Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by pteridine
You are saying that we must look at the lightpole-winshield story in isolation.

I'm stating that to the best of my knowledge (and no one has proven me wrong) the only sources for the light pole hitting the taxi are media sources.

mmiichael has admitted that he could not find any official government documentation about the entire incident. I suspect that even though his research is also lacking, it couldn't be any worse than your's. You completely failed with McGraw.

Originally posted by pteridine
You suggest that the media either didn't check the story other than taking Lloyde's word for it at the time or they are part of a conspiracy that needs lightpoles to impinge on a windshield for some unknown reason.

I asked why the media drove the story without verifying if it was true.

Originally posted by pteridine
You reject the idea that the media might publish a curiousity without having it verified by high definition video.

Huh? What does this statement have to do with the light pole hitting the taxi? I never made that general claim. Your statement is false.

Originally posted by pteridine
Are you further suggesting that any media inconsistencies are suspect and likely a conspiracy?

No, I never made that general claim. Your guess is incorrect.

Originally posted by pteridine
Should any statements made more than a year after the event be discounted as a result of the witnesses having false memories?

What does that have to do with the light pole hitting the taxi?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

You are not interested in evidence, you are interested in demanding evidence from others.
I don't respond well to feigned incredulity or impetuous demands.

What is your evidence that AA77 did not strike the Pentagon? Prove a conspiracy, if you can.

LOL. OK. Reading from Jthomas's book again? I am not interested in evidence, I am only interested in getting evidence from others.

YUP!!!!!!!!

You are catching on. I have no evidence. I was not involved in 9/11. This is why I make no bold claims as to say just what DID happen. You speak rather sure of the OS though. Why?

Are you seriously asking me to prove to you that something did NOT happen? I guess I gave you waaaaaaay too much credit. So far the only people insisting that a negative can or must be proven have been illiterate, uneducated, and ill informed. What is your reason for it?

Originally posted by tezzajw
mmiichael has admitted that he could not find any official government documentation about the entire incident. I suspect that even though his research is also lacking, it couldn't be any worse than your's. You completely failed with McGraw.

All your messages state or imply what you consider failures. Is this a personal obsession.

I don't admit to things. That is your characteristic choice of words.

What I said, which you repeatedly fail to understand, is that the government, media, medical services, police, were concerned for the lives and safety of people in the Pentagon and surrounds on Sept 11, 2001.

There was and never will be any concern to investigate minor peripheral damage caused by the incoming plane or crash explosion. I'm sure items fell off mantles in homes with the plane vibrations, a couple cars hit other bumpers screeching to halts, broke glass from the fallen light poles caused a flat tire for someone. Lloyde England's windshield was broken.

It would be irresponsible for a government body to spend money, time, and resources unconnected to a major crime and destruction scene that required maximum attention.

This disingenuous attempt to make this broken windshield a central issue to an unsupported and rather childish conspiracy theory of there being no plane involved in the Pentagon attack raises a very alarming question.

Why is there a campaign to disprove Muslim hijackers flew a plane into the Pentagon? We have evidence, testimony, confessions that fully support this crime against the United States.

Why are there people devoting inordinate time and energy into diverting attention from the reality of this crime?

What sort of people feel compelled to not only deny basic truth but try to convince young impressionable people of something patently untrue?

These are very serious issues that need to be addressed.

Originally posted by mmiichael
There was and never will be any concern to investigate minor peripheral damage caused by the incoming plane or crash explosion.

Then why did you claim that there was forensic reports about the scene earlier in the thread?

Why did you state that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles, if you can't prove it?

Originally posted by mmiichael
It would be irresponsible for a government body to spend money, time, and resources unconnected to a major crime and destruction scene that required maximum attention.

It would be irresponsible for a government not to spend money and properly investigate the crime.

Originally posted by mmiichael
This disingenuous attempt to make this broken windshield a central issue to an unsupported and rather childish conspiracy theory

You're using the damaged taxi as a central piece to your theory that it was hit by a light pole, after being struck by a plane.

You have not proven this theory so far, mmiichael.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Why did you state that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles, if you can't prove it?

There were people who saw light poles knocked down by the incoming planes. Their names and their statements were reproduced or linked to.

This thread is not about the exact wording of any of my postings.

