Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession of Involvement In the 9/11 Black Op

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
And as far as his ‘admission’ goes, I find it just as likely he was just jerkin your chain. Which I wholeheartedly believe you deserved.


And I was thinking I was the only one who got that overall impression

His wife was playing the same game as well I thought.

The basic elements of his account have not been proven to be false IE a plane hit a pole which speared through his windshield and he survived to tell us about it.




posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



the aircraft engines were inches off the lawn as shown in the official parking lot security videos.

Actually the parking lot videos show no such thing. There is only one frame that shows the plane prior to the explosion. This is to be expected since general purpose systems are generally set to 15 fps or less to save hard drive space. For something like a driveway you can expect frame rates set in single digits.
In that frame, the only thing that can be seen is the top half of the tail and I think a little bit of the nose. It is hidden behind a pedestal at the parking lot gate. However the smoke from the damaged engine (the lowest part of the plane) can be seen and it is feet off the ground, not inches.


The light poles in question officially defied all known physics laws and did not rebound in a manner reflecting being struck by a 535 mph golf club or baseball bat. Several apparently just laid down gently next to their bases and several flew in directions completely different than the easterly trajectory of the wings which officially and allegedly struck them.


Actually what you just said is contrary to the very picture you provided.
Your comparison is totally specious. Light poles are nothing like a ball floating in air or setting gently on a tee. A lot of the energy imparted to them would have been used simply ripping them from their base. Add to that the fact that they would have been hit above their center of gravity which would have generally sent them flipping into the ground, not into the air. Any real altitude they would have achieved would have been from rebounding off the ground, not from striking a wing. Only one pole indicated on your picture did not end up directly downrange from where it started. This pole can be seen in the video was struck out near the end of the wing and was deflected outwards slightly from the trajectory of the plane, partly, no doubt, from the fact that there is a lot more flex near the tip than even half way up the wing.
Please explain how any of this is contrary to “all known physics laws” as you put it.

I won’t bother replying to the next paragraph as it is packed full of hyperbole and opinion and simply not worth my time.


Not one photo and not one eyewitness (besides Lloyde England) reported the light pole sticking out through the windshield, including the Federal agents guarding the taxi. There was no sign of injury or even a bandaid on the face of Lloyde, even though he allegedly sat inches away from an alleged projectile piercing his windshield with great force.


I shouldn’t bother with this one either. I doubt any witness was actually ASKED if they saw the pole sticking out of his car as the physical evidence is quite obvious (well at least to some of us). Lloyde clearly stated in all interviews that one of the first things he did was take it out of the car with the help of another person. Now you can point out how that other person never said a word and went on his way (oooooooooo. How spooky). Again you use the word “inches” to imply some level of impossibility when in fact it was probably no closer than a foot and up to 2 or possibly even 3 feet. Go measure the front seat area of your car and don’t forget we are talking about a Lincoln Towncar, not some little import. Lioyde was very lucky either way.

I’ve already pointed out how shaky the testimony of the 1st 2 witnesses is, not to mention the interviewing technique of the interviewer.

You can now accuse me of being an accomplice, again.


EDIT: Missing a bracket
EDIT: Another bracket out of place
[edit on 2-5-2009 by Grimstad]

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Grimstad]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimstad
 


Wow!

Talk about a convoluted, inaccurate, and well...schizophrenic response!

You are working overtime to spin this one and it's really quite amazing watching you completely flip-flop as well as blatantly contradict yourself in order to do so.

First you came in the thread suggesting that Lloyde was simply talking about Bin Laden.

Then when I made you look silly for that by putting it in context of all the evidence, you complete flipped and decided to diagnose him as simultaneously schizophrenic AND a cunning prankster who was "jerking my chain"!


Funny how you have no problem using this blatantly contradictory logic as a means to defend the official story in light of the definitive massive body of independent evidence we present proving it false.

The levels people will reach for in order to deny this information is astounding. From, "He didn't say that!", to "Ok well he said that but he didn't MEAN it or else perhaps he's schizo. I know this because I am an expert on schizophrenia because it runs in my family."



So although we cite 13 north side witnesses who unanimously corroborate a north side approach proving Lloyde's story false, you chose to only address 2 of them and then proceeded to spin what they said and how I interviewed them without bothering to cite their names or a single quote from me or them to back up your accusation!!!

