Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to JPhish's post #2473

Originally posted by JPhish
Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

Not sure, but thinking that maybe the headlining of your questions might get some OS supporters to decline from answering. In any case, I also think that it's impossible for anyone who's reasonably informed concerning Lloyd England to say that he's a reliable witness, seeing as how he contradicts his earlier testimony that he was on the bridge, and continues to do so even when presented with photographs, some of which I believe -he- supplied, that he was on that same bridge when the photos were taken.

I personally believe he was on that bridge at the time of the event; the reason I believe this is I believe there was someone who took pictures of him and his taxi cab, albeit not so close as the photos that Lloyd himself had, but close enough to verify that he was there. True, the person who took -those- photos might also be in on things, but if this event was planned as I think it was, there's no reason why they shouldn't have had Lloyd right there.

The thing that neither this 'further away' photographer or the official photographer captured is any part of the light pole actually in Lloyd's car. There are a fair amount of things that I'm still unclear about concerning Lloyd, his taxi cab and Pole #1. For starters, when was traffic blocked off precisely? I heard a story of a woman being flagged down, but refusing to stop and instead getting off an exit ramp. What I don't know is if this was before or after the pentagon explosion. The reason I'm even bringing this up is, was it normal for Lloyd to essentially be the only person on the highway at that time? And even if the traffic was blocked off from the highway at some point after the pentagon attack, it still seems like it was done mighty quickly. There was, ofcourse, opposing traffic, but they were a bit far, there being a meridian between them. Still, I find it interesting that no one from the opposing side has ever come forward to remark on what must have truly been a spectacular sight, if it had actually occurred; that is, Lloyd's taxi cab being speared by a light pole.

There has, ofcourse, been work done on whether a light pole would have left as little damage as was seen on Lloyd's taxi cab, with the majority clearly stating that if it was truly the large part of the pole that struck the cab, the answer is a definitive no.

There's also the issue of why the pole was broken up in 3 pieces; is that what truly would have happened if a plane had hit it? I've only heard of one other story concerning a plane hitting a light pole, and in that case, it was only severed at the point of impact, and it didn't even fully severe. Pilgrim has suggested that this may have been due to the speed of this other aircraft, or whether or not the pilot of this other aircraft was trying to avoid it, but I'm unsure.

Then there's the issue of PFT's claim that the plane would have had to have made an impossible pull out of a dive if it had truly hit the light poles and then approached the pentagon low and level. My guess is that it would have had to have done this -while- in the process of hitting the light poles, which further strains credulity.

When added to all the north of citgo gas station witnesses, the probability that the plane actually hit those light poles at all seems miniscule to me.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to Alfie1's post #2464

Originally posted by Alfie1
We all know perfectly well where Lloyde was on 9/11; there are photos.

I'm relatively sure of it, yes. The question is, why did he change his story, from being on the bridge, to being in a place that would be able to see the plane from a North of Citgo flight path approach?

Originally posted by Alfie1
Yes, he was confused about his location when CIT got to him years later

If it was simple confusion, then why didn't he simply admit that he was confused when CIT pointed out he was mistaken by producing photographic evidence, some of which I believe Lloyd himself provided?

Originally posted by Alfie1
but, lets face it, CIT were not there to help the old guy out.

I believe that CIT was there to try to uncover the truth. I believe that Lloyd's account doesn't fit with the majority of the data on the subject. Craig Ranke, in a video that I mentioned earlier in a Granada forum, makes it clear that they're not blaming Lloyd for 9/11, but whether he was brainwashed or what not, his story just check out with the facts, and when we're talking about around 3000 people being killed, I think it's understandable that Craig Ranke may have gotten somewhat frustrated when attempting to understand why Lloyd continued to stick to an account that even OS supporters admit was false. Nevertheless, his interviewing style was -far nicer- then some of the things that I've seen on prime time t.v.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Sgt Lagasse was also confused as to where he was filling his car at the Citgo gas station but CIT hang on to his testimony, well the bit they want anyway. Why the double standard ?

