Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm sensing some hostility.

I get mad when people claim I said things I didn't to make their argument easier.

Close enough I didn't actulaly say that you did argue that either.

Not it's not. Case in point. If you didn't actually say that I argued it then you have place bringing it up in this discussion.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAnd why are you putting words/concepts in my mouth? What kind of a way is that to have a discussion? When did I ever use the term "total control" at all let alone in the context you are using it?

Ahem...
Why wouldn't the gas station be "secured and controlled"? Having "unlimited time, money, and access to unknown technology" why wouldn't they have had the employee positions filled at the gas station overlooking the entire thing?

I know you are not this ignorant. We go way back to myspace back when GQ was posting. You know I am Lyte Trip and that my partner Aldo is Merc right? Please STOP these pointless arguments. Suggesting that they had control over traffic of a single highway during the operation of an operation that they created is NOT even close to the same as suggesting they "totally controlled" every single human that was present even 5 years later when we are there looking for witnesses. I have NEVER made such a ludicrous claim and that is exactly your point by saying that every citizen immigrant gas station attendant was involved and that Robert Turcios had the special assignment of providing corroborated testimony that PROVES the official story wrong for disinfo purposes.

How did they know we would talk to the cops and Edward Paik also? Do you really think Edward Paik is in on it? Don't you get it? We went on an INDEPENDENT investigation and found corroborated accounts from separate individuals proving the official story FALSE.

You have zero legitimate reason to suggest this info is part of the plot.

Your conspiracy theory here is way more complex and absurd then anything I have suggested.

I'm not sure why you lumped those together. Now that I review what I had skimmed over it's clear that you weren't the one arguing for the scuff. I thought you had brought it up and I was vague on that point.

But, considering your staunch view of the Pentagon, it's really not too much to assume that you'd subscribe to the E4-B 'what-I-said'. But the way you lumped those together I'm still unclear on that.

That was you making up things I didn't claim showing your dishonest approach to discussion. Don't do it again.

I wasn't responding to the pole scuff comment....I simply accidentally included in the quote. I agree with that. Scuffs on poles could come from anywhere and there is zero proof that the one on the vdot pole was from a plane.

Anyways...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITFrom the images we know that traffic was completely blocked at 9:54.

So that's a 14 minute window within which they had to work. Do we know how many other official cars & "traffic controllers" were in the visible area (on the road there with them)?

Nope. Impossible to find out and not really an issue as the feds could do whatever they wanted without question.

The poles being moved around differently. Anything really. It's really pulling for a stretch claiming that the poles were already laid out in advance on both sides of the highway. All sorts of people would/could have noticed them like that: commuters, Pentagon personnel (security details, etc employees drving by them or seeing them across the lawn outside their windows, etc). We're not talking about little SimBots, who only do or look at what the mouse pointers points them at. We're talking about complex beings interacting within the nearby environment, thus raising all sorts of possibilties of people noticing things and then later reporting them on the Internet/etc.

4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side. There is zero reason to suggest anyone would notice it PRE-ATTACK and even if they did it's more of a stretch to say they would put 2 and 2 together years later since the poles were not covered on 9/11, ignored by all official reports, and left to only online investigation years after the fact. Most normal commuters and the average public in general are not part of this conspiracy world and the "chance" that one would notice ANYTHING out of the ordinary throughout the entire course of this very complex operation is obviously a chance the perps were willing to take.

That is the nature of any lie. You risk getting caught.

Clearly they lied and the propaganda and hysterical "patriotism" after the fact played a MAJOR part of why nobody would even entertain the notion that something other than the official story happened let alone scrutinize little details like light poles.

It doesn't make sense that you have a Broadway staged scene built in advance with props and the rest and nobody notices. You have pre-impact commuters, local security and police details, FBI agents, firefighters, Pentagon personanel including DOD and civilian contractors, post-impact-commuters etc. LITERALLY thousands of people 'walking across this stage' between day break and highway shutdown post-impact, YET, it doesn't make sense that nobody would notice? To me, that is ludacrous if anything here is.

You are using horribly bad exaggerations and pathetically over the top rhetoric to make a hollow point.

Broadway staged scene? Huh? The "props" amount to 4 hidden light poles. Period. That's it. Have you been on route 27? Please go there. It's a tiny stretch of highway less than a mile long. It is at the bottom of a hill and is overshadowed by the massive Pentagon.

EVEN IF people noticed a pole or two on the ground it would not matter just like it doesn't matter that Willie Rodrigez and others experienced bombs in the basement of the wtc.