It's about a claim that here was no hijacked plane attack at the Pentagon.
That the government lied in stating foreign nationals planned and executed the murders and property damage. So the calim is that the US government is responsible for the murder of the two hundred people either on the plane or in the wing of the Pentagon that was destroyed.

Lloyde England, an 77 year old taxi driver has been implicated as an accomplice in this crime.

This is a very serious accusation - planned mass murder.

Is there any material evidence to support this claim that would hold up in a court of law?

Please reply with a one word answer: "Yes" or "No"








[edit on 27-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
There were people who saw light poles knocked down by the incoming planes. Their names and their statements were in part reproduced or linked to hear.

Not anywhere near good enough, mmiichael.

You claimed that there were hundreds, if not thousands of people who saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles.

I expect that you will be providing the list of the hundreds of people, shortly. Your failure to do so will be your admission that you falsely inflated your claim.

Originally posted by mmiichael
This thread is not about the exact wording of any of my postings.

Casual readers, can you believe what you're reading?

mmiichael is now complaining that his claims are being challenged! He appears to think that he can state the 'hundreds or thousands' claim as though he should be believed???

mmiichael, if you are not able to correctly state the facts, then you are deliberately spreading disinformation. You have admitted as much with your inability to support your claim.

Present the names of the hundreds of witnesses who saw the plane knocking down light poles or retract it.

Next time, choose your words wisely, as you know that you will be challenged to prove every claim you make.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You claimed that there were hundreds, if not thousands of people who saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles.

I expect that you will be providing the list of the hundreds of people, shortly. Your failure to do so will be your admission that you falsely inflated your claim.

Casual readers, can you believe what you're reading?

mmiichael is now complaining that his claims are being challenged! He appears to think that he can state the 'hundreds or thousands' claim as though he should be believed???

mmiichael, if you are not able to correctly state the facts, then you are deliberately spreading disinformation. You have admitted as much with your inability to support your claim.

You avoid all questions and responsibility for what you contribute or choose not to on this thread.

I have to repeat my previous message asking about your endorsement of a serious claim the US govt planned and executed mass murder with taxi driver Lloyde England as an accomplice. Please respond to the question asked:

This thread is about a claim that here was no hijacked plane attack at the Pentagon.

That the government lied in stating foreign nationals planned and executed the murders and property damage. So the claim is that the US government is responsible for the murder of the two hundred people either on the plane or in the wing of the Pentagon that was destroyed.

Lloyde England, an 77 year old taxi driver has been implicated as an accomplice in this crime.

This is a very serious accusation - planned mass murder.

Is there any material evidence to support this claim that would hold up in a court of law?

Please reply with a one word answer: "Yes" or "No"

Originally posted by mmiichael
You avoid all questions and responsibility for what you contribute or choose not to on this thread.

On the contrary. You are the one who has failed to prove your claims.

You have failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.
You have failed to prove that thousands of people saw the plane depart.
You have failed to prove that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles.

Originally posted by mmiichael
I have to repeat my previous message asking about your endorsement of a serious claim the US govt planned and executed mass murder with taxi driver Lloyde England as an accomplice. Please respond to the question asked:

Lloyde has been caught contradicting himself on video in CIT interviews. It makes him an unreliable witness.

I'm not in a position to determine if Lloyde is an accomplice to anything. I don't have the investigative powers to formally interview Lloyde. I can't examine the taxi for forensic evidence and I can't examine the crime scene for other crucial forensic evidence, such as the light poles. I don't have access to formally interview the men who were standing beside Lloyde, in the Ingersoll pictures.

You want me to make a judgement call about Lloyde being complicit when I don't know anything??? That shows how weak your reasoning and logic skills really are, mmiichael.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You are the one who has failed to prove your claims.
You have failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.
You have failed to prove that thousands of people saw the plane depart.
You have failed to prove that hundreds of people saw the plane flying around the Pentagon knocking over light poles.

The subject of this thread is "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

Please respond to my previous question. Restating. Do you believe no passenger aircraft hit the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001, as Citizen Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California is claiming? That the US govt faked a plane crash despite the evidence and testimony of multiple eyewitnesses? That they caused destruction in a wing of the Pentagon in which many died?

