It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 98
215
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
For you, I will explain again what is going on. Tezzajw insinuated that because Lloyde is "unreliable", that the taxi-pole event is unproven.

Lloyde discredited himself. He is an unreliable witness. You have failed to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.



Originally posted by pteridine
To make this bit work he had to assume that they always validated their stories.

Again, pteridine tries to make generalisations that are not true.



Originally posted by pteridine
I asked Tezza about his standards of publication and witness certification so I could understand how the retroactive disqualification of witnesses and press validation would affect things. Tezzajw refuses to answer and obfuscates and deflects,

You tried to deflect from your inability to prove your claim that the light pole hit the taxi. The question you ask is pointless and off topic and not worth responding to.

Lloyde discredited himself as a witness. He is not reliable. You have failed to prove that his story his true.



Originally posted by pteridine
If that is his position, we must conclude that he doesn't care about the taxi incident and is merely trolling.

Again, another false conclusion on pteridine's part. The light pole-taxi incident is an interesting puzzle, pteridine. After eight years, I have not seen it proven. You have certainly failed to prove it ever happened.

Your continual avoidance to prove your claim that a light pole hit the taxi is obvious.

Your continual avoidance to prove that passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats is obvious.

Your continual need to make false assumptions, false claims and false conclusions about other members has been a highlight in many of your posts, pteridine. Your need to use off topic generalisations has been one way for you to avoid the specifics of focussing on proving your claim that the light pole hit the taxi.




posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
pteridine, I read your last post, and thought I'd make some points...

1- You seem to believe that the press doesn't always validate their stories. I heartily agree.

2- The fact that many believed and even still believe in Lloyd's story doesn't mean there was ever any serious evidence to back it up. Seeing things in this light, his recent contradictory statements only make it clearer that his story doesn't wash.

3- Sometimes I wish that many people here on both sides of the fence would give more of the benefit of the doubt to the opponent's side; and I agree that humour is certainly an asset when dealing with emotionally charged issues.

4- I know that CIT has polarized many people. As you know, I myself have been banned from their forum. Despite this, well before I was banned, I became persuaded that their flyover theory was the most well founded. Pilots for 9/11 truth, another organization that's closely linked to CIT and that has professional pilots at its core, backs them up as well with good investigative videos on the subject of the pentagon attack.

5- I'm not sure why ou believe that there is no alarming information contained in this thread; I must assume that you have discounted the presented evidence which suggests that the plane that approached the pentagon never hit the building, nor did that plane launch any missiles at it, necessitating that explosives were used in order to create the damage caused.

6- I don't believe anyone is trolling here right now. My personal definition of trolling is someone who isn't doing what they're doing to help us reach conclusions, but rather simply for attention or even to sabotage a good discussion. I do believe, however, that many have a tendency of saying things that at some point, they might regret. I find it ironical that I have gotten into more disputes here with people that could loosely be defined as part of the truth movement, but then, I've had a tendency of rooting for the underdogs and here, atleast, it seems that official story supporters are outnumbered by conspiracy theorists. There is an issue which I'm not sure everyone arguing for the truth movement's side of things has properly considered; without official story supporters arguing against conspiracy theorists, the amoung of effort put into uncovering evidence against the official story would probably be a lot less.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


If Lloyde became confused years after the fact, how does that effect his original testimony?
Stop evading the question.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


1. Yes, especially for a story that is a second or third tier supplemental story. This wasn't big news then and still isn't.

2- There is Lloyde's statement as a witness. Some people demand a videotape or more witnesses to the taxi hit. People in Hell want ice water. One can carry this to such extremes that nothing can be proven about anything. The fallback is that all evidence is planted and all witnesses are in collusion with the plotters and lying. Who is going to be watching a taxi when a plane is flying into a building? CIT only has a few witnesses for their story. Wait a few more years, reinterview those selected witnesses and see what you get.

3- Certain people ride the fence and enjoy criticizing others without taking a position. They fear criticism and have their own emotional problems.

4- CIT's entire premise is based on witness estimates of a flight path which they say resulted in no impact and a flyover. The evidence is completely against them. Please do not pay your hard earned money for any truther videos. They are in business to give the customer what he wants.