The light poles have only become a point of 9/11 scrutiny as a result of our work. They were rarely mentioned at all in passing by some conspiracy sites before that but the mainstream media and all official reports have always ignored them.

Because when you have thousands of people near or around a scene before during and after something it tends to become less plausible (your argument) the more conscious individuals you bring into the picture.

1. Where do you get this "thousands" number? How many would have noticed the hidden light poles? Answer: not thousands.

2. My argument does not include anything out of the ordinary that they WOULD have noticed. Even if a couple people noticed a pole off to the side that is NOT a reason for alarm under any circumstances.

The media and all official reports have ignored the light poles. This is fact.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We are real researchers and we leave no stone unturned.

I'd like to ask if you asked those Police or other witnesses if they say anything happeneing over there or what their ideas were about how those poles were knocked down. I'm quite surprised you missed that opportunity the first time (I don't recall you asking them anyways). That was your big moment, and I got the impression that at least one of them would have had an overlook of that spot. Maybe asked them how they think it could have happened if they didn't. Boy would that have caused some unpredictable cognitive dissonance if you popped that question at the very end of each interview?!

They believed the official story. They believed the plane hit the poles even though they didn't see it happen. THIS WAS MADE 100% CLEAR.

No opportunity was missed.

They wouldn't sit there and give an alternative scenario completely different from what they believed happened. That is plain stupid.

I brought back testimony proving 9/11 was an inside job.

You refuse to accept it.

How would any of this be different if you heard Lagasse and Brooks say they didn't see the poles get planted?

Once again there is zero logic in your statement.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Get ready for this: It's not impossible for them to have not scratched the hood. It may seem very improbable, but it's irrational to declare its impossibility in pure absolutes.

You are wrong. Just like physics tell us that a 48 story building cannot fall into it's own footprint at virtual free-fall speed from localized random damage and fire physics also tell us that a 247 lb 40 foot long light pole can not be speared into the windshield of a car traveling 45 mph by a 90 ton jet traveling 500+ mph and not even scratch the hood.

You are refusing to accept the obvious even though it proves 9/11 was an inside job. Why?

And realistically, going by your logic, it would have been a snap for them to change his hood. After all, Lloyd is a suspect, the guy in the van might as well be guilty, and he had a van. They could get away with almost anything over there since the Pentagon was on fire and the highway wasn't worth anybody even getting in anybody's line of site. Next they just switch the hood with the one in the agents van. Four bolts to "freedom". Would you say that's absurd? It's not far off from what you're proposing, except the motives are just different. In all actuality, if we're to take either seriously, they could have done both. Or they could have done neither. It's all incredible no matter how you boil it.

BUT THERE WAS NO DAMAGE ON THE HOOD!

What they could have done has NOTHING to do with what happened.

By that logic they could have let regular fires destroy building 7 without having it brought down into it's own footprint in 7 seconds. Why didn't they do that? Huh? Wouldn't that have been less obvious, risking, and much easier? Does the fact that they DIDN'T do that prove that building 7 was not brought down by controlled demo?

I report and discuss the evidence that exists. Not what the perps "could have" done.

To have them dumped on the far side until before the impact is one thing, but then to have them alid out on both sides is taking it over the top. Either is, actually. Pun intended.

You are OVER thinking now. Pole one could have been place many different ways without being detected. There is nothing outrageous or unlikely about this.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The pole did not spear the cab after being hit by a plane. The physical evidence proves this.

It contradicts it. PROOF is another story. Proof would be if there was no damage to the taxi whatsoever, yet they claimed there was.

Then you simply don't understand physics. They length and weight of the pole combined with the kinetic energy of a 90 ton jet traveling 500+mph is proof that Lloyd's story is false.

I'd love to get GQ's analysis on this. Have you talked to him lately?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITHow did they rig the towers and building 7 with nobody noticing?
How many people would it take? What are the chances that somebody would notice them planting bombs?
Since nobody noticed that or has come forward does this prove that the buildings fell from fire and damage alone?

That's a far different scenario. Until perhaps you (I mean anybody) begin declaring that explosives on the outside of the towers blew the cartoon holes into them. Then it's more on par with planting and arranging props such as lightpoles on teh side of the highway in broad daylight during morning rush hour in visible range next to the largest office building in the world.

THEY DID NOT HAVE TO BE PLANTED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT DURING RUSH HOUR!

This is the area that the President took off from they day before and was scheduled to return to that very day.

Extra security and control is expected and normal.

