagon happened.

Yes you did. You were blue in the face claiming that the plane could not have does X and Y. And that there was no evidence it did. And that the FDR showed it didn't crash...
You are literally denying what you have written.:rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The logical conclusion is

No... that's not the logical conclusion by a longshot.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

the 5 light poles were staged to cover up something else that happened inside the building ie a bomb or bombs going off ora missile hit, I don't know?

Note how you've just avoided my question again.
The only reason you are aware of a cover up is that you think they tried to cover it up.
If they did not try to cover it up, you wouldn't know the event happened.

This is before addressing things like the complete lack of motive and evidence for such an event.
And before wondering why they would need a distraction when they jsut crashed a plane into the building.
And before wondering why they think that knocking over 5 light poles and telling a random taxi driver to go with it was all they needed to do...

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No disputing the evidence is the plane hit the building NE. So there is a conspiracy to hide something that happened.

You were literally disputing this 2 pages ago...

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Yes you did. You were blue in the face claiming that the plane could not have does X and Y. And that there was no evidence it did. And that the FDR showed it didn't crash...
You are literally denying what you have written.:rolleyes:


No... that's not the logical conclusion by a longshot.


Note how you've just avoided my question again.
The only reason you are aware of a cover up is that you think they tried to cover it up.
If they did not try to cover it up, you wouldn't know the event happened.

This is before addressing things like the complete lack of motive and evidence for such an event.
And before wondering why they would need a distraction when they jsut crashed a plane into the building.
And before wondering why they think that knocking over 5 light poles and telling a random taxi driver to go with it was all they needed to do...


You were literally disputing this 2 pages ago...

No, I didn't I disputed the Pentagon building report where they claim the plane hit the building on the ring E first floor. Remember me talking about column 10 and 11 was still standing in the picture I provided? In the Pentagon building report, those columns are gone Then I talked about Ring C damaged hole.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

No, I didn't I disputed the Pentagon building report where they claim the plane hit the building on the ring E first floor. Remember me talking about column 10 and 11 was still standing in the picture I provided? In the Pentagon building report, those columns are gone Then I talked about Ring C damaged hole.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106801185
At this stage you are trying to rewrite reality to avoid considering that you might be wrong and your pet conspiracy theory isn't real.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106801185
At this stage you are trying to rewrite reality to avoid considering that you might be wrong and your pet conspiracy theory isn't real.

Fact is your Ignoring the Pentagon report I referenced earlier in the thread. Picking sections and ignore the rest of the argument, is why you're wrong. I disputed a plane at SW angle based on the photographs I uploaded here.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Fact is your Ignoring the Pentagon report I referenced earlier in the thread. Picking sections and ignore the rest of the argument, is why you're wrong. I disputed a plane at SW angle based on the photographs I uploaded here.

The damage at the front of the Pentagon also is proof no 757 crashed there.

And done.
When you can't even correctly or honestly represent your own opinions, there's no point engaging.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

And done.
When you can't even correctly or honestly represent your own opinions, there's no point engaging.

I know you can't keep up I said the damage at SW angle does not account for the damage shown. A plane coming in NE is straight in (plane facing frontwards when it hit the building.

SW the plane is facing directionally different to strike the second floor. Maybe the problem is you don't understand why NE direction matters?

Cheerful Spring

To understand the motive behind this conspiracy you only have to research the online document the Project for the New American Century released in 1997. The Neocons could only carry out this operation when they got power in the White House and could cover up their involvement later. They even brazenly said they need another "Pearl harbour" to carry out their war aims in the Middle East. Four years later 9/11 was new Pearl Harbour. It too much of a coincidence they write about this and then happens!

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128491&page=1

mickdw

Dohnjoe wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

So my initial theory was that:

reason for no footage being released.

Some footage has been released. It's meh, CCTV quality (not like the multiple TV cameras that caught e.g. the second hit in the towers). Anyway, that aside..

Let's start with the missile hitting the Pentagon theory:

1. How many witnesses reported that a missile hit?
(1a. How many witnesses report that an aircraft swerved away from the Pentagon?)
2. Where was the missile fired from?
3. What was it's path?
4. What type of missile was it?
5. What missile parts were identified?

i.e. do you have any substantiated, credible evidence that a missile struck the Pentagon

I don't have any footage of a missile hitting the building..... maybe that means it didn't happen.
To me the crash site, from any photos I've seen does not seem nearly as badly destroyed as you would expect from the crash of a large airliner.
Could a missile not have been fired from a fighter at high altitude?
I'm guessing it would have approached from the line of the downed light poles.
Missile parts wouldn't necessarily be found is such a bomb site specifically if government didn't want them to be found.
could the flyby airliner have been on alternative approach to ensure it didn't get downed by missile targeting pentagon.
We're there any reports of plane flying away from pentagon? I don't know but I'd like to find out.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

I don't have any footage of a missile hitting the building..... maybe that means it didn't happen.