You repeatedly ask for proof Lloyde England's taxi windshield was hit by a light pole as he claimed and as most presume. Understood is that you do not believe that explanation. That you believe the windshield was broken
as part of a conspiracy to convince people a plane knocked down light poles/ Lloyde England contributed to this deception and by implication is an accomplice to planned mass murder?

These are very serious claims to be made. It amounts to defamation of character of a man who by law is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Do you agree or disagree?

Originally posted by mmiichael
Please respond to my previous question. Restating. Do you believe no passenger aircraft hit the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001, as Citizen Investigation Team Limited Liability Corporation of the State of California is claiming?

mmiichael, you've failed to read my replies in this thread.

I've clearly stated that I do not know what happened at the Pentagon.

You tried to tell me that a light pole hit the taxi, but you failed to prove it.

Originally posted by mmiichael
That the US govt faked a plane crash despite the evidence and testimony of multiple eyewitnesses? That they caused destruction in a wing of the Pentagon in which many died?

I don't know if that happened. I wasn't part of the investigative team and I don't have special powers to access all of the files about the incident.

You tried to tell me that a light pole hit the taxi, but you have failed to prove it.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Understood is that you do not believe that explanation.

Quote me where I stated that I didn't believe it, mmiichael? You have failed to prove your claim. That has no bearing on what I believe.

Originally posted by mmiichael
That you believe the windshield was broken
as part of a conspiracy to convince people a plane knocked down light poles/ Lloyde England contributed to this deception and by implication is an accomplice to planned mass murder?

Huh? Where did I state that, mmiichael?

If you could only prove your claim that the light pole hit the taxi, then at least I would have something to believe in.

You can end all of the conjecture about this puzzling incident by proving that it happened. Why can't you do that, mmiichael?

[edit on 27-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

mmiichael, you've failed to read my replies in this thread.

You tried to tell me that a light pole hit the taxi, but you failed to prove it.

You tried to tell me that a light pole hit the taxi, but you have failed to prove it.

You have failed to prove your claim.

I think the real kernel of this thread is emerging. Reading between the lines in which the word "failed' is used repeatedly, what do we have.

The article that started out this thread "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information"

Says this:

www.thepeoplesvoice.org...

Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie."

A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception."

They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists, writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel.

The investigation involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day. It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.

A primary component of the "new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a 'monstrous lie' " the testimony of cab driver Lloyde England.

Ranke and Marquis are not only claiming they have proof the US government deceived the public with their story a plane hijacked by Muslim extremists was flown into the Pentagon, they have also found an accessory to their crimes, which include causing an explosion in a wing of the Pentagon which killed many people working there. Also implied is the murder of the passengers of Flight 77 from Dulles airport.

Videos of taxi driver LLoyde England have been edited and commented on in a manner that makes him appear as if he was a knowing accomplice to these massive government crimes.

This is a serious accusation. England is innocent of course, until he is charged and convicted.

Myself I believe he is a completely innocent old man who is intermittently senile and very confused by his own memory loss and manipulations by "Investigators" trying to capitalize on conflicting remarks he has made.

Frightening and alarming is the extension that anyone might some day be on the seen of a serious crime and later be hounded by "Investigators" attempting to implicate them based on confused conflicting remarks they might make - which are later incorporated into commercial videos that are sold or transmitted via the Internet.

Something to give serious consideration.

M

Originally posted by mmiichael
I think the real kernel of this thread is emerging.

It was kind of obvious after you continued to fail to prove the claims that you were making.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Videos of taxi driver LLoyde England have been edited and commented on in a manner that makes him appear as if he was a knowing accomplice to these massive government crimes.

mmiichael, I know that research may be a new concept to you. Obviously you didn't research too well when you tried to use McGraw as a witness. At least you admitted your error there, so need for further reminders.

Have you seen the CIT presentation called "Lloyde England and his taxi cab. The eye of the storm" ??? It shows a lot more of the CIT interviews with Lloyde and the camera is left rolling for a lot longer.

I'm not going to link it, you will hit it first time on Google. I'm about to get some sleep, so find it yourself.

Originally posted by tezzajw
It was kind of obvious after you continued to fail to prove the claims that you were making.

mmiichael, I know that research may be a new concept to you. Obviously you didn't research too well when you tried to use McGraw as a witness. At least you admitted your error there, so need for further reminders.