The "CD" idea of the towers would be using maintainence access to the internal towers... during things such as power-downs... and removing bombsniffing dogs... or whatever. Far different than the side of the road. People are apparently coming forward this year claiming to see things exploding inside WTC7 etc before etc and so forth.

And what's happening as a result of these people "coming forward"?

Nothing.

Plus look how long it took them EVEN WITH all the intense scrutiny regarding building 7.

The light poles are not even a blip on the truth movement radar compared to building 7.

The fact is.....planting pole one would take 30 seconds.

They had control of the area and the highway after the attack.

There is nothing implausible about this.

You have zero reason to doubt the citgo witnesses independently corroborated placement of the plane.

double post

[edit on 7-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I'm guessing Page 2 was rather long, too....

Can anyone pin-point the moment the discussion of light poles appeared? When was it first mentioned (and possibly) more importantly - by whom?

TIME-LINES are seriously lacking in this debate. It blew the arguments about WTC7 clean out the water.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

EDIT: The following was written before I realized you were addressing IIB (IgnoranceIsntBliss).

You did see our interview with him right?

Yes, I did. His body language was tough to read without seeing what he's like talking about other subjects for a period of time. Considering the guy had a lamp post come through his windshield though, he's pretty .... disassociated about it. No personalization "I was shocked when it flew through the window" "I thought I might die" etc. He talks almost in the 3rd person, but substituting himself. He's quite calm and deliberate in what he says.

We independently found these previously unknown witnesses on our own during a guerrilla investigative effort.

Suggesting some mainstream media published accounts that were used in the propaganda were fabricated is obvious.

To suggest unknown witnesses who we randomly found 5 years later were waiting quietly for us to approach them to put out disinfo proving 9/11 was an inside job is simply absurd.

We aren't done IIB.

We have 2 more north side witnesses that we haven't presented yet and I am about to release a 38 minute short presenting more first-hand testimony from other previously unknown witnesses that we found in the neighborhoods from canvassing.

Do you understand the extreme effort we have made to find pure witnesses for you?

The media failed us so we flew out there, walked the neighborhoods on foot, knocked on doors and ASKED people what they saw and brought back video tape for you.

Sorry if I am coming off agitated but it saddens me to have to defend what we have done to someone who I have always respected and thought of as being more aware than most.

If that last comment is at me (it's getting a bit confusing) then no defense is required. It seems I've missed something at some point recently, and what I thought I knew seems to now be wrong.

I think you're doing a great job.with this. People are possibly skeptical towards it because of what you've highlighted. Given what I've seen from other sources, that adds credibility to the witnesses, as not only do the witnesses corroborate each other, the majority of the physical evidence corroborates them, too (to an extent - not including the light poles).

[edit on 7-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 7-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

HOLY COW!!

He's a plant [the taxi driver]. I really must stop watching these things when I'm tired!!!

Taken from CIT Interview with Lloyd. Read the excerpt very carefully.





The jet was traveling at over 6 miles per minute by the time it reached this point. In 10 seconds it can fly 1 mile. From here to the Pentagon is only 0.3 miles. That is, just 4 seconds flight time from the moment it hit the pole. Given the time it would take Lloyd to:

* Stop his cab
* Recover from the shock
* Get out the cab
* Get help from the mystery guy in the van
* Start moving the pole (you read carefully, right? )

more than 4 seconds would have elapsed. The jet would have already hit the building, and the explosion would already have occurred.

I think he's lying. The events as he describes them are not something you are going to get out of order or get wrong.

EDIT: There is a discrepancy in his oral testimony, too. In the written version, above, he states that it is the explosion that causes him to fall over, however, in his oral testimony he states that he simply "fell over" and then put the pole down. There is no mention of an explosion. It is also curious how he emphasizes the position of the car, but doesn't say he was stunned or shocked at any time by what was happening. Strange, considering what had occurred, and what could have occurred.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Yes.

As we explain in the short this is a discrepancy between his accounts that researchers had focused on.

So he dropped that part of the story and instead makes a point to say how "quiet" everything was.

You can see him run through his talking points a few times in the interview.

So although this detail changed the notion that the pole was still in the car when he stopped and that he immediately removed the pole with the help from the silent stranger in the van, and fell down in the process has been his story since day one.

You guys do know tthere were multiple explosions at the Pentagon, right?
Here's one of them:

That's news to me, CL! Any ideas on cause?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
You guys do know tthere were multiple explosions at the Pentagon, right?
Here's one of them:

So why do you think Lloyd removed that detail from his account?