The precise location of where Sgt Lagasse filled his car was rather irrelevant to what he later saw. People forget details all the time. But he bet his -life- that he saw the plane on the North side of the Citgo gas station. I imagine he filled his car up with gas regularly, but I believe it was the first time he ever saw a plane get so close to the pentagon and I firmly believe that he bets his life that it was on the north side because the event was one that became firmly embedded in his memory. When you add this up with that of his partner's testimony, Sgt. Brooks, who essentially places the plane on the same flight path, even though he testified that he hadn't spoken about the flight path with Sgt. Lagasse in the past, and there's about a dozen more testimonies that all place the flight path of the plane on the same North of Citgo approach, I fail to understand how anyone could possibly believe that the relatively weak support for the south of citgo gas station flight path could be more credible.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x
If it was simple confusion, then why didn't he simply admit that he was confused when CIT pointed out he was mistaken by producing photographic evidence, some of which I believe Lloyd himself provided?

If it was simple confusion, why didnt mmichael, swampfox, pteridine, jthomas simply admit he was confused when ----- pointed out he was mistaken?

Nice double standard.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Lloyde would be the one to 'admit' that he was confused. My position is that the testimony of witnesses tends to change over time, as Mmiichael has pointed out on several occasions, and the most accurate accounts are those immediately following the event. Lloyde's memory of his exact position on 911 is certainly faulty. He does seem to enjoy his status as a minor celebrity, and cementing it by playing the CIT crew with some ambiguous statements is certainly a possibility.

reply to post by pteridine



Hey, Pteridine, you have made it more than clear with your own words that the last thing you are interested in is the truth via facts and evidence so thanks but no thanks. I was talking to someone else, about someone else. Just because your deception is hinted to in there does not mean I am willing to waste my time with you on that. Your response is actually quite out of place and does nothing to negate what it is you were accused of being deceptive about anyway so you can just ignore me from now on all you like and I will nto get hurt at all.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Well, that's typical of true believers. When you can't argue very well, beg the other guy to ignore you and hope he goes away. As you aren't much of a debater, I'll honor your request as long as you don't get too out of hand.

Originally posted by pteridine
Lloyde would be the one to 'admit' that he was confused. My position is that the testimony of witnesses tends to change over time, as Mmiichael has pointed out on several occasions, and the most accurate accounts are those immediately following the event. Lloyde's memory of his exact position on 911 is certainly faulty. He does seem to enjoy his status as a minor celebrity, and cementing it by playing the CIT crew with some ambiguous statements is certainly a possibility.

There are people here who cannot comprehend the simple concept of tainted testimony. This is what CIT capitalizes on. Select a tiny sampling that conforms to what you want to present, manipulate the rest or edit it for their purposes.

Be interesting if any of the religious converts here are ever wrongfully charged with a serious offense. Police have been know to take advantage of witness confusion and uncertainty. If they want testimony to point to someone's guilt - it can be done.

This will go over the heads of the thinking challenged.

reply to post by pteridine


I want you to ignore because you have stated over and over again that you have NO INTEREST IN FACTS OR EVIDENCE. That is why I could care less about what you have to say now. You said you were here about truth and then went on to reinforce the fact that FACTS AND EVIDENCE mean NOTHING to you and all you really want to hear is people's random personal theories. Which is it because it cannot be both?

You call it typical or whatever else you call it but I am sure that the rest of the debunkers would not be so proud to wave the same flag as you. Any of them that actually care what really happened according to facts and evidence may be worth listening to. You and your denial of facts and evidence in favor of unprovable theories really does not interest me sorry.