Again: Why would they fire a missile at the Pentagon?
Why not just fly a plane into it?

mickdw

I don't know. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm basing my opinion on the footage not being available / government agents reported to have immediately grabbed all cc evidence.

How do you guys explain the the light poles being knocked on a path that is at variance with eye witness account of a plane that was seen and also at variance with the flight data records. I think we can rule out that complex theory explaining why the flight data might show the plane in the wrong place given that eye witness seem to correspond with data.
Surely you guys that believe the official story must see something amiss. Do you think there was a second plane that knocked the poles?
why was the taxi driver whos wife works for the FBI denying his location When it was put to him that the plane that was seen couldn't have been anywhere near his taxi?
And what the hell was his friend doing on the bridge with his camera that day?

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

I don't have any footage of a missile hitting the building..... maybe that means it didn't happen.

Indeed, but this is using faulty logic. We don't have "footage" of the Battle of Hastings. Most of recorded history is built on circumstantial evidence. "Footage" is not a necessary component unless it is the only piece of evidence available.

To me the crash site, from any photos I've seen does not seem nearly as badly destroyed as you would expect from the crash of a large airliner.
Could a missile not have been fired from a fighter at high altitude?
I'm guessing it would have approached from the line of the downed light poles.
Missile parts wouldn't necessarily be found is such a bomb site specifically if government didn't want them to be found.
could the flyby airliner have been on alternative approach to ensure it didn't get downed by missile targeting pentagon.
We're there any reports of plane flying away from pentagon? I don't know but I'd like to find out.

This is your personal speculation. If there's no supported evidence for the theory of a missile hitting the Pentagon then the theory can be dismissed.

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

I don't know. I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm basing my opinion on the footage not being available / government agents reported to have immediately grabbed all cc evidence.

How do you guys explain the the light poles being knocked on a path that is at variance with eye witness account of a plane that was seen and also at variance with the flight data records. I think we can rule out that complex theory explaining why the flight data might show the plane in the wrong place given that eye witness seem to correspond with data.
Surely you guys that believe the official story must see something amiss. Do you think there was a second plane that knocked the poles?
why was the taxi driver whos wife works for the FBI denying his location When it was put to him that the plane that was seen couldn't have been anywhere near his taxi?
And what the hell was his friend doing on the bridge with his camera that day?

All the evidence places a plane North East. I found another piece of evidence confirming that direction. A military plane called Gopher 6 saw the plane in last minute of its flight and placed the plane heading North Eastbound.

This is likely how the plane came in.

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

How do you guys explain the the light poles being knocked on a path that is at variance with eye witness account of a plane that was seen and also at variance with the flight data records.

One eye witness on their own is not always reliable. This is why consensus is used. The majority of eye witnesses saw an airliner hit the building.

why was the taxi driver whos wife works for the FBI denying his location When it was put to him that the plane that was seen couldn't have been anywhere near his taxi?

In one interview he said he wasn't even there. He's fairly old and seems to have memory problems. He's one witness out of dozens.

Might want to ask yourself what the motive of the people interviewing him is and why are they only interviewing the one witness who has memory problems and not the dozens of others.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

One eye witness on their own is not always reliable. This is why consensus is used. The majority of eye witnesses saw an airliner hit the building.



In one interview he said he wasn't even there. He's fairly old and seems to have memory problems. He's one witness out of dozens.

Might want to ask yourself what the motive of the people interviewing him is and why are they only interviewing the one witness who has memory problems and not the dozens of others.

A plane crashed but is not in the direction the 9/11 commission claimed.

We know this to be true we have damning evidence the plane hit the building coming from a North East path. The South West direction is looking like a false path for the plane. The knocked down light poles was a staged event.

FDR has plane heading North East
Eyewitnesses saw it heading North East
Gopher 6, a call sign for a military transport plane, the pilot saw the plane heading North East Bound before hitting the Pentagon.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The knocked down light poles was a staged event.

