Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by RipCurl
1) saw a low flying plane over the road he was traveling heading toward the pentagon.
2) a light pole then hits his car
3) as he stops and gets out to pull the light pole out from his car, he heard a loud boom from the pentagon.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened, and where that explosion came from

Which boom and explosion did Lloyde hear? State it.

Originally posted by RipCurl
I said your "ilk' by the way has twisted and continue to twist Lagasse's claims.

You specifically stated that I twisted Lagasse's words, RipCurl. If you can't manage to keep up, then here's your quote:

Originally posted by RipCurl
no it only proves that since 2001 people like you and the CIT have continued to twist Lagasse's claims.

I understand that it has been a very bad first day back for you on ATS. That's why it's important that you understand how you made your false claim about me.

On your first fay back, your credibility appears to also be in tatters, RipCurl.

Originally posted by RipCurl
remember, WE are not making the extraordinary claims.

Members in this thread have claimed that a light pole hit the taxi and they have failed to prove it. If you wish to join that list, then go right ahead.

Originally posted by RipCurl
You and your ilk are.

See, there you go again, RipCurl. You have already been quoted making a false claim against me and now you're making another one. State the claims that I have made in this thread, RipCurl.

As per usual, your failure to do so will be your admission that your first day back has been terrible, striking out on two counts.

Originally posted by RipCurl
If you dont believe the light pole didn't hit Lloyd's cab, then its up to you to provide proof what exactly did,

It's kind of like educating a child, in many ways. If you believe that the light pole hit the taxi, then the burden of proof is upon you to support that claim. On your first day back, I don't expect you to know much about logic and the nature of proof. It might take you a little longer to learn that you have to support your claims.

Why did you bother to return to ATS and post so many false statements and make so many errors on your first day back?

[edit on 29-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

I understand that it has been a very bad first day back for you on ATS.

On your first day back, your credibility appears to also be in tatters, RipCurl.

your first day back has been terrible, striking out on two counts.

On your first day back

Why did you bother to return to ATS and post so many false statements and make so many errors on your first day back?

Very typical attempt to denigrate other members by the ones with serious self-image issues

We are supposed to discuss the information and arguments

Someone with half a brain would figure out

1) a member has been reading and chose to contribute seeing the level of bilge rising to dangerous levels

2) a member have more than one account






[edit on 30-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Which boom and explosion did Lloyde hear? State it.

Sorry, but is my name Lloyd? Why aren't you asking him?

Im going by his statements and his description of what happened. However, I also take into account the NUMEROUS other witnesses accounts and able to deduce that it was the plane he saw (and others saw) that cuased the explosion he heard.

Im not sure what logical process you're following but it seems that your logic likes to jump from step 1 to step 10 and ignore steps 2-9.

You specifically stated that I twisted Lagasse's words, RipCurl. If you can't manage to keep up, then here's your quote:

Originally posted by RipCurl
no it only proves that since 2001 people like you and the CIT have continued to twist Lagasse's claims.

I understand that it has been a very bad first day back for you on ATS. That's why it's important that you understand how you made your false claim about me.

Wow you even hihglihted the WORD "LIKE" .. As in similar. I know that its rough when someone points out the false things you say, but damn you dont have to HIGHLIGHT it, and say that IM wrong, when its apparent that you dont know what "like" means.

I did not SPECIFICALLY state you. I SAID PEOPLE "LIKE you". DO you understand "like" in this context?

On your first fay back, your credibility appears to also be in tatters, RipCurl.

If credibility was something I was worried about, then I wouldn't be here, since this place has enough zero credibility posters to worry about, passing on false information without evidence.

And of course those who do NOT have the ability to COMPREHEND what they read.

Members in this thread have claimed that a light pole hit the taxi and they have failed to prove it. If you wish to join that list, then go right ahead.

sorry, but its your claim that no light pole hit the taxi despite testimony from the taxi owner and SEVERAL news reports from that day, that stated a light pole hit a taxi cab.

Care to back up your claims, since YOU claim the pole didn't hit the cab;

Its your job now to Prove what did and also make sure its corroborated. Since lloyd and news reports stated a light pole hit lloyds' cab, I have to go with that evidence (NBC4 From WDC did a report on it)

Originally posted by RipCurl
You and your ilk are.