5- I'm still waiting for the alarming information. I have not discounted evidence; no evidence of such was ever presented by CIT. They cannot explain thousands of pounds of burning fuel, the witnesses who saw the plane strike the Pentagon, the lack of witnesses who saw a plane fly away, how the plane parts were planted, how the poles were planted, what caused the damage to the Pentagon, and so on. If you follow a few threads from earlier in the year you will find that they changed their story several times. I saw some of their videos earlier but have not wasted any more time watching their stuff, lately.

6- This is a conspiracy site and many are interested in seeing if there is anything to any of a series of consipracy theories. Moon landings, 911, JFK, UFO's, Flight 800, etc. In my opinion, the only 911 conspiracy that has anything going for it is a coverup by the agencies who dropped the ball. Flight 800 looked like a shootdown. The moon landing happened on the moon. Any moon landing conspiracy may be a coverup of what else was found.
Some of the people who like the 911 theories have an axe to grind with the Federal Government; some are US citizens and some are foreign nationals. Interestingly, the same people that tell us how incompetent the government is end up telling us how clever they were. Of course, the clever CTer's have uncovered the most secret plot in existence by watching unsupressed videos and edited witness statements on you tube.
Some do troll but only to win arguments at any cost. Likely they are whipped by their wives at home and whipped by their bosses at work and this site offers them an opportunity to be important.

Keep investigating but try to see both sides of the issues.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If Lloyde became confused years after the fact, how does that effect his original testimony?
Stop evading the question.

Let's spot the error in your logical process before we continue, pteridine.

How do you know that Lloyde was merely 'confused' years after the fact?

Some people in this thread have tried to claim that Lloyde was senile. When I asked them to provide medical evidence that Lloyde was senile, none was offered.

Lloyde contradicted himself in his interviews with CIT. That makes him an unreliable witness.

Why haven't you been able to prove that Lloyde's story is true, pteridine?

[edit on 28-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


If CIT paid Lloyde or LLoyde became confused or Lloyde became senile, how does that affect his original testimony immediately after the incident?

Stop weaseling and answer the question.

You proclaimed him retroactively unreliable and this meant his statement was no good as proof. You refused to state your criteria for retroactive unreliability. If we interview him when he's dead, will his silence mean coverup to you?



[edit on 11/28/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If CIT paid Lloyde

Prove that CIT paid Lloyde. That's a huge claim. I wonder what Craig has to say about that?



Originally posted by pteridine
or LLoyde became confused or Lloyde became senile,

Prove that Lloyde was merely 'confused'.
Show me the medical evidence that Lloyde was senile.



Originally posted by pteridine
You proclaimed him retroactively unreliable and this meant his statement was no good as proof.

Lloyde contradicted himself in his interviews with CIT. He is an unreliable witness. Lloyde did this all by himself, without anyone helping him. It's all on the video tape.



Originally posted by pteridine
You refused to state your criteria for retroactive unreliability.

I never stated that there are criteria for 'retroactive unreliablity', pteridine. That's another false assumption on your part.

It appears to be your way of deflecting from your inability to prove that the light pole hit the taxi and that Lloyde is telling the truth.



Originally posted by pteridine
If we interview him when he's dead, will his silence mean coverup to you?

Did you really think about that before you typed it? You really make it easy for everyone to see that you're not being serious at all.

Take a look at your last few posts and see how your argument has degenerated from bad to worse...



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You said: "Do you know anything about the media? What makes you think they would wait to verify a story before publishing it"
Then when you chose not to understand my reference, you said "I specifically asked you why you would think something. Your response is to look at what you claim someone else said to you about something else and it is also a lie."
...............


OK, hun I get it. You are obsessed with Tezza. I get that. You have a little crush or something. Fine. If you cannot actually speak for yourself and simply answer the question I asked without trying to use it to again argue with someone else about something else, then I am done.

You are either playing incredibly stupid or are incredibly stupid. Either way, it is clear that you really have no information or answers to anything. You have a belief you cannot stand to see shattered and an obsession with Tezza.

Let me know when you are ready to actually address me and what I asked you. Until then, argue with Tezza through arguing with Tezza.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 

Let's review.

The OS claims that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Sounds like what the OS claims to me.

Witnesses saw it strike the Pentagon.

Incorrect; only two witnesses that have been presented in this thread claimed to see planes impact the pentagon.

One of them is Mike Walters. His testimony was proven to be invalid.

The other (that you presented) is "Penny Elgas” Her testimony was proven to be invalid.