Every time after the initial Survivor Fund story he made a point to say how "quiet" it was.

He said it to us multiple times.

In fact he specifically said that he fell while removing the pole because the top bent part of the pole "flipped" as they were removing it and that he did not hear any explosions.

CL,

It's almost comical the way you have the fortitude to address our research in forums where we can't reply but avoid me like the plague here.

So now Lagasse and Brooks were PROGRAMMED to fatally contradict the official story??



Were Turcios and Paik also hypnotized?

And how about the 2 new north side witnesses we have?

That sure seems like a lot of hypnotizing and a lot of effort to go through to prove their story WRONG!

Talk about reaching.

Sheesh.

Your quote:

His aaccount matches Lagasse's, so the same things apply. No memory probem can explain this, especially the same problem in two different heads. If one can be programmed to recall the north path, why not two? And if one can be convinced to lie, why not two?
And then some civilians to add supports from less 'controlled' sources and create an air of broader factuality?

Is this scenrio REALLY any more ridiculous than Lloyd, McGraw, and the USA Today guys as plants, the impossible flight path, unseen overflight, bombs that only bow columns inward, faked damage and and all that? Or is it far less ridiculous, meaning CIT should have entertained this scenario at least as seriously as the one they did instead of not at all? And then to get snippy when anyone even mentions it?

Listen to what nuttery you are proposing!

9/11 was an inside job. This means it was a deception.

For them to go to such lengths to get people to fatally contradict the same story that they worked so hard to create is beyond absurd.

Plus WE FOUND THESE WITNESSES ON OUR OWN.

Paik and Turcios were never cited by the media and government.

We randomly found them independently from each other 5 years later.

To suggest they have been under mind control for 5 years just hoping someone like CIT would find them AND hook up with the cops is downright comical.

If THIS is how far you have to go to doubt our research you really must be in turmoil over this.

Why does the fact that 9/11 has been proven to be an inside job bother you so much?

I\'m new here and I find this thread very interesting...

It seems the two choices are:

a) FL77 hit the light poles per official story, or

b) 4 light poles were already hidden on the side of the road, and the 5th light pole was somehow blown out of the ground, placed on the road next to the taxi, and the damage to the taxi windshield was faked. Plus, the 60-year old taxi driver was a government agent that fabricated the story about the light pole hitting his windshield.

And the evidence for scenario b is what again? A fabricated presupposition that the hood MUST be damaged if the windshield was damaged. Based on nothing more than the inability to imagine any other reality?

And four (maybe 6?) witnesses to the north of Citgo story? Compared to how many witnesses who claim they saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

And all the plane parts were planted along with the light poles?

How many witnesses testified to seeing a 757 flying on the east side of the Pentagon after the explosion? Zero?

I\'m new here and I find this thread very interesting...

It seems the two choices are:

a) FL77 hit the light poles per official story, or

b) 4 light poles were already hidden on the side of the road, and the 5th light pole was somehow blown out of the ground, placed on the road next to the taxi, and the damage to the taxi windshield was faked. Plus, the 60-year old taxi driver was a government agent that fabricated the story about the light pole hitting his windshield.

And the evidence for scenario b is what again? A fabricated presupposition that the hood MUST be damaged if the windshield was damaged. Based on nothing more than the inability to imagine any other reality?

And four (maybe 6?) witnesses to the north of Citgo story? Compared to how many witnesses who claim they saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

And all the plane parts were planted along with the light poles?

How many witnesses testified to seeing a 757 flying on the east side of the Pentagon after the explosion? Zero?





[edit on 8-10-2007 by robert z]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


The \"5th\" light pole did not need to be \"blown out of the ground\". It was simply placed there minutes after the event when the feds had secured the area.

Let's take this one step at a time...

Scenario 1: FL 77 hit the light poles and slammed into the Pentagon.

OR

Scenario 2: A 757 approached the Pentagon from a slightly different angle than the official story, based on the Citgo witnesses, 3 of whom claimed they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. 4 light poles were laying on the side of the road before the plane approached, and the 5th was hidden near the side of the road near the taxi.

After the explosion at the Pentagon, special agents blocked off the road, and placed the 5th pole on the pavement beside the taxi. At some point these agents, which include the taxi driver, busted out the windshield of the taxi to make it LOOK like the light pole hit the taxi.

So based on your theory, the government planned this deception, and must have believed it was important to have 5 light poles downed for what purpose? The angle of attack is was not critical to the deception, and the faking of the downed light poles couldn\'t help. In other words, to pull off the illusion that the plane hit the Pentagon, the downed light poles were not necessary.

