Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by pteridine
I have proved everything, too, in this very thread.

You'll need to check again, pteridine.

You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi. You have not proven that passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Disgustingly this poor black ex-cab driver, Lloyde England, now at an advanced age and showing signs of senility, has been mercilessly manipulated by CIT's Ranke and Marquis to make absurd and conflicting remarks about himself and the incident.

Lloyde invited Craig into his home. Lloyde invited them to see the taxi. That is not manipulation. Lloyde had the power, at any time, to turf them out, if he did not wish to speak with them.

Reheat was smart enough to leave that thread. You don't find too many official government story supporters wanting to touch the Lloyde incident. It's messy for them.

You still have not made any progress trying to prove that the light pole his the taxi, mmiichael.

Ask yourself why that is. Ask yourself why you can't produce for me a single government document about the whole story.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Lloyde invited Craig into his home. Lloyde invited them to see the taxi. That is not manipulation. Lloyde had the power, at any time, to turf them out, if he did not wish to speak with them.

Reheat was smart enough to leave that thread. You don't find too many official government story supporters wanting to touch the Lloyde incident. It's messy for them.

You still have not made any progress trying to prove that the light pole his the taxi, mmiichael.

Ask yourself why that is. Ask yourself why you can't produce for me a single government document about the whole story.

Lloyde England has been demonized by the CIT circus as an inside-jobber. You know your Movement is in trouble when your thesis is dependent on a senile old man.

The priest in the nearby car, Stephen McGraw, said:

“The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”

I'm sure the CIT leeches have done their best to manipulate hist staements and discredit him as well.

In 8 years not a whistle of any evidence of 50 feet lamp poles being pulled out of the ground and positioned to make it look like a plane knocked them over. It would take a crew and cranes working for at least a day in broad daylight co-ordinating with the city's electrical power supply to pull this off.

And this is on a busy highway. No traffic disruption, no one noticing any disruption or anything unusual.

It didn't happen. The whole concept is whacko.

No comment on the type of people who would believe it.


M

Originally posted by mmiichael
Lloyde England has been demonized by the CIT circus as an inside-jobber.

Lloyde England has been caught trying to contradict himself by CIT.

Originally posted by mmiichael
The priest in the nearby car, Stephen McGraw, said:
“The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.”
I'm sure the CIT leeches have done their best to manipulate hist staements and discredit him as well.

Ahhhhh, mmiichael... hello? Are you sure you want to go there with McGraw?

You do realise that CIT have interviewed McGraw, on camera, right?

Before you appear to look foolish, I'll let you Google it and find it. You don't want to make the same error that pteridine did, do you?

(psst, here's a hint: It's back in this thread!)

Originally posted by mmiichael
In 8 years not a whistle of any evidence of 50 feet lamp poles being pulled out of the ground and positioned to make it look like a plane knocked them over.

In eight years no one has been able to prove that a plane hit a light pole and the light pole hit the taxi. No one has done this, mmiichael. You have certainly failed on many occasions.

Originally posted by mmiichael
It would take a crew and cranes working for at least a day in broad daylight co-ordinating with the city's electrical power supply to pull this off.

That's an interesting claim that you're making. Why don't you prove it?

Please, continue to type as much as you like about Lloyde's story. It bumps the thread and allows casual readers to see how devoid of proof you are.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Please, continue to type as much as you like about Lloyde's story. It bumps the thread and allows casual readers to see how devoid of proof you are.

No evidence of any crew pulling out lamp posts. Not one of the thousands of people who drove on the thoroughfare noticed anything resembling lamp posts being pulled out of the ground. No report of traffic disruption.

No one has to provide evidence of every insane theory that comes down the pike. The people spreading this lunacy have to provide some evidence. They don't. They can't.

You have not provided a lick of evidence on anything. You never will.

Don't know whether to consider all this BS laughable or pathetic.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Jezus
O isn't that convenient, NOW he is senile...

From his conflicting often fantastic stories it's hard not to conclude Lloyde England, now in his 70s, is senile.

Aldo Marquis, co-owner of CIT Inc, said the same thing 3 years ago.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The one thing we couldn't get over is that this man is allowed to drive. He seemed to be too senile or old to be driving a cab.

The point is that all information concerning him should be considered with skepticism, not just information that conflicts with preconceived notions...

Originally posted by tezzajw

You have not proven that the light pole hit the taxi. You have not proven that passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.

And you have not proven that "Hundreds of years of sound philosophy has shown that people who make claims need to support them - if they wish to be taken seriously."

Please stop trolling and provide evidence to support your statement.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Don't know whether to consider all this BS laughable or pathetic.

I echo your sentiments here, mmiichael.

You and pteridine have both failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi. You're in some elite company, as Reheat admitted that it hasn't been proven. trebor couldn't prove it.

We all remember his destruction of logic:

Originally posted by trebor451
I don't have to "prove" it because it happened.

The confusion surrounding the light pole and the taxi from official government story believers is laughable.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You and pteridine have both failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi. You're in some elite company, as Reheat admitted that it hasn't been proven. trebor couldn't prove it.

The confusion surrounding the light pole and the taxi from official government story believers is laughable.

There's that favoured word "failed" Wonder what your marks were like in school.

The highway running alongside the Pentagon, would be monitored like any other major urban highway for accidents or disruptions. Radio news teams routinely supply rush hour reports from helicopters.

On Sept 11, 2001, at 9:35 AM all city traffic was flowing normally. Nothing from the Roads Dept ot thousands of travelling that stretch by the Pentagon has ever come out that contradicts this.