So, excluding Lloyde England, are there any reliable witnesses to this event that do not contradict each other besides those that CIT has interviewed?

Some thought that they saw it strike light poles on the way in.
Bare assertion (6) This is the part where you provide evidence to back this claim.

According to most witnesses, the path of the aircraft was such that it would have struck the light poles.
Bare assertion (7) according to what witnesses? Which witnesses said the plane would have struck the light poles? We’ve only discussed two witnesses and both of them have proven to be invalid.

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.
“Some witnesses” is better than NO witnesses. You have no reliable witnesses and CIT has found nearly a dozen.

They promote a flyover, although they seem to lack witnesses to such an event.
CIT has presented nearly a dozen reliable witnesses whose corroborated testimonies substantiated by the Flight Data Recorder, conclusively show that a plane flew over the pentagon and did not hit it. You have thus far provided NO valid witnesses to the contrary.

Some of theirNOC witnesses said that the plane did strike the Pentagon. CIT didn't notice that. In one case they dismisssed the testimony.
Bare assertion (8) This is the part where you back your claim up with names.

CIT is ignoring all the other evidence and touting their own unsupported theory because that is the only way for them to get attention.
Bare assertion (9) You have provided no evidence that CIT is ignoring all the supposed “other evidence”.
Bare assertion (10) your claim that CIT’s theory is unsupported is groundless in light of the mass amounts of evidence they provide on their website.

It's all about money and celebrity.
appeal to motive (11) Your false statement that “it’s all about money” is particularly hollow in light of the FACT that CIT offers their videos free for download.

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.
Allow me to elucidate your statement.

If a person accepts what CIT says is true, then they’re a sucker.
Being a sucker is a punishment upon that person.
Therefore what CIT says is not true.

If x accepts P is true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.

Argumentum ad baculum (12)

Try logic next time.


CIT will continue to promote itself as fewer and fewer people get conned by their story.
Hmm, sounds familiar.

If a person accepts what CIT says is true, then they’re being conned.
Being conned is a punishment upon a person.
Therefore what CIT says is not true.

If x accepts P is true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.

Argumentum ad baculum (13) again

I’m also sure you would love for this to come to fruition, but until it does, it’s simply wishful thinking (14) on your part.

CIT has proved nothing.
bare assertion (15) CIT has proven through corroborated and reliable eyewitness testimonies that a plane approached the pentagon north of the citgo gas station.

CIT has also proved that Lloyde England is an unreliable witness by bringing to light glaring contradictions between his recollections of the day in relation to the physical evidence.

CIT has presented nearly a dozen reliable witnesses whose corroborated testimonies substantiated by the Flight Data Recorder, conclusively prove that a plane flew over the pentagon and did not hit it.

Proof

[edit on 11/29/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x
 


1. Yes, especially for a story that is a second or third tier supplemental story. This wasn't big news then and still isn't.


I disagree that it's not big news, but since you don't think that it adds evidence to theory that the plane flew over the pentagon, I think I can see where you're coming from.


Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
2- The fact that many believed and even still believe in Lloyd's story doesn't mean there was ever any serious evidence to back it up. Seeing things in this light, his recent contradictory statements only make it clearer that his story doesn't wash.


2- There is Lloyde's statement as a witness.


Lloyd has been shown to be an unreliable witness, as tezza keeps on pointing out to you. And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all the evidence against the OS flight path.



Originally posted by pteridine
Some people demand a videotape or more witnesses to the taxi hit. People in Hell want ice water.


It would be one thing if there were no witnesses that contradicted Lloyd's account. As a matter of fact, however, the majority of eyewitnesses saw the plane approach the pentagon from a North of the Citgo gas station approach, not a South of the Citgo gas station approach. When Lloyd became aware of the fact that so many eyewitnesses were contradicting his statements, he declared that he, too, was in a position to see a North of the Citgo gas station approach. However, even official story believers who've done a little homework know that this must be untrue; there are pictures of him shortly after the event with his taxi cab and its broken windshield in a place that would only have been able to see the plane coming in from a South of the Citgo gas station flight path. CIT pointed this out to him, but he refused to change his story. There are many things that Lloyd has said that suggest that he knows that what he's saying aren't true. I'll leave you with a few quotes that I obtained from transcribing what was said in CIT's videotaped interview with him, titled Lloyd England: The Eye of the Storm:


Shirley Hughes (Lloyd’s wife): The FBI thought that he had been killed, but I told them he was alive, so that's when they came here and talked to him.