See, there you go again, RipCurl. You have already been quoted making a false claim against me and now you're making another one. State the claims that I have made in this thread, RipCurl.

nice quote mine. Context is everything.

As per usual, your failure to do so will be your admission that your first day back has been terrible, striking out on two counts.

only in your deluded mind.

It's kind of like educating a child, in many ways. If you believe that the light pole hit the taxi, then the burden of proof is upon you to support that claim.

ah quite the opposite in fact. I have the testimony of the taxi owner, the evidence of damage to his taxi and reports from NBC4 about a taxi cab being hit by a light pole.

YOu have:
1).....

On your first day back, I don't expect you to know much about logic and the nature of proof. It might take you a little longer to learn that you have to support your claims.

sorry, but the person who has not demonstrated logic thus far has been you.

You made the extraordinary claim that no light pole hit the cab. Its therefore your job to provide proof.

Why did you bother to return to ATS and post so many false statements and make so many errors on your first day back?

where in ATS agreement that says I can't participate if Im gone for a while. What's the matter tezz? can't handle when the truth slaps you upside the head? getting too laxed when there aren't enough debunkerse to challenge your false claims.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by tezzajw

I understand that it has been a very bad first day back for you on ATS.

On your first day back, your credibility appears to also be in tatters, RipCurl.

your first day back has been terrible, striking out on two counts.

On your first day back

Why did you bother to return to ATS and post so many false statements and make so many errors on your first day back?

Very typical attempt to denigrate other members by the ones with serious self-image issues

yes in his world, unless you have a high post count or dont participate you are someone to ignore.

In less posts than he does, I have shown that tezz spews crap.

We are supposed to discuss the information and arguments

Someone with half a brain would figure out

1) a member has been reading and chose to contribute seeing the level of bilge rising to dangerous levels

correct.

2) a member have more than one account

only one account here. Lurker most of the time, since I use the ATS forums to show friends of some of the stupid crap people believe.

Originally posted by RipCurl
Im going by his statements and his description of what happened. However, I also take into account the NUMEROUS other witnesses accounts and able to deduce that it was the plane he saw (and others saw) that cuased the explosion he heard.

Right, I got it now. The plane impacting the Pentagon caused the explosion. Ok, cool.

So, on your first day back to ATS, let's step you through some logic, shall we?

Lloyde has a light pole hit his taxi. He skids the car to a stop from 40mph. He gets out the car, greets a total stranger who stopped to help. Then, while they were removing the light pole from the taxi, they turned to see the explosion of the plane hitting the Pentagon, which knocked Lloyde over.

Question: Travelling at nearly 800 feet per second, how long does it take to hit the Pentagon from the first light pole strike? Around 2 seconds?

Question: Can Lloyde do all of the above within 2 seconds? Give it a serious think, RipCurl. Gather your credibility and logic together, then let me know what your answer is.

Originally posted by RipCurl
I did not SPECIFICALLY state you. I SAID PEOPLE "LIKE you". DO you understand "like" in this context?

Casual readers, note the desperate back-pedalling attempts that RipCurl is trying to use to retract his false claim about me!!!

Hilarious!

Let's look at his quote one more time, directed to me:

Originally posted by RipCurl
no it only proves that since 2001 people like you and the CIT have continued to twist Lagasse's claims.

Clearly, RipCurl accused me of twisting Lagasse's claims. Clearly, RipCurl, caught in this fabricated quote, that he is not able to support, is now trying to deny his own quote!!!

Originally posted by RipCurl
sorry, but its your claim that no light pole hit the taxi despite testimony from the taxi owner and SEVERAL news reports from that day, that stated a light pole hit a taxi cab.

You should be very sorry, RipCurl. You've butchered Logic 101. You don't even know why you're wrong. You can't see that the burden of proof is upon you to support your claim.

Originally posted by RipCurl
Care to back up your claims, since YOU claim the pole didn't hit the cab;

At what point did I claim that a light pole never hit the taxi, RipCurl?

Obviously you have failed to read the past 50 pages of this thread before returning on your first day back. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I've stated to some members that I would dearly love to believe them that a light pole hit the taxi... however, they can't convince me when they can't prove it.