Ridiculous.

You are talking about Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather and their accounts match perfectly, well within any reasonable margin of error that we should naturally expect from eyewitnesses.




They BOTH have the plane coming from over the top of the Navy Annex and banking to the right heading directly towards them on the north side of the citgo.

The fact that you are nitpicking about the EXACT location down to the foot of WHERE over the Navy Annex they both place it when they first saw the plane approaching, even though being directly over the Navy Annex at all is completely fatal to the official story, is mind boggling. Particularly since you are forced to assert that they are both wildly and drastically mistaken in the same way about the location of the plane as it passed right by them over their parking lot on the north side of the citgo.

This is yet another example of your inherently contradictory and blatantly hypocritical logic.

But of course this is why I had them illustrate the path as well so people like you wouldn't be able to spin what they said:



Clearly they match within a reasonable margin of error that any intellectually honest person would expect from eyewitness accounts.

Then you go off on the notion that they may have perspective error when drawing the image:



First of all, people have a hard time relating relative positions of objects from an areal photo when they are used to only seeing them from the ground. That is a fact. Even reading a map can be difficult where everything is in a clearly defined grid with no clutter but when it’s a photo it totally changes perspective.


All of these witnesses live and work in the area every day and have for many years before 9/11 and ever since. They are very familiar with the area. Furthermore we are not relying on any one witness from any single vantage point!

The north side claim is corroborated from 5 critical and opposing vantage points INCLUDING by Sean Boger, the air traffic controller in the heliport tower at the Pentagon (vantage #5).



This is an expert witness who watched aircraft for a living. He ALSO has the plane banking to the right on the north side of the gas station perfectly corroborating the ANC guys.

Starting to get the feeling that you replied too soon? Well you did.

But of course all this was merely additional confirmation since the entire north of he citgo evidence was originally revealed from people with the best possible vantage point eliminating all potential perspective issues in their accounts. The witnesses at the citgo station all had the complete OPPOSITE vantage point from the ANC witnesses yet they ALSO unanimously placed the plane on the north side.

There is no possible way for people at the citgo to have perspective issues regarding the placement of the plane on the north or south side of the citgo station property. And they unanimously confirm the north side.

Also it's not surprising how you are forced to turn to my interviewing techniques yet stop short of accusing me of leading the witnesses because you know that I did not.

So you attack the notion that I often repeated what THEY SAID and then asked them to confirm, clarify, or elaborate.

How is that a "no no"??

That is simply being accurate and thorough and it is not a "no no" in the least.

Please cite your source backing up your notion that such a thing is a "no no" in a court of law or in any professional investigation.

Or do you simply have another brother who happens to be an investigator and he told you this is a "no no"?

The fact is that my line of questioning had NOTHING to do with where ANY of these witnesses placed the plane and you know it.

As far as the editing goes....that's the beauty with first hand eyewitness evidence. It's 100% verifiable with the witness direct. Built in confirmation. ANYONE can contact the witnesses to ask them if we misrepresented their accounts. So far out of dozens of interviews, not a single witness has accused us of this. None of them were promoting a conspiracy so believe me, they would be happy to speak out against us if we were dishonest. ESPECIALLY the cops. But the fact is that they have only said the opposite....that we have represented their accounts fairly and accurately and that they stand by their north side claim to this day. So cut it with the hollow accusations and approach the witnesses direct if you want to make a case against how we presented their interviews or our interview techniques.

I have a feeling you are going to run away from this discussion and refuse to address the rest of the witnesses (by name or with quotes) because you know you are going to look silly asserting that Lagasse and Brooks, both federal police officers, were both magically manipulated by my line of questioning to report the complete opposite of what they saw.



Perhaps they're schizophrenic too?


(I swear that is the most hilarious rebuttal I have heard yet and we have heard a lot. Congrats on that significant accomplishment Grimstad.)







[edit on 2-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Also.....since of course Grimstad has felt compelled to attack the credibility of the ANC witnesses, it should be noted that most of them are already on record describing the plane in the SAME NORTH SIDE LOCATION in officially recorded testimony to the government (specifically the Center for Military History) only weeks after the event.