Craig Ranke: And when was that?

Shirley Hughes: The next day.

Craig Ranke: The very next day? I think that's weird too, why did they think he was dead if there was no body?

Shirley Hughes: They say somebody towed him away.

CIT 2 (probably Aldo Marquis): A lot of stories, a lot of stories.

Craig Ranke: They just took away the body huh?

Shirley Hughes: Yeah, and left the car

Lloyd: You know,
(laughter)

Lloyd: if I wasn't involved, and I had to go by the evidence that was shown me. And I felt that this bridge was where it happened, I'd be confused too.

Shirley Hughes: You take a tour through the pentagon, and they tell you, they bring it up, "yes, that was the cab driver that was injured".

CIT 2: Injured, were you injured?

Shirley Hughes: No.

CIT 2: There you go.

Lloyd: That's the story.

Craig Ranke: That's why I asked you that.


A few questions to consider- why did some members of the FBI allegedly think that Lloyd had been killed? It also sounds rather strange that they would allegedly "tow away" Lloyd's body, don't you think? Finally, why, after they had talked to Lloyd, did people at the pentagon allegedly say that he had been injured?

In any case, Lloyd then continues with the following line:

Lloyd: One thing about it you gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it, you- eventually it's going to come to me. And when it comes to me it's going to be so big I can't do nothing about it. So it has to be stopped in the beginning when it's small.


A bit more is said before they head out of Lloyd's home; the text is here:

Lloyd's's "Can't do nothing about it" line


In another line in the same documentary when he's driving towards his taxi cab of 9/11, apparently Lloyd believes he isn't being taped; he says the following:


Lloyd: You know what history is? Just what I said you gotta understand what you are saying. History is his story.

CIT: Absolutely.

Lloyd: It's not the truth, it's his story! It has nothing to do with the truth, it's his story!


The quote in context:
Lloyd: It's his story

Note his use of the term 'story' once again, just as he used it when mentioning how people at the pentagon stated that he was 'injured'.


Originally posted by pteridine
CIT only has a few witnesses for their story.


To my knowledge, CIT has interviewed all the eyewitnesses that have been willing and able to go on videotape. Not sure what the total is, but I think it's more than a dozen. To my knowledge, they have the most extensive videotape interviews by far, and they've done some really in depth analysis of the material they've obtained as well. I'm not saying they're perfect; I'm at times doubtful of their reasoning regarding the motivations of the people in the interviews. But frequently, the interviews speak for themselves, in my view.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Thanks for the random walk through your logic 101 textbook. To prove your points, all you had to do was to dismiss witness testimony that you didn't like. This is a CIT tactic. If testimony or evidence contradicts predetermined conclusions, it is a lie or a plant, respectively. What are your predetermined conclusions?
Try the following:
1. Name the many witnesses who claim to have seen a flyover.
2. Use your vaunted logic to explain the thousands of pounds of jet fuel that were burned.
3. Bring forward the Latin term that shows how explosives were used.
4. Expose the witnesses who saw airplane parts being planted immediately after the impact.
5. Open your evidence files against first responders who were part of the big plot.

Good luck.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


The video collection that I saw started about two years ago. That means that six years had passed between the event and the interview. Lloyde seemed to enjoy being a minor celebrity and a part of history. Do you think he was playing to the guys that came to interview him? Do you think that the FBI said that they towed him away or towed his car away? Do you think that in the confusion of the days following the attack, they saw the damage to his towed cab and thought that he was injured or killed?

The question that I posed to others still stands. In a situation like this, can you discount initial testimony because of actions years later? That initial testimony occurred before he saw the advantage of "his story."



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
 


Thanks for the random walk through your logic 101 textbook. To prove your points, all you had to do was to dismiss witness testimony that you didn't like. This is a CIT tactic. If testimony or evidence contradicts predetermined conclusions, it is a lie or a plant, respectively. What are your predetermined conclusions?
Try the following:
1. Name the many witnesses who claim to have seen a flyover.
2. Use your vaunted logic to explain the thousands of pounds of jet fuel that were burned.
3. Bring forward the Latin term that shows how explosives were used.
4. Expose the witnesses who saw airplane parts being planted immediately after the impact.
5. Open your evidence files against first responders who were part of the big plot.

Good luck.


Our 9/11 Deniers here just can't wrap their heads around the concept of logic.