Further, having one of the downed light poles appear to hit the windshield of the taxi was not only totally unnecessary, but also would have been an incredibly high-risk maneuver worthy maybe of a Mission Impossible episode, but having no practical real-world value.

All it would have taken was one civilian videotaping the agents carrying the light pole from the bushes to blow this entire multi-billion dollar, extravagant operation. Why would the perps risk being easily exposed for the sake of one damaged taxi cab?

Follow this logic, Craig.

If the scenario is like you said, the perps would have already KNOWN that the flight path would have been too high to hit the light poles. They already would have KNOWN that they were going to plant a fake FDR in the building that would NOT match-up with the light poles. They would have already known that there may have been witnesses who saw the plane NOT hit the light poles and fly in at an angle that would have missed the light poles.

So why include faking the downed light poles at all? If they had a 757 do a flyover, the downed light poles weren\'t necessary to \"prove\" it was a plane. Witnesses saw the plane. They certainly didn\'t need the downed light poles to corroborate the angle of damage inside the building -it was self-evident.

So until you can explain any rational explanation as to why the perps would attempt such a high-risk and unneeded ploy as to faking the downed light poles, including faking the damaged taxi, your conclusions are far from convincing.



[edit on 8-10-2007 by robert z]

I report the evidence.

It is not my job to explain why the evidence contradicts their story.

It was a complex operation and there are many contradictions.

The fact that you find it hard to believe does not change the fact that the evidence proves their story false.

Your line of questioning does not refute the evidence and amounts to nothing but an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.

Please adhere to true critical thinking principles and valid debate tactics and address the evidence directly.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I report the evidence.

It is not my job to explain why the evidence contradicts their story.

It was a complex operation and there are many contradictions.

The fact that you find it hard to believe does not change the fact that the evidence proves their story false.

Your line of questioning does not refute the evidence and amounts to nothing but an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.

Please adhere to true critical thinking principles and valid debate tactics and address the evidence directly.

Thanks.

Everything you've stated above applies to your own arguments and conclusions. In terms of valid debate tactics, it is you who are averring an extraordinary scenario that needs to be substantiated with an analysis of all available data, not just data you deem worthy.

You claim that it's not your job to explain why the evidence contradicts the official story, yet you do exactly that in concluding that the entire operation of a grand illusion which includes an unseen flyover of the Pentagon by a 757.

The fact that you can't reconcile all the data to fit with the official story does NOT prove your theory true.

In fact, in reading your posts it is YOU who base almost the entirety of your arguments from a position of incredulity. You simply don't believe that the pole could have damaged the windshield without damaging the hood. Your disbelief leads you to conclude the story is false. That is a classic example of an argument from incredulity.

I am addressing the evidence directly. 5 light poles were found on the ground along a path that coincides with the internal damage to the Pentagon. All witnesses, including your Citgo witnesses saw a plane. Only one witness claims the plane did NOT hit the Pentagon and instead flew over the Pentagon.

Can we agree that this is a subset of the evidence in question?

Based on this evidence, we have not just a preponderance, but evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane hit the Pentagon per the official story.

* All but ONE witness testified that the plane hit the Pentagon. 100% of all witnesses testified that there was indeed a plane.

* 100% of all witnesses testified that the plane approached the face of the Pentagon at the exact location of the explosion at precisely the exact moment of the explosion.

* Pieces of the witnessed plane were found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn.

* Radar controllers tracked the plane into the Pentagon.

* The C-130 pilot visually identified FL77 per instructions from ATC.

* Civilians, including young school children and their teachers, were known to be on FL77 and have never returned to their families.

The above is just SOME of the evidence of the official story that FL77 hit the Pentagon.


Your evidence that FL77 flew over the Pentagon:

* One witness stated they believed the plane flew over the Pentagon.

* 4 witnesses said the plane flew to the north of the Citgo, therefore precluding the plane from hitting the light poles. (So rather than conclude the witnesses are wrong about the flight path, you conclude secret agents planted the light poles.)

* The FDR data doesn't match up with the downed light poles based on your analysis, even though the same perps who would have planted the poles could have created a corroborating FDR but chose not to.

* Based on the limited photos you have access to, and based on your own incredulity, the lack of perceived foundation damage precludes that FL77 hit the Pentagon.