At 9:36, many reported an extremely low flying airliner. At 9:37 there is an airplane crashed into the Pentagon and the highway has downed lamp posts strewn along it.

Many first hand reports here:

911research.wtc7.net...

(samples)

Mary Ann Owens

"I sat lodged in gridlock on Washington Boulevard, next to the Pentagon on September 11. Up to that moment I had only experienced shock by the news coming from New York City and frustration with the worse-than-normal traffic snarl ... but it wasn't until I heard the demon screaming of that engine that I expected to die.

[...]

this engine noise was different. It was too sudden, too loud, too encompassing. Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low.

Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon."

------

Donald "Tim" Timmerman (Pilot)

I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.

It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.

So if it wasn't the plane that what possible explanation can there be for those lamp posts being up at 9:36 and down at 9:37?

Magic?





[edit on 4-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
So if it wasn't the plane that what possible explanation can there be for those lamp posts being up at 9:36 and down at 9:37?

All that you have to do is to prove that the plane hit the pole and the light pole then hit the taxi. Then, all of your confusion and questions about the issue should be resolved.

You're certainly asking lots of questions about the event, even though you think you know what happened. Remember, you claimed that the light pole hit the taxi.

I don't know how the taxi was allegedly damaged. You've failed to prove it to me. pteridine has failed to prove it to me.

reply to post by tezzajw


Once again you avoid the fact that you have failed to support your statement as you demand of others. In your attempts to deflect you have failed to realize that with eyewitnesses to the airplane striking the Pentagon, all conspiracies relating to flyovers, explosives, and planted light posts are off the table and sidebar discussions of taxicab trivia are pointless.

Originally posted by pteridine
with eyewitnesses to the airplane striking the Pentagon, all conspiracies relating to flyovers, explosives, and planted light posts are off the table and sidebar discussions of taxicab trivia are pointless.

You still fail to understand why your failure to prove that the light pole hit the taxi is important.

Here's a tip for you, pteridine - watch the video presented in the OP.

Remember, this thread is about the investigation of the Pentagon, as done by CIT. Within that presentation, the significance of the light pole situation is made clear.

You've failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.

reply to post by tezzajw

Once again, you've failed to back up your previous statement. Your double standard is apparent to the casual reader, the occasional reader, and certainly to those following this post by intently reading.

I found no alarming information in the OP and only fantasy in the link provided. CIT's investigation uses selective eyewitnesses to attempt to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. A 911 theory hinging on a flying lamp post sightings of the third kind demonstrates the weakness of their position.
The lamp post-taxi interaction is irrelevant to the actual event. Perhaps you would like to take up the gauntlet and argue for the lamp post effect and it's central importance as part of their complex theory?

Originally posted by pteridine
I found no alarming information in the OP and only fantasy in the link provided.

Then you have failed to see the contradiction that Lloyde provides about his own light pole story.

Originally posted by pteridine
The lamp post-taxi interaction is irrelevant to the actual event.

The story of the light pole allegedly hitting the taxi is important to the event. You admit that you fail to see why.

This appears to be the reason why you fail to provide any evidence to prove your claim that the light pole hit the taxi. You state it, as though it happened, without any attempt to prove it. Why do yo do that, pteridine?

Originally posted by tezzajw
you have failed to see the contradiction that Lloyde provides about his own light pole story.

This appears to be the reason why you fail to provide any evidence to prove your claim that the light pole hit the taxi. You state it, as though it happened, without any attempt to prove it. Why do yo do that, pteridine?

No one has to prove what is obvious. We know the sun rose in the East that day - even if there's no online link to prove it.

Traffic was moving along the busy highway at 9:35 with lamp posts intact. A plane comes in and people saw it knocking them down. They are on the ground. Lloyde Englande's taxi has extensive damage it didn't have a minute before. More than a 69 year old man could inflict in one minute. Damage consistent with being hit by one of the 50 ft posts. A priest in the next car and others watched it happen.

That's proof.




[edit on 4-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
No one has to prove what is obvious.

No. That fails logic, mmiichael.

It is certainly not obvious that the light pole hit the taxi. Your failure to prove that it happened can't be justified by you trying to proclaim that it was obvious.

Originally posted by mmiichael
We know the sun rose in the East that day - even if there's no online link to prove it.

Off-topic nonsense exposing how shallow your argument is.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Lloyde Englande's taxi has extensive damage it didn't have a minute before.

Please verify this statement. Typing it does not make it true.

Originally posted by mmiichael
A priest in the next car and others watched it happen.

This claim has been proven false and it has exposed your intellectual shortcomings.

Clearly you have not watched the interview with McGraw to hear the man himself state that he did not see it happen.

You've failed again, mmiichael. Why is it so difficult for you to show that the light pole hit the taxi?

Originally posted by tezzajw
It is certainly not obvious that the light pole hit the taxi. Your failure to prove that it happened can't be justified by you trying to proclaim that it was obvious.

Off-topic nonsense exposing how shallow your argument is.

Please verify this statement. Typing it does not make it true.

This claim has been proven false and it has exposed your intellectual shortcomings.

Clearly you have not watched the interview with McGraw to hear the man himself state that he did not see it happen.

You've failed again, mmiichael. Why is it so difficult for you to show that the light pole hit the taxi?

I have failed again and have intellectual shortcomings.

Thank you for informing me.

I didn't know this is a classroom and that you have been appointed Headmaster.

If there was a rational discussion going on here, one would concede that taxi with no damage at 9:36 and with massive damage at 9:37 with a plane flying low and knocking down lamp posts means one of them hit the taxi.

Please provide an alternative explanation consistent with what was witnessed.






[edit on 5-11-2009 by mmiichael]