I am intersted in facts, evidence, the truth. Sorry you are not, according to your own words.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


The "failure to state" logical fallacy perpetrated by many of the so called "seekers of truth" does nothing to help them discover anything but how well they troll. Saying that there are inconsistencies in the official story [whatever that is] proves nothing. Providing a theory with testable elements is beyond the comfort level of many, you included, because to do so would be to display even more inconsistencies, logical contortions, selective witnesses, and technical incompetence than has already been done.

reply to post by pteridine


Whatever you need to tell yourself. As I said, I am looking for facts, evidence, the truth. I am sorry you are not. You sure do write a lot but you have never once even tried to claim that you are at least even a little interested in the actual facts or evidence so please, as I said before - just ignore me. I really do not care to read any more pointless ramblings that do nothing but try to cover for the fact that you admitted you are a troll when you admitted you have no interested in the truth or facts. Bye now.

reply to Pilgrum's post #2472

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x
I'd have to ferret out the thread where some truthers explained how it couldn't have been done by the plane. Honesty though, I consider it a minor detail, considering all the evidence that the plane flew on a north of citgo approach to the pentagon.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3fac05567931.jpg[/atsimg]

Not a minor point at all as that damage locates the right wingtip to within an inch or two IE more precisely than any other evidence on the scene.

I've now found the thread I created where some truthers explained how it couldn't have been done by the plane, unless we're talking about a different pole. Take a look:

"word Has It..." (traffic Camera Pole "kissed" By Wing)

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Any comment on the missing footpeg coinciding with the mark?

Sorry, that's not an issue I've dealt with before and honestly there's only so many details I want to deal with.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I've also seen mention of the VDOT needing to repair or re-align that camera after the event but don't have a link to that just now. If solid evidence could be produced that confirms that the footpeg was missing and the mark was on the pole prior to 0937 EDT 11/9/01 I'll accept it as it certainly wasn't 'staged' after the event.

How can you be so certain?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Beware of relying on 'truther' interpretations though. What you need to do is look at all the evidence from an unbiassed perspective and derive your own interpretation of it all.

I think I'm relatively unbiased, but I don't think that we should get into a 'you're biased' discussion. I think we should stick to the evidence.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x
considering all the evidence that the plane flew on a north of citgo approach to the pentagon.

That's the whole problem with the CIT theory, there's NO physical evidence supporting it at all

Ofcourse there is. For a start, there's the above thread I just pointed you towards. There's also the thread on Lloyd's light pole that I've mentioned previously. I found another thread concerning the light pole, this one from SPreston, who I have found has some some really good investigative work here at ATS:

Light Pole Was Never Through Windshield, the entire Lloyd scenario was staged

Originally posted by Pilgrum
and it completely relies on a biased 'interpretation' of selected witness statements

They may not have gotten everything right, in particular the motives of some of the witnesses, but as a general rule, I have found their work to be pretty good. Can you point to any particular interpretation that you didn't feel was right?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
while attempting to discredit ALL the physical evidence and witness accounts that totally contradict any flight path other the 'official' one.

As far as I'm concerned, the case against the official story's flight path is a slam dunk. Surely you agree that flimsy evidence should be treated as such? And since that's what the official story's flight path looks like to me, I think it's safe to say that the south flight path evidence isn't credible to anyone who's done enough research on the matter and is thus, ofcourse, discredited by people who are up on the subject.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Penny Elgas and Noel Sepulveda are just two of many witnesses who totally oppose the CIT theory (not only in relation to the impact)

From what I gather, that's not the way CIT sees it, although perhaps there's a few details where it doesn't go with CIT's theory...

Originally posted by Pilgrum
as they both describe the plane clearly banking to its left as it crossed Washington Boulevarde while CIT's conjectured NOC route requires banking to the right in order to cross over the impact point on the building. That pole damage corroborates the left banking as well.

Penny Elgas facing north on Washington Blvd:

It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.

Noel Sepulveda:

"The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low"

There are many witnesses and CIT may not have covered these particular points. However, I firmly believe that the vast majority of the witnesses they were able to interview substantiate their north of the citgo flight path theory.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
If it was simple confusion, then why didn't he simply admit that he was confused when CIT pointed out he was mistaken by producing photographic evidence, some of which I believe Lloyd himself provided?

If it was simple confusion, why didnt mmichael, swampfox, pteridine, jthomas simply admit he was confused when ----- pointed out he was mistaken?

Nice double standard.