IF there had been any government conspiracy, it would have been far easier for the "government" to "hijack" AA77 and crash it into the Pentagon instead of going through the incredibly complex and useless exercise of trying to plant evidence unseen, do a flyover with no guarantee that it wouldn't be seen, dispose of passengers, fake DNA evidence, and on and on with all the nonsense that 9/11 "Truthers" believe happened.

But the "Truther" mind can only perceive that the more incredible and complex one can make a conspiracy, the more plausible it is.

Don't any of you "Truthers" understand how simply ridiculous your "theories" are?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x
 


The video collection that I saw started about two years ago. That means that six years had passed between the event and the interview.


CIT's first videos were out in 2006, not sure about Eye of the Storm.


Originally posted by pteridine
Lloyde seemed to enjoy being a minor celebrity and a part of history. Do you think he was playing to the guys that came to interview him?


Yes, to some extent. The issue is, what truly happened in regards to Lloyd and his tai cab that day, and how much of what truly happened that day did he wish to convey?



Originally posted by pteridine
Do you think that the FBI said that they towed him away or towed his car away?


I agree that it sounds unlikely that the FBI said that they "towed" Lloyd away; the question is, why did Lloyd's wife say that they did?


Originally posted by pteridine
Do you think that in the confusion of the days following the attack, they saw the damage to his towed cab and thought that he was injured or killed?


Remember that this is the same FBI that confiscated the videotapes that in all likelihood would have proven conclusively whether or not the pentagon was hit by the plane that approached it, within about 5 minutes. Now, there is a possibility that some government agents, including agents in the FBI, were very confused indeed, while others seemed to have a 6th sense as to where to be if there goal was to cover up the truth; a shadow intelligence, much like the shadow government that has been created to take control in the event of a 'national emergency' or something to that effect. This type of thing is the stuff of t.v. programs such as the X files, which as you may know, portrays precisely this type of 'agency within an agency' idea and a spinoff of it, The Lone Gunman. Would you admit to such a possibility?


Originally posted by pteridine
The question that I posed to others still stands. In a situation like this, can you discount initial testimony because of actions years later? That initial testimony occurred before he saw the advantage of "his story."


His refurbished story is actually worse than the first one. In the first one, he could, atleast, argue that all the other witnesses were mistaken, and that his story was the one true story. But by now claiming that he, too, saw the plane approach from the North side of the citgo gas station, he directly contradicts photographic evidence that places him in a position where light poles were found on the ground, allegedly because the plane knocked them over. The question becomes, if he were lying, why would he do such a thing? I believe the answer is that he was unaware that CIT had proof of where he and the light pole that he alleges speared his car were and so by trying to state that he was in a position where he could see the plane fly north of the citgo gas station, he would in effect be proving that his new story was untrue.

Even when presented with the proof that his new story was untrue, however, he refused to recant it. Why do you suppose that is? Personally, I think that a relatively good liar knows that if they change their story too many times, people are going to catch on that they're simply trying to fit their story with what is already known; further, the more their story changes, the less credible they are as a witness.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


My post said "I implied that they did not wait, prove and verify all stories, especially trivial human interest stories among the carnage."

What this means is that I believe that reporters do not prove and verify all stories before publishing, especially trivial human interest stories among the carnage. When I say all reporters, I mean all. This is especially true when reporting minor, sidebar stories within bigger stories. The argument can be made that if they did not verify Lloyde's claims several times over that this novel event did not occur. While I have stated my reasons for believing Lloyde's initial testimony, before he considered himself part of history by telling "his story" to a film crew, I considered other possibilities.

1. If Lloyde's story is true, then CIT has even less of a case and they are out of business and this discussion is moot.

2. If the light poles were struck and missed his cab, what struck it? Parts falling of the plane? I reject this because of that were the case, more documentation would be available. His cab was impounded with damage. It had to have been searched to identify him. Plane parts would have been noticed.

3. If the light poles were not struck because there was a flyover, why would the cab damage be important? Would it verify flying light poles and help convince the world that the plane flew into the Pentagon? If this were the case, why woud the plotters remove the evidence and not photograph the light pole in place? If they knocked a hole in the windshield to show this, why not scratch or dent the vehicle? The plotters who are smart enough to pull this off would not overlook such details. Why would the plotters, busy as they were planting evidence, complicate their problem by inventing such a scenario? They had light poles down, witnesses who saw the plane hit, no flyover witnesses, and lots of physical evidence.
I have concluded that there is no nefarious reason for this story to have been faked because it adds nothing to any plot and only complicates things. All I can come up with is that it was designed to keep all the youtube sleuths busy looking in the wrong place and not looking at the guilty agency heads who were playing power games instead of looking out for security of the country.