Have you seen the CIT presentation called "Lloyde England and his taxi cab. The eye of the storm" ??? It shows a lot more of the CIT interviews with Lloyde and the camera is left rolling for a lot longer.

Yawn. I don't believe what I'm reading most of the time on this thread.

So when will the Trial of Lloyde England begin.

Do they have the death penalty in Washington?

You know tezza, this thread looks like you're talking to yourself (once mmiichael is on ignore anyway ). I'd been reading this thread off & on as a guest, and it's a much quicker read this way. I'm wondering how many keyboards some of these people posting here must go through in the average year.

Why do the "debunkers" keep asking everyone except the OP about this "Alarming Information" quote they keep mining over and over? My research has turned up many informative things that I would certainly call disturbing and anomalous regarding the various "official" accounts of the Pentagon attack, and Lloyde England and his taxicab might be right in the center of all that info.

Of course some appear to find it much easier to play "semantical Simon" rather than discuss and/or provide evidence, so what can ya' do?

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

* Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
* Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
* Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
* Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
* Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
* Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
* Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
* Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
* Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
-------------------------------------------------------
PseudoSkeptics / Closed-Minded Skeptics
* Doesn't ask questions to try to understand things, but jumps to conclusions that dismiss what they don't believe
* Automatically dismisses and denies all information that contradicts materialism and orthodoxy
* Is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about
* Is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo
* Ignores anything that doesn't fit their a priori beliefs and assumptions
* Scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration
* Insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation
* Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments
* Is unable to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

Seriously- this thread has run for 96 pages since late AUGUST? I'd say stick a fork in this one- it's beyond "done" already.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

When do you plan to start disproving the so called "OS theory?"

Who said that i planned on disproving the OS?

Why would i need to when pioneers have already done so?

There's no point for me to attempt to disprove something that has already been disproved.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Disproving doesn't mean questioning its completeness or conclusions.

Yes it does; disproving something starts with those very things you just mentioned.

It means having evidence of another set of events.

Which we have . . .

Let's review.

The OS claims that a single plane knocked down light-poles at the Pentagon. It then asserts that one of those light-poles impaled the cab of a taxi-driver named Lloyde England. It then states that same plane crashed into the pentagon.

Now, CIT has found alternative reliable evidence which conclusively shows that a plane passed north of the cit-go gas-station and did not knock down any light-poles at The Pentagon.

That evidence disproves the OS.

Evidence >> National Security Alert (Video)

If one aspect of a story is a false. The story is not the truth.

reply to post by tezzajw


Tezzajw: "I asked why the media drove the story without verifying if it was true."

How do you know that they didn't verify the story at the time? What makes you think that the media would publish an unverified story?

This thread just seems to be going round in circles regarding Lloyde England, his cab and the lightpole.

There is evidence that the pole hit his windscreen. Damage to the cab, Lloyde's statement, photographic and eyewitness evidence that he and his damaged cab were in the area of the downed poles at the relevant time.

tezzajw and others don't think that is sufficient and want a witness, other than Lloyde, who saw the pole hit the cab. Hence stalemate.

The incident with the cab is really peripheral and minor but it gets blown out of all proportion because, if truthers could prove that anything at the Pentagon was staged, it would go much further than they have ever got in proving a conspiracy.

As the debate seems to have log-jammed how about trying to consider other circumstances around Lloyde and his cab which may give some indication and these are a few thoughts of mine :

If you believe it is all a set-up you have to go back to the planning meeting where the perps must have debated the horrendous task of faking the impact damage to the Pentagon, the body parts, airplane parts, damage to generator trailer, fencing, retaining wall, trees, lightpoles etc.
Did they really need to include a cabdriver, who was already elderly, who could blab at any time, in the plan ? Would it really add anything commensurate with the risk.

Anyway, if you think that is what the perps did, you have Lloyde doing his stuff on 911, knocking his cab about with a hammer or whatever. Which nobody saw. And what do the supposedly grateful perps do for Lloyde after this valiant effort, and bearing in mind he could get them shot, apparently absolutely nothing.