Originally posted by RipCurl
Its your job now to Prove what did and also make sure its corroborated. Since lloyd and news reports stated a light pole hit lloyds' cab, I have to go with that evidence (NBC4 From WDC did a report on it)

Casual readers should note that RipCurl, on his first day back to ATS, is relying on the unreliable, discredited witness, Lloyde and media reports, to try and prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

RipCurl. Save yourself further embarrassment and read the past 50 pages to see what you're doing wrong now.

Originally posted by RipCurl
You made the extraordinary claim that no light pole hit the cab. Its therefore your job to provide proof.

Go on... quote me! Where did I make this claim?

I understand that it's been a terrible first day for you to return to ATS. You've been so unsure about the false claims you have made against some mebers. You've destroyed logic with your misunderstandings. Maybe you will learn from today's mistakes so you don't repeat them tomorrow and every other day after that.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Right, I got it now. The plane impacting the Pentagon caused the explosion. Ok, cool.

So, on your first day back to ATS, let's step you through some logic, shall we?

Lloyde has a light pole hit his taxi. He skids the car to a stop from 40mph. He gets out the car, greets a total stranger who stopped to help. Then, while they were removing the light pole from the taxi, they turned to see the explosion of the plane hitting the Pentagon, which knocked Lloyde over.

Question: Travelling at nearly 800 feet per second, how long does it take to hit the Pentagon from the first light pole strike? Around 2 seconds?

Question: Can Lloyde do all of the above within 2 seconds? Give it a serious think, RipCurl. Gather your credibility and logic together, then let me know what your answer is.

Casual readers, note the desperate back-pedalling attempts that RipCurl is trying to use to retract his false claim about me!!!

Hilarious!

You should be very sorry, RipCurl. You've butchered Logic 101. You don't even know why you're wrong. You can't see that the burden of proof is upon you to support your claim.

Obviously you have failed to read the past 50 pages of this thread before returning on your first day back. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I've stated to some members that I would dearly love to believe them that a light pole hit the taxi... however, they can't convince me when they can't prove it.

Casual readers should note that RipCurl, on his first day back to ATS, is relying on the unreliable, discredited witness, Lloyde and media reports, to try and prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

RipCurl. Save yourself further embarrassment and read the past 50 pages to see what you're doing wrong now.

I understand that it's been a terrible first day for you to return to ATS. You've been so unsure about the false claims you have made against some mebers. You've destroyed logic with your misunderstandings. Maybe you will learn from today's mistakes so you don't repeat them tomorrow and every other day after that.

Instead of the usual idiotic malicious tirade and Kiddie Konspiracy theory brown-nosing you might want to read up on what actually happened at the Pentagon.

Not much after the plane hit there was an explosion greater than the initial impact.

Cause was the sprinkler system kicking in pouring water on a combination of burning fuel and melting aluminum. This highly volatile mixture explosively produces: Alumina + Hydrogen + heat.

This happened a minute or so after the pole was knocked down which would seem simultaneous with the crash.

Guessing the silent stranger spoke no English (common in Washington) or maybe even had legal or immigration issues. Ergo minimal communication.

This was of course at the real Pentagon in the real Washington DC, not online 9/11 Fantasy Land.




[edit on 30-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by tezzajw
So, on your first day back to ATS, let's step you through some logic, shall we?

your obsessed with this? does it matter when I last posted here and returned to post again? As if that has anything to do with the lies you have been stating in all that time.

Lloyde has a light pole hit his taxi. He skids the car to a stop from 40mph. He gets out the car, greets a total stranger who stopped to help. Then, while they were removing the light pole from the taxi, they turned to see the explosion of the plane hitting the Pentagon, which knocked Lloyde over.

Question: Travelling at nearly 800 feet per second, how long does it take to hit the Pentagon from the first light pole strike? Around 2 seconds?

Question: Can Lloyde do all of the above within 2 seconds? Give it a serious think, RipCurl. Gather your credibility and logic together, then let me know what your answer is.