Given this, the possibility exists that CIT is a disinformation vehicle suported by the Federal intelligence agencies.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
A phenomenon is at work here most do not consider.

It's been shown time and again by psychologists that people involved in dramatic or historical events tend to enhance and dramatize their involvement in an incident with retelling.

A classic study was done on accounts from people who saw Abraham Lincoln assassinated in the Ford Theater. Initial accounts were fairly straightforward and uninteresting. People remembered hearing a shot or seeing John Wilkes Booth run down an aisle.

Reinterviewed by newspapers and historians years later, people often embellished their accounts. In one case a man in the audience in a wheelchair said he didn't see much from his vantage point in his initial telling. Interviewed again over the decades, his story grew exponentially. 40 years later he was telling how he actually grappled with Booth as he was escaping.

With Lloyde England he's obviously getting some kind of buzz from of the attention and controversial celebrity status. And importantly, he's had ample opportunity to absorb all the conspiracy theories, particularly as he's been fed by CIT, his host.

As there is little to lose and more to gain, he consciously or not reconfigures his own memories and accounts to add a dimension of high intrigue and drama to his story telliing.

From a taxi driver with the bad luck of having his windshield broken he's now become an historical person of interest vital to the uncovering of a massive deception by the US government itself. Needless to say there is substantial prompting and leading questions from Ranke, et al.

As I've pointed out, until CIT releases the outtakes of the Lloyde England interviews - their self-servingly edited down versions are not of much value. We don't know if England ever adds "just kidding" after he says something controversial, or the fuller context of his statements.

Most don't see that, an experienced investigator or historian would spot the problem immediately. Police, lawyers, judges regularly have to grapple with conflicting statements from perpetrators and witnesses. Initial reports are given the greatest weigh. Then one has to factor in the motivation for someone altering their story.

Myself I’m leaning to the belief now that Lloyde England may have has his windshield broken by a heavy chunk of flying debris like the glass covering on the light pole. The intake suction of a jet is incredibly powerful. Who know what was flying around in those few seconds when the plane passed over at 50 ft. He just may have ‘helped along’ the damage or his story in the interest of collecting insurance



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
3- Sometimes I wish that many people here on both sides of the fence would give more of the benefit of the doubt to the opponent's side; and I agree that humour is certainly an asset when dealing with emotionally charged issues.


3- Certain people ride the fence and enjoy criticizing others without taking a position. They fear criticism and have their own emotional problems.


Can you be more specific? Not sure what you're referring to.


Originally posted by pteridine
4- CIT's entire premise is based on witness estimates of a flight path which they say resulted in no impact and a flyover.


Amoung other things, but I agree that that is the foundation of their evidence, yes.


Originally posted by pteridine
The evidence is completely against them.


I believe the reverse is true. What alleged evidence are you referring to?


Originally posted by pteridine
Please do not pay your hard earned money for any truther videos. They are in business to give the customer what he wants.


I have not yet paid for any truther videos, as you put it. I'm seriously considering doing so soon, however. However, as tezza has pointed out, CIT's videos are free to download, and I have seen many of them. The same is true for many of Pilots for 9/11 Truth's videos, of which I have also seen some. I also certainly haven't stopped investigation 9/11. I think that I'll borrow your tagline here:
"Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it."



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
5- I'm not sure why you believe that there is no alarming information contained in this thread; I must assume that you have discounted the presented evidence which suggests that the plane that approached the pentagon never hit the building, nor did that plane launch any missiles at it, necessitating that explosives were used in order to create the damage caused.


5- I'm still waiting for the alarming information. I have not discounted evidence; no evidence of such was ever presented by CIT.


See, this is what I don't understand; I don't understand how you can think that no evidence of alarming information was presented in any of CIT's videos. I haven't given up trying yet though :-p.



Originally posted by pteridine
They cannot explain thousands of pounds of burning fuel,


You made a similar argument when I started posting in this thread, way back in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I responded to this point of yours here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

However, I decided I should look into the matter further. In this post, I mentioned to you that "I have heard there was a tank, if not a tanker truck, near the impact hole".