According to you, some conspiracy theorists and "P4T"

Who cut the poles? with what? when? names, dates, details, evidence, witnesses

Anything?

If you have no credible substantiated evidence of the poles being cut as part of an inside job then it can be dismissed

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to you, some conspiracy theorists and "P4T"

Who cut the poles? with what? when? names, dates, details, evidence, witnesses

Anything?

If you have no credible substantiated evidence of the poles being cut as part of an inside job then it can be dismissed

The evidence is overwhelming now this was where the plane was on the day. Construction was happening in this area of the Pentagon (West side) The light poles were likely taken down the night before or taken down just before the event when nobody noticed. AMEC the construction company has ties to well-known Neocon politicians and does a lot of its work in Saudi Arabia.

Cheerful Spring

This too suspicious. I always curious why Hani Hanjour circled the building to hit this area? Made no sense now till you find out the CEO is friend of Donald Rumsfield a hardcore neocon who signed up to the principles of the project for new American century and they needed a new pearl harbor event!

The CEO of AMEC Construction was Peter Janson, a long-time business associate of Donald Rumsfeld. Under Janson's leadership, AMEC had just completed a $258 million refurbishment of Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, exactly where AA Flight 77 impacted the building

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The evidence is overwhelming now this was where the plane was on the day.

Just to you personally. You make-up or borrow stories like the below, then assert them as fact. I like the part where evidence of the baseless conspiracy is another baseless conspiracy.

Construction was happening in this area of the Pentagon (West side) The light poles were likely taken down the night before or taken down just before the event when nobody noticed. AMEC the construction company has ties to well-known Neocon politicians and does a lot of its work in Saudi Arabia.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I always curious why Hani Hanjour circled the building to hit this area?

In his A3 Skywarrior or?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just to you personally. You make-up or borrow stories like the below, then assert them as fact. I like the part where evidence of the baseless conspiracy is another baseless conspiracy.

FDR data, eyewitnesses, a pilot flying in the area all spotted this plane heading North East. When you got this kind of data we know it happened this way.

Cheerful Spring

Donald Rumsfield is one of the conspirators it obvious now he planned this event, with others.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In his A3 Skywarrior or?

The hijackers were bit players in a wider conspiracy. Hijacking planes it just a small bit of the story. Could they be agents of the Saudi Arabian government who were willing to sacrifice themselves for this event? ( classified section 29 pages of the 9/11 commission report found evidence the hijackers met with people connected with the government there) or were used as patsies to fool the world and did not know it?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The hijackers were bit players in a wider conspiracy. Hijacking planes it just a small bit of the story. Could they be agents of the Saudi Arabian government who were willing to sacrifice themselves for this event? ( classified section 29 pages of the 9/11 commission report found evidence the hijackers met with people connected with the government there) or were used as patsies to fool the world and did not know it?

Was Hani flying a 757 or a Skywarrior?

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

I don't know. I'm not claiming to be an expert.

So here's the thing.

You are rejecting the reality of the situation/"official story" because you think you've found plot holes or things that can't be explained by it.

Yet now, here we have some examples of plot holes in the conspiracy narrative. You've just said you can't explain why they would use a missile instead of a plane. I'm also going to save a lot of bother and assume that you likewise cannot provide an explanation for why they would hire a random taxi driver or why they would release data that disproves their story.

These are fairly large gaping plot holes. And you can see them just as clearly.

Yet you still believe the conspiracy theory.

Why reject the real explanation cause there's stuff you as a non-expert can't explain, yet fully embrace the conspiracy theory when there's even more basic stuff you can't explain?

Personal, I don't think it's a matter of evidence or reason at all. I think you guys just prefer the conspiracy theory.

Cheerful Spring

NE path lines up perfectly with the damage on the west wing of the Pentagon. Even the second floor E ring damage. Plane travelling SW does not line up with the damage on the second floor E ring.




Second-floor damage. This looks where the upper part of the fuselage of the plane smashed into the wall

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Personal, I don't think it's a matter of evidence or reason at all. I think you guys just prefer the conspiracy theory.

I tend towards this view as well. Unsurprisingly conspiracy theorists often yearn for conspiracies. Likewise some people love mysteries, there's almost disappointment when a boring explanation is found.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I tend towards this view as well. Unsurprisingly conspiracy theorists often yearn for conspiracies. Likewise some people love mysteries, there's almost disappointment when a boring explanation is found.