NO. they heard the explosion then turned to see the aftermath.
I dont take Everything he says as what really happened (time and perception gets severely distorted in a chaotic situation - which is why Witness testimony must be backed by physical evidence). I do believe that the pole hit his car as he described, and he heard the explosion, but is confused as to when he actually pulled the pole out of his car with help.

Physical evidence proves the pole hit his car, and that is the most important thing about his testimony.

Casual readers, note the desperate back-pedalling attempts that RipCurl is trying to use to retract his false claim about me!!!

Hilarious!

wow, yet again YOU fail at reading comprehension.
Do you have to go back to pre-school where they taught you the definition of "like"

No back pedaling here. The hilarious thing is AGAIN you show you do not understand what you are reading.

I've stated to some members that I would dearly love to believe them that a light pole hit the taxi... however, they can't convince me when they can't prove it.

you've been provided evidence. along with testimony of what happened. but we can't help it if you refuse to believe it. That is your problem Not ours.

Now, its on your part to prove that a pole didn't hit the taxi cab and to provide proof of what did.

Remember, your claims must be backed by evidence, which you have shown you severely lack.

Casual readers should note that RipCurl, on his first day back to ATS, is relying on the unreliable, discredited witness, Lloyde and media reports, to try and prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

Real researchers should note that this is a example of a hand wave. you know, dismissing claims that doesn't mesh with the person's ill conceived and factless reality.

Yes, you think lloyd englund is discredited. However, he is on record from 9/11/2001 when his memory WAS the most freshest on the events, of what happened. That is forever recorded. I dont trust any claims that CIT has twisted from his testimony that was taken 5 years after the fact.

Of course, you have to prove how LLoyd was discredited.

I understand that it's been a terrible first day for you to return to ATS. You've been so unsure about the false claims you have made against some mebers. You've destroyed logic with your misunderstandings. Maybe you will learn from today's mistakes so you don't repeat them tomorrow and every other day after that.

not a terrible first day seeing that you've posted nothing but arguments based on illogical claims:
1) proved several of you folks wrong and linked to reports that prove you are wrong.
2) you proved that you can't read, do not understand the word "like" in any context its used in.

The only thing you can do is argue from personal incredulity.


Again, where is the proof that a pole didn't hit his cab?




[edit on 30-11-2009 by RipCurl]

[edit on 30-11-2009 by RipCurl]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Not much after the plane hit there was an explosion greater than the initial impact.

I twice asked RipCurl to clarify which explosion made Lloyde look and he stated that it was the plane Lloyde saw that caused the explosion.

You really need to think through what you type before you type it.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Guessing the silent stranger spoke no English (common in Washington) or maybe even had legal or immigration issues. Ergo minimal communication.

Yeah, right... whatever. We all know that your guess is worthless. why even try to make an excuse?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
Not much after the plane hit there was an explosion greater than the initial impact.

I twice asked RipCurl to clarify which explosion made Lloyde look and he stated that it was the plane Lloyde saw that caused the explosion.

I've already explained it. He's offering up an answer, to which I was not aware of. And a good explanation as to the time it may have taken for Englund to get out of his car to get a pole removed from it.

He may have heard the first explosion or the second one. I dont know. YOU contact lloyd to get his assessment.

Of course, we know you wont.

Originally posted by RipCurl
As if that has anything to do with the lies you have been stating in all that time.

On your first day back you appear to be confused about the terms and conditions of ATS, RipCurl. You should know that stating I have lied is a breach of terms and conditions. You may be warned for it. Of course, if you read the past 50 pages, you would see where I have stated this to other members.

Originally posted by RipCurl
NO. they heard the explosion then turned to see the aftermath.
I dont take Everything he says as what really happened (time and perception gets severely distorted in a chaotic situation

Casual readers, this is comedy gold.

RipCurl quoted a statement by Lloyde, stating that an explosion knocked him down, while he was pulling the light pole from the taxi. RipCurl specifically confirmed for me that the explosion was caused by the plane.

Now that RipCurl realises that Lloyde's story can not be true (he can not do what he claimed in about two seconds), RipCurl is stating that he does not believe everything that Lloyde stated.

Your first day back has degenerated into a nightmare for you, RipCurl. You're doubting Lloyde's word in the same paragraph where you're trying to use his word to support the light pole hitting the taxi! Hilarious!!! This is to much better than TV! Thanks for returning to ATS, RipCurl!