So this completely destroys any notion that their accounts are inaccurate due to the amount of time between the event and when their accounts were independently confirmed on-camera, on-location by CIT.

It also completely destroys any notion that we manipulated them during the interview or during the editing.

Darius Prather:


The Center for Military History interview with Darius Prather, NEIT 422, was recorded on December 12th, 2001.

Download and listen to it here, then watch our 2008 interview with him in NSF part 1 here, and you will see how it matches perfectly.

This is EXTREMELY important because it means that this already corroborated witness' credibility and accuracy just shot up 1,000 fold because he told the exact same story to his boss, the government, on record within the first few weeks of the event while his memory was still fresh.

The plane was on the north side folks.

Here is a partial transcript of this critical official evidence:



Prather: Up there, where that building is, right there.

CMH officer: Towards the Navy Annex...

Prather: The Navy Annex, above midway. You can see where is a little area on the roof... the lower roof [...]. Right along in that area is where the American Airlines plane came directly across that, and it was only about 3 and half or 4 feet above that. We thought it was the weirdest thing. "It is too damn low", we were saying [...].

So as it came across there... and once the plane came across the building it lowered down [...], it came on down in between where the gas station [CITGO] is and our parking lot. [...] Then he just aimed that nose of the plane like a missile straight over the Pentagon. So as it came right there everybody just ran. I ran into the [inaudible]. [...]

We came just side of this door, we looked over our shoulder on this side (because we were turned this way), that's when we noticed that big airplane come across that building. And I'm just shocked the plane as close it was, he didn't take the roof of that building off.

CMH officer: The Navy Annex?

Prather: Yeah. That's how close it was. It was 3 and a half four feet, I wouldn't give 5 feet, I wouldn't think it was that high.


The plane CAN NOT be directly over the Navy Annex or north of the citgo like all of these witnesses reported and still hit the light poles and the building.

This explains why Lloyde's account is so ridiculous, why he virtually confessed to involvement in the operation, and why people are forced to accuse him of being "schizophrenic" to reconcile all this with the official story.









[edit on 2-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


You are correct about one thing. I am giving this debate far more time than it deserves. And in typical truther fashion, you resort to name calling and ridicule.

I offered a very plausible explanation for Lioyde’s account based on the info you posted. Then on further examination realized there was in fact yet another possibility. Both much more plausible than him being part of some deep dark conspiracy. Something you will never see because you aren’t interested in truth, only in proving that your theory is correct. The only thing what I said contradicts, is what you believe.

You bold and underline (why not italicize too?) like it has some relevance when I clearly identified “the 1st 2 witnesses” and the “maintenance guys” and pointed out exactly where their stories conflict and how the margin of error is close enough to put the plane within striking distance of the 1st pole. My comments were my opinion of your interviewing technique which I personally find questionable. It’s not that I only reviewed 2 witnesses, it’s that they were the FIRST 2. I saw no reason to pursue it any further.

I know I will never change your mind. Nothing will ever change your mind. God himself could never change your mind.

I’m not concerned about you. It’s all the other people that read this crap and take your word for it. I beg people to examine the evidence for themselves and not be swayed by the person presenting it. And rather than accept the highly improbable, examine exactly what is possible.

Don’t sweat it kid. You have your 15 minutes of fame. You have in fact written yourself into the story.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The basic elements of his account have not been proven to be false IE a plane hit a pole which speared through his windshield and he survived to tell us about it.

You have got to be kidding, right?

The basic elements of his account have never been substantiated! Lloyde is the only person on this planet who allegedly witnessed the light pole through the windscreen. How about some independent verification for your claim? Would you like some fries with that story as well?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad

You are correct about one thing. I am giving this debate far more time than it deserves. And in typical truther fashion, you resort to name calling and ridicule.


Wrong.

Now you are resorting to lying about what I said, once again failing to quote me.

I did not call you a name nor did I ridicule you.

Sure I highlighted how your response to this evidence has been ridiculous and illogical but I made sure to explain exactly why. (there I italicized for you)

I can't help it if you choose to take that personally.



I offered a very plausible explanation for Lioyde’s account based on the info you posted. Then on further examination realized there was in fact yet another possibility. Both much more plausible than him being part of some deep dark conspiracy. Something you will never see because you aren’t interested in truth, only in proving that your theory is correct. The only thing what I said contradicts, is what you believe.