The damage to the second floor E ring doesn't make sense if the plane came in at an angle SW.

Ignoring FDR data, eyewitnesses accounts, pilots in the air all spotted the plane in NE bound position. The evidence is overwhelming, you just need to stop burying your head in the sand.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The damage to the second floor E ring doesn't make sense if the plane came in at an angle SW.

Ignoring FDR data, eyewitnesses accounts, pilots in the air all spotted the plane in NE bound position. The evidence is overwhelming, you just need to stop burying your head in the sand.

Which plane hit the Pentagon?

mickdw

This forum is nuts. So confrontational.
I'm not claiming to be an expert and only putting forward a theory which may or may not hold water. There cannot it seems be any simple discussion here, its just an I'm right your wrong attitude at all times.
I mentioned a missile as a possibility given the discrepancy in flight data records and no visible evidence of the plane..... immediately someone replies looking for the name of the guy who polished the missile before setting it off together with the details of what he had for breakfast for the 7 days before.
Yet when compared to the official story, no plane footage..... ah sure what evidence do you need is the attitude.

Cheerful Spring

A 757 plane height is about 18 feet to 20 feet with no landing gear down ( not including the back tail)

18 to 20 feet. The first floor is 14 feet + second floor is 14 feet= 28 feet. Two floors are higher than the plane

So just about right for a frontal hit.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which plane hit the Pentagon?

757 plane. I have changed my mind based on the evidence.

The plane hit the Pentagon from an NE direction, not an SW direction stated by the 9/11 commision. The damage does not match up with a plane coming in from an angle on an SW path.

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

This forum is nuts. So confrontational.
I'm not claiming to be an expert and only putting forward a theory which may or may not hold water. There cannot it seems be any simple discussion here, its just an I'm right your wrong attitude at all times.
I mentioned a missile as a possibility given the discrepancy in flight data records and no visible evidence of the plane..... immediately someone replies looking for the name of the guy who polished the missile before setting it off together with the details of what he had for breakfast for the 7 days before.
Yet when compared to the official story, no plane footage..... ah sure what evidence do you need is the attitude.

There probably a second event. The light poles were staged to account for the damage inside the Pentagon and C exit hole.

The landing gear was pictured inside the building underneath the rubble, not possible it came through the exit hole in C ring. Only one piece of landing gear was pictured on 9/11 found.

Cheerful Spring

This picture gives us a general idea why an NE path made more sense.

Cheerful Spring

Something clearly wrong there needs to be a new investigation of the flight path. The FAA released this animation too based on radar returns from Reagan National airport.

In their animation, the plane is flying over the Navy Annex to the North East side to strike the Pentagon. FAA also places the plane away from striking the light poles.

Cheerful Spring

Sorry for crap marking, but the redblob is where the plane is alleged to knocked down 5 light poles.

Cheerful Spring

Look oh **** this is the smoking gun notice where the plane is in both pictures from NTSB and FAA inside that roundabout NE

NTSB and Eyewitness placed the plane in that roundabout


Same with the FAA animation

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

This forum is nuts. So confrontational.
I'm not claiming to be an expert and only putting forward a theory which may or may not hold water.

But it doesn't hold water at all. It doesn't even come close because if it were true it would make no sense.

There is no reason at all for why they would not just use a plane.
The missile idea is just not viable, so it has to be that the plane hit the building.

You reject the real explanation because you think that it has plot holes.
You should then also reject the idea of a missile as well.

mickdw wrote: »

I mentioned a missile as a possibility given the discrepancy in flight data records and no visible evidence of the plane.

No visible evidence of a missile and it is not consistent with flight data as the flight data shows a 757 crashed into the building.

Why would anyone thing the missile theory is worth considering?
Why a missile and not say a space laser and holograms like some conspiracy theorists suggest.
They are exactly as sensible and evidenced.

mickdw

Okay. I will reject the missile idea. As I said I was only thinking aloud as I figured things didn't add up.

Now. So can we come around to the aircraft flight path and the downed poles.
The data log is there for all to see. I see the argument re inaccuracies etc but I'm certainly not buying that. The eye witness accounts and the flight data match and amazingly the so called faulty data positions the aircraft 100 percent correctly at the Pentagon.
Now, which is logical - the multiple accounts of people on the ground together with the flight data or the argument that puts the plane somewhere else entirely?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

757 plane. I have changed my mind based on the evidence.

Based on the easier "conspiracy" to support.