Originally posted by RipCurl
Now, its on your part to prove that a pole didn't hit the taxi cab and to provide proof of what did.

No, no, no. You claim that the light pole hit the taxi. It is your responsibility to prove your claim.

Originally posted by RipCurl
Yes, you think lloyd englund is discredited. However, he is on record from 9/11/2001 when his memory WAS the most freshest on the events, of what happened.

Do you realise the logical hole that you dig yourself in before you even type?

You disagree with what Lloyde stated! You admitted so in your own post!

I don't need to type anymore. You've done enough to destroy your own credibility on ATS, in one day, than anyone else could in a year.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by tezzajw]

A summary of RipCurl's contributions in this thread, on his first day back to ATS after a three year absence:

He claimed that I twisted Lagasse's word. Then he tried to retract that claim, when he was not able to prove it and caught out on it.

He claimed that me and my ilk make extraordinary claims, but he failed to list those claims that I made.

He claimed that I lied and did not show where.

He stated that he does not believe everything that Lloyde said, while trying to use Lloyde as a credible witness to the alleged pole strike.

He claimed that I stated a light pole did not hit the taxi and he failed to quote me.

He destroyed Logic 101 by stating that I need to prove a light pole did not hit the taxi. It's a typical last-gasp whimper, that's muttered when the subject is not able to prove their own claims.

What a way to re-enter ATS after a three year absence. Amazing...

Originally posted by tezzajw
You've done enough to destroy your own credibility on ATS, in one day, than anyone else could in a year.

This is from someone who has about as much credibility as Citizen Investment Trauma has with the already marginal world on Truth Serum drinkers.

Anyone aware realizes Lloyde England, well into his 70s, is going to be confused of details of an high pressure event recounting it half a decade later. And Lloyde is not exactly 100% running on all cylinders any more. CIT Board Members even concede.

In the real world any discrepancies would be attributed to misremembering.

But Truther fundamentalism which dismisses of 99% of the solid evidence - in favour of any reporting error, retelling flubs, unclear photo, typo.

In this world that operates on lines more like a video game day to day reality
Lloyde is now an unreliable witness, not to mention disinformation agent, co-conspirator, accessory to murder, and who knows what else.

Tragic and funny .






[edit on 30-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by tezzajw
You've done enough to destroy your own credibility on ATS, in one day, than anyone else could in a year.

This is from someone who has about as much credibility as Citizen Investment Trauma has with the already marginal world on Truth Serum drinkers.

Anyone with full awareness realizes Lloyde England, well into his 70s, is going to be confused and uncertain of details of a two minute event recounting it half a decade later. And Lloyde is not exactly 100% runningg on all cylinders any more. CIT Board Members even concede that.
attributed to misremembering.

But Truther fundamentalism which demands dismissal of 99% of the solid evidence - hunts madly for anything you can cling to. A reporting error, inconsistent testimony, lack of a photo, a typo.

So Lloyde is now an unreliable witness, not to mention disinformation agent, co-conspirator, accessory to murder, and who knows what else.

that is the typical modus operandi of a 911 Denier/911 Liar/911 fundamentalist.

Whatever you call it, 911 truth is nothing more than cult with factions. None of which have provide a shred of proof in 8 years.


on the totem of pole of stupid to the most disgusting, no planers like the citizen fraud team, are as disgusting as the those who claim there were no victims on 9/11/2001. They and those who follow and repeat their lies deserve to be derided, ridiculed and shown for the stupidity they possess.

tezz of course doesn't need our help in doing that. he does it just fine all on his own.

Originally posted by RipCurl
tezz of course doesn't need our help in doing that. he does it just fine all on his own.

I rarely need help from anyone, when asking people to prove that a light pole hit the taxi.

After eight years, you think that they would be able to immediately prove it. It should be a simple proof, if it happened.

Why is it that difficult, for people making this claim, to prove that it happened?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by RipCurl
tezz of course doesn't need our help in doing that. he does it just fine all on his own.