Huh?

I have backed up everything I said with hard evidence officially documented and independently confirmed. You have presented zero evidence and have wildly speculated about Lloyde's mental health and asserted an unsupported conspiracy theory about him and his wife "jerkin" my "chain".

There is nothing "plausible" or logical in your purely made up fantasy that has zero evidence to support it.

Particularly given the north side evidence proving the plane did not hit the poles.




You bold and underline (why not italicize too?) like it has some relevance when I clearly identified “the 1st 2 witnesses” and the “maintenance guys” and pointed out exactly where their stories conflict and how the margin of error is close enough to put the plane within striking distance of the 1st pole. My comments were my opinion of your interviewing technique which I personally find questionable. It’s not that I only reviewed 2 witnesses, it’s that they were the FIRST 2. I saw no reason to pursue it any further.


Well as I just posted the witnesses officially reported the same thing to the govt only weeks after the event.

This completely destroys your baseless accusation that their unanimous placement of the plane on the north side has anything to do with our interviewing techniques or editing.

Just as I said you will refuse to "pursue it any further" because you know you don't want to deal with the fact that the police officers at the gas station reported the same thing.

You know this information is definitive and that you have no valid argument against it.

It scares you, and rightly so, but you have resorted to lying about me calling you names as an excuse to avoid the evidence and run from this discussion.

That's ok....it happens all the time so I'm used to it. But you won't stop thinking about this and you will come back to look at this evidence again, even if you never post another thing about it your entire life. I'd bet my bank account on that one.



I know I will never change your mind. Nothing will ever change your mind. God himself could never change your mind.


I can't change the evidence. Nobody can. You can't change where the plane flew.

But again I'd wager that your mind is already beginning to be changed concerning the implications.



I’m not concerned about you. It’s all the other people that read this crap and take your word for it. I beg people to examine the evidence for themselves and not be swayed by the person presenting it. And rather than accept the highly improbable, examine exactly what is possible.


Yes I beg for them to do the same thing just I am begging of you.

But you already gave up after only 2 witnesses out of 13 even though I have proven that they told the same thing to the govt only weeks after the event.

Think about THAT.



Don’t sweat it kid. You have your 15 minutes of fame. You have in fact written yourself into the story.


Don't patronize me.

It's not my fault the witnesses all report the plane on the north side while Lloyde's story is physically impossible and he admits to being involved.

It has nothing to do with me.

I simply asked them where the plane flew. They all said north side (even Lloyde!).

I know this is difficult to take and I understand how your initial reaction is to blame me personally.

I'm sorry for that and I hope you can get over it and help us fight for truth and justice.

Thanks and take care Grimstad.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Craig, did you show the "history/his story" quote in the video? I may have missed it.

If not, here it is for people who haven't heard it.

"You know what history is? It's not the truth. It's "his story." Has nothing to do with the truth." - Lloyd England, in the context of a discussion of the 9/11 attacks.

Great work with this short. Lloyd's account is critical.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
Light poles are nothing like a ball floating in air or setting gently on a tee. A lot of the energy imparted to them would have been used simply ripping them from their base.

That contradicts the claim made by other government loyalists who swear that the poles are easy to knock over. Did you that the poles were designed to knock over and easily break away from their base when struck by a car at a fairly low speed?

So which is it - do the poles need lots of energy to break, or don't they?



Add to that the fact that they would have been hit above their center of gravity which would have generally sent them flipping into the ground, not into the air.

Please prove this with some mathematical models. Also, please show the trails of divot marks in the clean, manicured Pentagon lawn. There is no evidence of the light poles doing anything other than falling gently on the undisturbed lawn.



I shouldn’t bother with this one either. I doubt any witness was actually ASKED if they saw the pole sticking out of his car as the physical evidence is quite obvious (well at least to some of us).

What physical evidence?

The pole stuck in the windscreen, with a taxi travelling along at 40, slides to a stop, yet no scratches on the windscreen frame or bonnet?

Lloyde (with help from an unknown stranger) was able to pull out the firmly wedged pole from the back seat and lay it on the ground beside the taxi causing a scratching arc on the road, all within a couple of minutes, based on the time stamp of the Ingersoll photographs - while not scratching the bonnet or windscreen frame?