A forum is not a one to one videotaped interview. There was a point in time when Michael said he had been ignoring -all- of your posts. Previously, it seems clear that he thought you were saying that -he- had said you were lying. Even after that, I have never even seen him comprehend why you thought he was lying.

The same can't be said for Lloyd England; it seems quite clear that he fully understood that Craig Ranke was making it clear that there's no way he could have been anywhere other then where the photographs of the event have him, that is, on the bridge. And yet, he continued to deny it. The only explanation that makes sense for that to me is that he's desperately trying to avoid implicating himself in part of the 9/11 deception. As Craig Ranke has stated, why he even got in, whether it be for money or even because he was brainwashed, he doesn't know, and neither do I. But it seems clear that he got in.

As I have also mentioned in the past, I have a strong feeling that there is a part of Lloyd that wants the truth to come out. As Craig Ranke himself stated in the Granada Forum video I presented earlier, it seems very strange that Lloyd not only invite him into his home but even show him the taxi; heck, to even keep the taxi suggests a wish to spill the beans, as it were. As a matter of fact, the fact that he was so willing to ficitionally place himself in a place he wasn't in order to support the North of Citgo flight path witnesses suggests to me that he'd -love- it if the people behind 9/11 were brought to justice, so long as he doesn't have to go down with them. Unfortunately for him, informed people know that the only way his story could be true in the important points is if the plane were on the south of citgo flight path.

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine
Lloyde would be the one to 'admit' that he was confused. My position is that the testimony of witnesses tends to change over time, as Mmiichael has pointed out on several occasions, and the most accurate accounts are those immediately following the event. Lloyde's memory of his exact position on 911 is certainly faulty. He does seem to enjoy his status as a minor celebrity, and cementing it by playing the CIT crew with some ambiguous statements is certainly a possibility.

Yes, we all agree that Lloyde's revamped recollection of his position on 9/11 is faulty. But did you know that he changed his location -during- the second interview with CIT, after he heard of all the North of the Citgo gas station witnesses? And then he refused to reconsider his changed recollection even after being presented with conclusive evidence that he couldn't have been anywhere other than on the bridge. Why do you suppose that is?

Originally posted by scott3x

A forum is not a one to one videotaped interview.

Which is probably why it is best to let people fight the battles they decide to engage in for themselves, especially when there is evidence that you do not know it all (yes there is reference to the U2U exchange.) The fact remains that you are applying a double standard. It is ok to be mistaken when you want it to be NOT a lie but if you wish the person to seem incredible then it is a lie. It is the same "mistake."

There was a point in time when Michael said he had been ignoring -all- of your posts. Previously, it seems clear that he thought you were saying that -he- had said you were lying. Even after that, I have never even seen him comprehend why you thought he was lying.[q/uote]

Apparently you did not even attempt to read half of what you claim to. Not only has this been pointed out already but anyone that is anywhere near as interested as you seem to be should have already seen it for yourself - mmichael claimed he had been ignoring me even after several responses. Thank you for reminding me of that blatant lie. You can clearly read his responses to me all the way up to "I have been ignoring you."

Now I know you are full of it. Get back to 9/11 because you have wasted enough of everyone's time trying to fight a battle for someone else that they themself have shown NO INTEREST in fighting for a reason.

Originally posted by scott3x
Yes, we all agree that Lloyde's revamped recollection of his position on 9/11 is faulty. But did you know that he changed his location -during- the second interview with CIT, after he heard of all the North of the Citgo gas station witnesses? And then he refused to reconsider his changed recollection even after being presented with conclusive evidence that he couldn't have been anywhere other than on the bridge. Why do you suppose that is?

I tend to discount the CIT interviews because they occurred well after the fact and CIT has a strong bias. Lloyde was playing with the ace reporters from CIT. He wants to be important, hence the "his story" talk and all the innuendo. The preponderance of evidence says a plane hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by JPhish
Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

Nope, I'm saying that eyewitness testimony gathered some 7 years after an event by a bunch of amateur investigators with no credentials is notoriously unreliable.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x

A forum is not a one to one videotaped interview.