I rarely need help from anyone, when asking people to prove that a light pole hit the taxi.

proven already. not our fault that you hand wave away evidence and statement that WERE Taken by LLOYD on the day it happened.


why is so hard for you to provide proof that the pole didn't hit the cab and offer up what did.

after 8 years, you should at least have an idea of what did.

Rip Curl, I knew I'd find you here considering you only post in 9/11 related topics.

What other interests do you have by the way besides lifting weights?

Originally posted by RipCurl
proven already. not our fault that you hand wave away evidence and statement that WERE Taken by LLOYD on the day it happened.

Lloyde is a discredited witness. He is unreliable. You stated that you disbelieve statements that he made. You don't believe Lloyde's entire story.

You have demonstrably shown that Lloyde can not be believed.

Originally posted by RipCurl
why is so hard for you to provide proof that the pole didn't hit the cab and offer up what did.

You're new to this game, that much is clear. All I can suggest for you is that you need to take a course in Logic 101. If you pass, you might realise that it is your burden to prove your claim that the light pole hit the taxi.

Your inability to understand this reflects on your logical shortcomings.

reply to post by tezzajw


So, it's just a 'game' to you?? Thank you for clearing that up, it means a lot....and explains loads...

You're new to this game, that much is clear.

Casual readers, and even those not-so-casual, are sure to take note.....

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tezzajw

 

So, it's just a 'game' to you?? Thank you for clearing that up, it means a lot....and explains loads...

You're new to this game, that much is clear.

Casual readers, and even those not-so-casual, are sure to take note.....

I think he was speaking metaphorically. Honestly, who would do this for fun :-p?

Wow that sounds believable! The fact that he could not sleep knowning this info is convincing enough! It is a horrible thought.

Originally posted by Hemisphere
I had not previously considered posting this as I never thought it was worthy of a thread of its' own. I also don't have hard evidence only hearsay from a friend. A well connected and trusted friend but just that.

A number of the posts in this thread as well as other related threads question why and how career military personnel could be convinced to carry out various scenarios. Also how can credible civilian witnesses be silenced? I believe it's simply the weight of opinion against such scenarios an example of either mass brainwashing or mass wishful thinking. Whatever you call it, the majority of people don't want to believe their government and military carry out acts against the people and the country. Those that are wrapped up in such acts are likely convinced it's for the greater good of the people and the country. A "Borne" type of attitude if you will. Even if these people have second thoughts they are in too deep by that time. Yes, I can imagine hundreds and thousands involved. We hear of those spilling the beans later right here on ATS. Spilling the beans and either being made to look nuts, disgruntled or simply taken out.

The story I want to relate is this. My friend, a now former NYC policeman. He was often assigned to protect visiting dignitaries including presidents. After the 911 disaster he was assigned to guard the site. The information he became privy to while working that detail forced him later to leave the force. To cut to the chase, he found out that there were security tapes stored off site of the towers. Cameras and tapes were functioning during the rescue attempts as responders flowed into the buildings and the various offices and floors. What a number of these tapes revealed was that some of the responders were looting evacuated offices and stores in the towers prior to them collapsing. As you can imagine some of these responders also survived. Some were decorated and celebrated for their "valor". Some posthumously.

This story, if true, is rather insignificant in the big scheme of that day. The point was that if this information were released to the public, all trust in the police, firemen and EMS personnel for the entire city would be lost. And so those who had learned of or saw the taped evidence were and are hesitant to divulge what they know. They fear the panic of a public that does not trust those assigned to protect them and they fear personal reprisals from the PTB.

My friend resigned from the force as he could not sleep or function normally dealing with this knowledge. Those in the know were convinced, brow-beaten, threatened if you will, to never divulge this little secret. Families, careers and reputations were on the line. Not quite a military secret but I think a good parallel. If true, I think this is a small example of how such a controversial scenario could be hushed up.

I for one could imagine people (responders) tempted by what they thought were easy pickings. No, they were not carrying computers out of offices. We're talking grabbing a purse left behind in the rush to evacuate, things of that nature. They never suspected the buildings would collapse on them, they never suspected they were being taped. Seemingly small crimes in themselves but the loss of confidence in those in uniform was deemed catastrophic for a city in turmoil as NYC was at the time by the PTB.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by UFOAlienLover]

[edit on 30-11-2009 by UFOAlienLover]