Remember if the light pole was not firmly wedged in the back seat, then it would have been loose and it would have moved, flipped and spun as Lloyde's taxi deacellerated from his speed of 40, while in a partial skid. Remember, all while not causing a scratch to the bonnet!

The lack of physically consistent evidence IS obvious.



Lloyde clearly stated in all interviews that one of the first things he did was take it out of the car with the help of another person. Now you can point out how that other person never said a word and went on his way (oooooooooo. How spooky).

Huh? Lloyde made that and you believe it, so where is your evidence (and Lloyde's) that there was a mystery person who stopped, helped, didn't say anything, then got back in his van and drove off, all within the first few minutes of the Feds arriving at the scene???

The official story rests on Lloyde to be telling the truth, his whole account must be fact, otherwise it's game over. If Lloyde's a liar, then there's a whole lot of people deep in a large pile of poo, without a paddle and without a creek to paddle in.

Once more, can you supply ANY other person on Earth who can verify Lloyde's claim? Can you show, mathematically, that the light poles should have done what they did?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimstad
 


Ill refer you and others who take mindless stances to the following article.


From the article above:
Houston Fire Department District Chief Jack Williams said the twin-engine Gulfstream jet, arriving from Dallas Love Field, apparently clipped a tall light tower at a Beltway 8 toll plaza, shearing off a wing. He said the severed wing rests near the base of the tower.



Ok so 1 lightpole, sheared wing. Which falls to rest at the BASE of the pole.

5 light poles, and wings aren't sheared off, they are sucked into the hole at the pentagon and vaporized... riiiiiighhhttt....

Additionally, if the poles were struck, and the generator as some say, it's amazingly odd that not one part of the plane actually made contact with the ground before making a perfect hit on the building.

You have to love how on one day, you can have 100's of the most mind boggling coincidences in the world, yet 8 years later can still find people eagerly running around spewing the ignorant official lie, which in reality, is the only conspiracy theory of that day.

I guess Bin laden had Norad stand down, wait, Cheney was directing that, uhm well I am sure Bin Laden would strike the most vulnerable part of the pentagon, no.. well... wait... the 'plane' hit the ONLY section reinforced to take such a hit... hmm well I guess Bin laden stood to gain financially from the attacks... oh wait.. only the bush admin and their cronies did... uhm.. ok well Bin Laden DEFINITELY forced the US government to completely destroy any attempts of a real investigation into the matter, he probably also had just bought major insurance policies for the WTC complex for acts of terrorism.. damnit.. that was silverstein...

well ok whatever I can't find anything that bin laden did, but maybe someday when my kids are grown up they will finally find something that bin laden did that day.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by king9072]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Ligon
 


Actually no that is not included in the short so thanks for posting.

As discussed in the OP there is a TON of more critical information in the full-length presentation on Lloyde, The Eye of the Storm.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Barry Jennings makes a statement about WTC 7 and it is picked apart by government loyalists...

Susan McElwain and Viola Saylor make statements about the drone/plane at Shanksville and it's picked apart by government loyalists...


Lloyde England makes a statement about his light pole and taxi, without any other independent verification and yet it's lapped up by the government loyalists.

Aziz El-Hallan makes a statement (the low flying plane caused some car windscreens to shatter), without any other independent verification and yet it's lapped up by the government loyalists.

Larry 'pulls it' and it's lapped up by government loyalists.

Rummy 'shoots down' the jet and it's lapped up by the government loyalists.

See the contradiction? Of course there are many more examples of the 9/11 doublespeak in action.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


Obviously, you have missed a major factor in your comparison. A Gulfstream is a much smaller and lighter aircraft than a boeing 757 is. And the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was going considerably faster than your gulfstream was.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by Grimstad
And as far as his ‘admission’ goes, I find it just as likely he was just jerkin your chain. Which I wholeheartedly believe you deserved.


And I was thinking I was the only one who got that overall impression

His wife was playing the same game as well I thought.

The basic elements of his account have not been proven to be false IE a plane hit a pole which speared through his windshield and he survived to tell us about it.


If he was "jerkin his chain," then why not do it openly? No, for once privately the man seemed candid, at least honest enough to admit that the event was planned. He was caught contradicting himself earlier, and he seemed evasive, like he was trying to protect himself.