You might think Lloyde could have been fixed up with a nice little cab company in Florida but no. He actually had to claim money from the survivors fund to pay his mortgage and buy groceries until he could get another cab.

In fact Lloyde just continued to live the life of a humble cab-driver just as he had before 911.

Then, years later, CIT see him twice. It is obviously in their interests to rubbish Lloyde because he conflicts with their flyover theory. But, the worst thing they did was accuse him of making " a virtual confession" of his implication in the plot.

Now CIT and other truthers are very fond of saying that various people are afraid to speak out about 911. Take the case of Barry Jennings , survivor of WTC7. He died in 2008 aged 53. There are pages on the net claiming he was murdered to silence him. If the perps are ready to kill a man of 53 who never had much of interest to say in the first place and, what he did have to say he said years back. How come Lloyde, at 77, is still living openly and accessible to anyone when he has made a "virtual confession", and could make a complete one anytime ?

I suggest that Lloyde as an accomplice has no foundation and is ludicrously improbable in light of his life since 911.

reply to post by JPhish


Let's review.

The OS claims that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. Witnesses saw it strike the Pentagon. Some thought that they saw it strike light poles on the way in. According to most witnesses, the path of the aircraft was such that it would have struck the light poles.

Now, CIT has found some witnesses who think that a plane passed north of the Citgo station. They have gone to great lengths to show that if this was the case, the plane could not maneuver to strike the Pentagon where it did. They promote a flyover, although they seem to lack witnesses to such an event. Some of theirNOC witnesses said that the plane did strike the Pentagon. CIT didn't notice that. In one case they dismisssed the testimony. CIT is ignoring all the other evidence and touting their own unsupported theory because that is the only way for them to get attention. It's all about money and celebrity. Money for CIT sent in by suckers so that CIT can "get to the truth." Celebrity, of sorts, when those same suckers sit in auditoriums and watch them perform on stage.
CIT will continue to promote itself as fewer and fewer people get conned by their story. CIT has proved nothing.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I suggest that Lloyde as an accomplice has no foundation and is ludicrously improbable in light of his life since 911.

Of course the whole notion that the US govt would fake a plane flying into the Pentagon, down light poles to further the deception, and have an aging cab driver as an accomplice is lunacy.

That a secretly planned and executed mass murder involving massive destruction to the country's military headquarters with said aging cab driver freely discussing his involvement is beyond ludicrous.

I checked out the Citizen InvestigationTeam Limited Liability Corporation"s website and discussion forum. Quite amusing the depth of investigation Mr englande has been exposed to.

This deep research from a contributor is interesting:

z3.invisionfree.com...

22205 [wrote]

"some of lloyde's financial transactions with regard to real estate holdings show significant activity from the month after 9/11, all the way to where the loan for one of his houses was switched over to the Pentagon Federal Credit Union more recently."

My own little surmise on what happened incorporating this new information that Lloyde benefited in terms of credit to his real estate holdings from the damage to his taxi.

Lloyde is driving along the highway returning from a customer drop off. He sees the plane coming in and the explosion at the Pentagon. He spots the downed light poles which represent a hazard to drivers on the road.

Quick thinking Lloyde figures out that a falling light pole "could" have hit his cab. He also realizes his insurance company would have to pay for damage to the vehicle if that happened and compensate him for loss of revenue which would include unitilized time on the road.

So he stops his cab beside one of the light poles on the ground, takes a heavy object, maybe a broken off part of one of the poles, and uses it to smash his own windshield.

Like who is going to notice this, someone doing minor damage to their own vehicle, when an 90 ton aircraft has just hit the Pentagon and everyone is in panic and shock.

He later becomes aware the Federal govt is providing various forms of compensation to tertiary victims to this attack and successfully negotiates favourable loan terms from the Pentagon Federal Credit Union.

This all fits the evidence and satisfactorily explains the discrepancies in testimony and physical evidence.

Poor old Lloyde is dismayed that years later his little swindle is under intense scrutiny due to some amateur investigators and video sellers looking for evidence that there was no plane attack.


M

[edit on 27-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
He later becomes aware the Federal govt is providing various forms of compensation to tertiary victims to this attack and successfully negotiates favourable loan terms from the Pentagon Federal Credit Union.

So your 'theory' is that he smashed his window on purpose because of something he was going to find out later?