So try these rules of debate...

a) 3 of your 4 witnesses provide internally contradictory evidence for your flyover theory. This means that something they claimed to witness is wrong -either the north of Citgo flight path or the plane hitting the Pentagon. It is your position of incredulity that leads you to conclude that they are right about the flight path but wrong about the plane hitting the Pentagon. According to the rules of debate, the testimony of 3 of your witnesses would weigh equally in favor of the official story as your flyover theory.

b) For your scenario to be true, by necessity you must begin creating a reality that is backed up by no affirmative evidence. You must concoct secret agents implementing secret plans for which there is no evidence of having ever existed. This is the equivalent to John Lear's grade-school holograph explanations based on his claim that futuristic technology was used for which there is no evidence of its existence.

Your theory requires the following evidence, which does not exist:

No evidence of poles downed before impact,
No evidence taxi driver is government agent,
No evidence of agents placing the poles on the road,
No evidence of 757 flying on opposite side of the Pentagon after flyover,
No evidence of anybody planting parts of plane inside the Pentagon,
No evidence of anybody planting parts of plane on the lawn,
No evidence of any other device other than a plane causing the explosion,
No evidence passengers on FL77 are still living,
No evidence passengers on FL77 were murdered away from Pentagon,
No evidence passengers on FL77 were fake identities a la Northwoods,
No evidence that the ATC radar data was faked to show the plane disappear from radar at the Pentagon,
No evidence of the 757 landing anywhere else, etc.

You have proven time after time that it is YOU that's approaching the entirety of the evidence from a position of incredulity in terms of the official story. You've latched onto a very small segment of data (your witnesses, 3 of whom saw the plane hit the Pentagon) and have concocted a fantasy world of scenarios that have no corroborating evidence.

And when reasonable people like myself are unconvinced of your flimsy arguments, you and your sidekick Aldo invariably degrade, insult, and attack them rather than face the fact that your arguments are lacking.

Here's the reality. In spite of your zealous efforts, you've failed to convince many people of your flyover theory. Your antagonistic and degrading attitude towards others makes you and your theory look even less substantive.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisssAhem...
Why wouldn't the gas station be "secured and controlled"? Having "unlimited time, money, and access to unknown technology" why wouldn't they have had the employee positions filled at the gas station overlooking the entire thing?

I know you are not this ignorant. We go way back to myspace back when GQ was posting. You know I am Lyte Trip and that my partner Aldo is Merc right? Please STOP these pointless arguments. Suggesting that they had control over traffic of a single highway during the operation of an operation that they created is NOT even close to the same as suggesting they "totally controlled" every single human that was present even 5 years later when we are there looking for witnesses. I have NEVER made such a ludicrous claim and that is exactly your point by saying that every citizen immigrant gas station attendant was involved and that Robert Turcios had the special assignment of providing corroborated testimony that PROVES the official story wrong for disinfo purposes.

True enough, you've never said everyone was controlled. Just a handful. But which handful? One containing immigrant workers, the other a longtime DC cab driver (NOT Mr. T) One contains Pentagon cops, the other a 'parade' of USA Today exployess on their way to nearby work. One makes about as much sense as the other IF we disregard the logic of what one set proves vs. the other. Then there's a different set of problems. ALL the physical evidence becomes another lying witness in this case, with all the convoluted justification necessary to make that seem 'obvious' or at least plausible 'for all we know.'

So clearly it's time to "STOP these pointless arguments," as in cease and desist, please, before you expose the whole thing, IIB. Because getting one set of witnesses to lie is completely logical, but the other group has immigrants, who are all by definition honest to a "T" as we all know and have sterling memories.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
You guys do know tthere were multiple explosions at the Pentagon, right?
Here's one of them:

So why do you think Lloyd removed that detail from his account?

Every time after the initial Survivor Fund story he made a point to say how "quiet" it was.

He said it to us multiple times.

In fact he specifically said that he fell while removing the pole because the top bent part of the pole "flipped" as they were removing it and that he did not hear any explosions.

Hmmm... good Q. At first it was plane, pole, stop, get out, remove, explosion. Later it was silence, right, with no mention of the explosion? Does he explicitly say 'no explosions?' If so, was this after people had cited this as a 'discrepancy?' Was he possibly making himself more or less believable for some reason?

I DO NOT take Looyd's accounts as pure truth, but I don't think this proves anythng in partcular. He could be playing with you guys. Could be Icke got to him on seeing a photo of his book on the backseat, and contacted his fan to recruit him into a disinfo campaign - 'just mess with people, change your story, say suspicious things..." Or he could just be a wily huy having fun messing with people. Or he could be part of the fabrication psyop as you've deduced.

These are all possibilities that must be considered when looking at any oddities in his account.