When he felt secure, he "let it out." He "spilled the beans" and came clean or close.

I mean, there you have a confession, while not explicit it was implicit enough for all to see, and still people are trying to deny this?

[edit on 2-5-2009 by talisman]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


The evidence proves that no plane crashed in the Pentagon and the plane that people saw tree top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion was actually banking and going relatively slow when compared to the fraudulent NTSB reported speed of 460 knots.

This is confirmed by aviation professional witnesses Sean Boger (heliport air traffic controller) & Terry Morin (at the navy annex) and also by ANC employee William Middleton.

All said it took around 10 seconds to fly from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I've watched the full length Lloyde England interviews 3 times.. the first time I was puzzled and felt sorry for him. The 2nd time I paid more attention to the tone and the things hinted at. The 3rd time I got pissed. There are lies he tells all the way through it. The Icke book, the Conspiracy Theory classes, the comments made by his wife... they know something. I doubt they will ever speak out.

Great work, Craig. You bring enough to the surface to make me dig for answers myself.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Now you are resorting to lying about what I said, once again failing to quote me.
I did not call you a name nor did I ridicule you.




Talk about a convoluted, inaccurate, and well...schizophrenic response!

You even made extra effort to emphasize the word. You could have stopped at convoluted and inaccurate, but you chose to take that extra step and make light of a serious mental illness, and clearly state that I am guilty of giving a schizophrenic response.

And then you finished your post with

Perhaps they're schizophrenic too?


when I clearly stated

This is the only witness I’ve seen so far where there is some evidence to support this.

Again you chose to take that extra step that pushes it clearly into the realm of ridicule. You didn’t have to do that. You CHOSE to do it.

Dance around it all you want.
You have already discredited yourself.
I have not come across a rational mind yet on this forum that buys into the various theories.
Sure they speculate on the possibility but at the core of the truther religion you will always find irrational people presenting “irrefutable evidence” that their theory is correct, when it is in fact quite refutable if you don’t “assume” there is something shady going on.
I don’t refute your evidence, just your interpretation of it. As a matter of fact, I BEG people to examine your evidence. Not just look at the pictures and accept your interpretation of it but actually examine it and draw their own conclusions.


Here’s a perfect example.

The evidence proves that no plane crashed in the Pentagon and the plane that people saw tree top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion was actually banking and going relatively slow when compared to the fraudulent NTSB reported speed of 460 knots.

This is confirmed by aviation professional witnesses Sean Boger (heliport air traffic controller) & Terry Morin (at the navy annex) and also by ANC employee William Middleton.

All said it took around 10 seconds to fly from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.


Your witnesses clearly state there was a 2nd plane marked USAF. In your video you included a picture of a C 130. The C 130 is specifically designed to fly low and slow. Your witnesses claim it was orbiting (they didn’t use that word but that’s the behavior they described) in the area of the annex and then flew off (which direction is a little unclear as they seemed to indicate 2 slightly different directions).
The only thing fraudulent here is your assertion based on only partial testimony.
You freely mix accounts of 2 completely different planes while completely ignoring half the testimony. Testimony that you espouse as irrefutable.


EDIT: Those damned brackets again




[edit on 2-5-2009 by Grimstad]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

I am only versed in the topic of Lioyde. The independent verification is in all the physical evidence.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Why would lloyd pull out the pole in the 1st place?surly that would be the Last thing on his mind,and the silent bloke who helped him pull it out the shield would of said leave it for the insurance to look at would he not?

And how (with the pole being bent in the way it was)did it manage to miss his arm or another part of his body?LUCK?

looks like he is playing dumb in that interview(eye of the storm)and i wonder is lloyd gonna have a hart attack strange accident soon too?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
The only thing fraudulent here is your assertion based on only partial testimony.

Correction - Lloyde's assertion and his testimony that no one else can support.

Supply another witness who saw the light pole in the taxi. Explain why Lloyde changes his story to put his taxi further North than where the photographic evidence places him.

Do it all while not mentioning the C-130 plane, as that's really off topic for this thread. I'm sure that you can find lots and lots of other threads where the C-130 is crucial to the discussion. Maybe in your short time on ATS, you still haven't learnt to stay on topic?





new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join