In this new interview, poor Lloyde obviously understands that his original tale will not work, so he tries to move himself and his taxicab down the road and over to the now PROVEN decoy aircraft flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, even though all the photos and videos taken on 9-11-2001 trap him on the south side of the Hwy 27 overpass where no aircraft ever did fly and no aircraft ever did knock down the five light poles.
..........
That's what I was addressing, not what proves Lloyd is lying. We already know everything that proves he is lying or being dishonest.
How about an asset? How just a broke old cab driver who is easily enticed by large sums of money? How about coerced? How about manipulated? Nice strawman, no one from CIT called him a "gov't agent". Get a grip.
Nice strawman, no one from CIT called him a "gov't agent". Get a grip.
June 23, 2002
Ideas & Trends; For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing
By MATTHEW L. WALD
HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which announced this month that it had gathered 349 eyewitness accounts through interviews or written statements, 52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air. The largest number (22 percent) said the fire was in the fuselage, but a majority cited other locations, including the left engine, the right engine, the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified engine or wing.
Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn. Nearly 60 percent said they saw something fall off the plane; of these, 13 percent said it was a wing. (In fact, it was the vertical portion of the tail.)
The investigators say there is no evidence in the wreckage or on the flight recorders of an in-flight fire or explosion. A plane breaking up in flight, as this one did, might in its last moments produce flashes of fire from engines ripping loose, but the idea that the plane caught fire is a trick of memory, they say.
None of this is surprising, said Dr. Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University and the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. Eyewitness memory is reconstructive, said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there.
The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire.
As a result, the safety board generally doesn't place much value on eyewitness reports if data and voice recorders are available. For many investigators, the only infallible witness is a twisted piece of metal.