Which is probably why it is best to let people fight the battles they decide to engage in for themselves, especially when there is evidence that you do not know it all (yes there is reference to the U2U exchange.)

You want to fight personal battles without interference, do it outside of the forum. As soon as you bring it -inside- of a thread, it can and in my view, -should- be dealt with by anyone who wants to keep a civil conversation going in said thread.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
The fact remains that you are applying a double standard. It is ok to be mistaken when you want it to be NOT a lie but if you wish the person to seem incredible then it is a lie. It is the same "mistake."

I personally believe that Lloyd's testimony makes it much more likely that he's lying then anything I've seen Michael say.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
There was a point in time when Michael said he had been ignoring -all- of your posts. Previously, it seems clear that he thought you were saying that -he- had said you were lying. Even after that, I have never even seen him comprehend why you thought he was lying.

Apparently you did not even attempt to read half of what you claim to.

I think I understand what Michael understood better than you do.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Not only has this been pointed out already but anyone that is anywhere near as interested as you seem to be should have already seen it for yourself - mmichael claimed he had been ignoring me even after several responses.

I've already gone over this with Lilly; when Michael said he'd been ignoring you, he hadn't responded to anything you'd said in this thread for 2 days.

reply to post by pteridine

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
Yes, we all agree that Lloyde's revamped recollection of his position on 9/11 is faulty. But did you know that he changed his location -during- the second interview with CIT, after he heard of all the North of the Citgo gas station witnesses? And then he refused to reconsider his changed recollection even after being presented with conclusive evidence that he couldn't have been anywhere other than on the bridge. Why do you suppose that is?

I tend to discount the CIT interviews because they occurred well after the fact and CIT has a strong bias.

I don't see it that way. Furthermore, I've noticed that you didn't answer either of my questions.

Originally posted by pteridine
Lloyde was playing with the ace reporters from CIT. He wants to be important, hence the "his story" talk and all the innuendo.

Perhaps he liked having his 5 minutes of fame, but his story -is- important, to the official story.

Originally posted by pteridine
The preponderance of evidence says a plane hit the Pentagon.

I disagree strongly with that. What evidence are you referring to?

Originally posted by scott3x


I think I understand what Michael understood better than you do.

I know. I forgot that you can magically read things you do not have access to and that gives you great insight into things you do not have all the facts of.

If you want to interfere in things that are on the board simply because they are on the board then you should try actually reading everything available to you on the subject. You yourself have traded back and forth between different threads just to try and make this argument and yet you admit you are not willing to even read other threads to see if you might have missed part of this. Nice investigating. As I said before, if you want to get involved - try actually reading everything available to you.

I've already gone over this with Lilly; when Michael said he'd been ignoring you, he hadn't responded to anything you'd said in this thread for 2 days.

I know you have and you are wrong. Although I did not go back and look at the dates because the passage of time does not matter...in the same time that MM was supposedly ignoring my posts, he was replying to them. Did he eventually take a break? Yes, well after replying to me several times as well as the U2U exchange that is even mentioned in one of those posts that apparently never came during that time I was being ignored, even though it exists because I can read it still.

Look, you are purposely missing it. I have already gone over this with you, why do you suppose you are fighting this fight for someone else whom you think is so capable of being so honest and understanding what is going on so well? I have all the facts. MM has all the facts. You have decided not to look at all the facts. If you want to put your two cents in, you should really get all your facts. You do not. Somehow you even seem to think you know more about the situation than I do and yet, you do not have the U2Us and you did not read the other threads and you were not one of the two people involved in both of those thigns which I am. Shhhhhhhhh.

You think MM is honest as the day is long. Good for you. We got it. Please send him a nice card or some flowers and stop telling me that you know more about my private U2Us and conversations on public forums you admit you refuse to look into. Your crush is clear but yapping at me for pages and pages won't get you that kiss.

Originally posted by scott3x
I disagree strongly with that. What evidence are you referring to?

All of the physical evidence and the majority of witnesses. The only thing alarming about the flyover theory is that some poor souls actually believe it.