You responded in this post by saying, "There would have been the remains of an exploded tank that had been filled with fuel. No such evidence was found."

I brought up your point in a thread I created over at the loose change forum way back then, and they responded, by pointing out that there -was- a diesel generator there at the time; they provided photos of it as well:

s1.zetaboards.com...

s1.zetaboards.com...


Originally posted by pteridine
the witnesses who saw the plane strike the Pentagon,


CIT has gone over how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking that the plane hit the pentagon instead of flying over it. I think I can dig up their reasoning on this one if you like.


Originally posted by pteridine
the lack of witnesses who saw a plane fly away,


There are atleast 2 named witnesses who saw a plane fly over the pentagon, and allegedly more whose names are not yet known.


Originally posted by pteridine
how the plane parts were planted,


Pteridine, one doesn't need to know every single detail of how something was done in order to know that it's what was most likely done. One thing that was mentioned is that most of the plane part pieces that were allegedly at the scene were small enough to be picked up by hand. In most plane crashes, there are pieces that are much larger than that. Furthermore, there is evidence that atleast some of the pieces that were picked up didn't belong to a 757.


Originally posted by pteridine
how the poles were planted,


As I've gone over in another post, the poles could have been brought down the day before, without anyone noticing.


Originally posted by pteridine
what caused the damage to the Pentagon,


As I mentioned to you when I started in this thread, 9/11 Research, despite believing that the plane did hit the pentagon, has a page which details the eyewitness testimony that suggests that explosives were used:

Shockwave - Eyewitness Accounts Suggest the Pentagon Attack Involved Explosive Detonation


Originally posted by pteridine
If you follow a few threads from earlier in the year you will find that they changed their story several times.


They may have changed some points, perhaps realizing that some things they mentioned don't have enough evidence to back them up. I'm not sure, but I'd be happy to see what you're referring to.


Originally posted by pteridine
I saw some of their videos earlier but have not wasted any more time watching their stuff, lately.


Perhaps this is part of why you still believe the official story in regards to the pentagon attack. I hope that you consider what I have said in this and other posts I have made anyway.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Note the word "if." Possibly, Klingon is your first language, SpaceHulkmeister Tezza. Your attempts at deflection and obfuscation provide, once again, amusement and light entertainment for all.

Stop dodging the question and state how he became unreliable 5 years after the fact and how that effects his original statement. Note also the post from mmiichael helping you to undersatnd a bit of human nature.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Has CIT gone over how witnesses could have been fooled into thinking that there was a flyover? How they edited witness statements?
Note that the diesel gen set was outside the building. How much fuel did it have? How did all that fuel get inside the building? Was it placed in the walls so that a hologram plane appeared to ignite it when it hit the building? How were engine parts planted? Did anyone witness plane debris being planted?
As to your statement about "details" that is exactly what has to be theorized. If they can't come up with testable hypotheses on the details, you might as well just say "the space ray did it, damn the details, and prove that it didn't."
There are too many holes in the CIT story but keep looking, there may be others that make some sense.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine


If CIT paid Lloyde or LLoyde became confused or Lloyde became senile, how does that affect his original testimony immediately after the incident?

Stop weaseling and answer the question.



For the record we haven't paid Lloyde anything whatsoever.

Lloyde's story about the light pole spearing his windshield has been consistent since day one, long before we ever talked with him and throughout our entire experience with him.

This ridiculously implausible story has been PROVEN false by the witnesses at the citgo station and everyone in the near vicinity who corroborate them regarding the north side approach. The pictures prove Lloyde's car was not where the plane flew. Period, end of story, the scene could only have been staged.

Baseless allegations of us paying him or of his mental state can not change this. Nothing Lloyde says can change this either.

It always comes back to the north side.



Given this, the possibility exists that CIT is a disinformation vehicle suported by the Federal intelligence agencies.


So the Fed hired us to interview witnesses and prove that the plane was on the north side and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building?



Why would anyone HIRE someone to frame them as the perpetrator of mass murder?

Official story supporting conspiracy theorists are hilarious!

This really exposes your desperation to say ANYTHING no matter how ridiculous to cast doubt on this definitive info.

What could be your motive?

No matter, the more people who look at the north side evidence and the Lloyde story for themselves the better.

Thanks for helping to keep it in front of their faces!



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join