merril Posted August 14, 2009 #226 Share Posted August 14, 2009 To me, the above post is an example of being highly organized, to the point of being obsessed. Obsessed with the deceased, in a way that is desecration of memory. And, that to me is equal to mental disregard for reality, through some hangups that need attention. Read, learn, respect, and move on and away from these people and allow what dignity their family deserves. Charles Frank Burlingame III Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 14, 2009 #227 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) To me, the above post is an example of being highly organized, to the point of being obsessed.Obsessed with the deceased, in a way that is desecration of memory. And, that to me is equal to mental disregard for reality, through some hangups that need attention. Read, learn, respect, and move on and away from these people and allow what dignity their family deserves. Charles Frank Burlingame III Your comment reminds me of the reason given for one of Jim Marrs' publishers cancelling one of his books; he got it published eventually. As seen from his list of books, this is what the jacket of his book, War on Freedom, said: Research for The War on Freedom was begun on September 11, 2001 and culminated in a contract with a major New York publisher. Despite passing a legal review and the excited interest of the editors, the book was suddenly canceled with the explanation that it may “upset the families of 9/11 victims.” These families, as well as the public, deserve the truth, even if it is not “politically correct”. Here are the uncensored facts, judge for yourself. The most important part there I think is the bit about the survivors of that tragedy (and I'd think that all north americans were strongly affected, not just the families of those who died that day) deserving to know the truth, despite the mass media's efforts to cover it up. Edited August 14, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 14, 2009 #228 Share Posted August 14, 2009 By the way, Craig Ranke has mentioned that you have now been unsuspended (page 4, post 51, identifying terms "I know there are"). I’ve got the job done properly this time and received a full ban They didn’t like it when I asked the following on another thread: - Why do CIT feel it is acceptable to carry out a smear campaign against Lloyd England, a man who welcomed them into his home and spent considerable time telling his story, with no reasonable grounds to do so? Could it be that Lloyd's experience is simply so fatal to the CIT theory that they will do anything to tarnish an innocent man's name? Do CIT really believe that the upset they have caused to this man who came close to death on 9/11 and his wife is justified? It really shows the difference between a neutral forum where fair and open debate can take place and forums that exist only to promote an agenda. I find it quite ironic that certain sites proclaiming to seek the truth actually choose censorship over freedom of speech. Anyway, to tie this into what has been said above – I do not believe that it’s disrespectful to question 9/11, I do not even believe it’s unjustified to point fingers in places. What I do object to is the exploitation of a 9/11 survivor’s generosity to create a smear campaign against him that he and his family clearly find upsetting when there is no compelling grounds to do so. That, is immoral. Waiting for the rest of your response to my post #218, Scott… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted August 14, 2009 #229 Share Posted August 14, 2009 was Lloyd England on the bridge with his cab or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 14, 2009 #230 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) I believe Lloyd England and his taxi cab were on the bridge over Columbia Pike at the location of the first downed light pole as photographs show. Please don’t let the next question be, “Why did Lloyd say he was North of this point?” Edited August 14, 2009 by Q24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted August 14, 2009 #231 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Why did Lloyd England deny being on the bridge with his cab when photographs show he was on the bridge with his cab? Edited August 14, 2009 by Little Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 15, 2009 #232 Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) The human memory is not infallible and it is quite expected for various eyewitness testimony of the same event to differ somewhat. At the extreme, psychological dysfunctions such as amnesia or confabulation can mean memories are forgotten and/or false memories are created. On a more common level, even without psychological dysfunction, there is a long list of memory biases that affect how events are remembered. I cannot say for sure which of the many possible reasons made Lloyd England inaccurately recall his exact location but the cause I am favouring is known as the misinformation effect. Examples of this bias were demonstrated in experiments by Elizabeth Loftus, American psychologist and expert on human memory: - She has demonstrated through the use of leading questions how it is possible to distort a person's memory of an event. For example if you showed a person a picture of a child’s room that contained no teddy bear and asked them “did you see a teddy bear?”, you are not implying that there was one in the room and the person is free to answer, however if you ask, “did you see The teddy bear?” it implies that one was in the room and the person is more likely to answer “yes”, as a teddy bear fits into that person's schema of a child's room. People watched footage of a car accident. Later some were asked to estimate the speed at which the car was going when it hit the other car. Others were asked how fast they thought the car was going when it smashed into the other. Those who were asked the question with the smashed wording were much more likely to “remember” seeing broken glass in a later question (in reality, no glass had been broken in the accident). They also remembered the car as driving much faster. If I remember correctly (no pun irony (someone help me out, there has to be a word I can use here) intended) from “The Eye of the Storm” presentation, before Lloyd stated his location he had just been shown an image of the alleged North of Citgo flight path, ie he had been told by CIT, “This is where our eyewitnesses place the flight path”. This is the leading element equivalent to those in the examples above. Now Lloyd knows he was somewhere below the flight path as he had the impacted light pole smash through his windshield. His memory then transposes his exact location to fit with the leading element of the North of Citgo flight path he has just been supplied. A case of, “If that’s where the flight path was, then that’s where I must have been!” Whatever the reason, Lloyd’s memory has certainly failed on this point because all photographic evidence places him further South on the bridge. I have a feeling that when Lloyd is shown these conclusive images, he may on a subconscious level realise his mistake but then, after having already fully committed himself, another characteristic of the human mind comes in and that is the stubbornness and pride preventing one from admitting that they are wrong. Could all of this, expected human behaviour, be the cause of Lloyd England’s account not matching perfectly to the actual events as they happened? Yes, this could certainly be the case and it would appear very natural to be so. Please keep all of the above in mind when discussing any eyewitness accounts. Edited August 15, 2009 by Q24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 15, 2009 #233 Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) Response to post 218, Part 2 Aldo already answered this question. Here is his answer: there are none. No, read my question word for word: - * How many eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft on the official South flight path, such as Wheelhouse and Walter, are CIT aware of? Aldo technically wasn't answering your question, he was answering mine. However, my wording was similar to your own. This is what I had asked on page 3, post 31 (top of page 3): As I think you know, I believe your version of events. However, I don't understand the logic here. Assuming that there are in fact witnesses who claim to have seen the official flight path, why should the north side flight path witnesses over-ride the south path ones? I agree that the beginning of his response, on page 3, post 33, "First of all, there are none", is misleading. Nevertheless, it was the beginning of his response. He didn't end there, though. A bit further down, he stated: Secondly, in any investigation of this nature more credence must be given to that which does not support the official story. Personally I think it would have been better if he had ommitted the "first of all" point and simply started with his secondary point, his response would have been better. Whether Aldo wants to believe the eyewitnesses were mistaken or lying, or trees were in the way, I believe alleged witnesses such as Wheelhouse and Walter were either lying or mistaken (or a combination) in regards to some aspects of their testimony as well. I believe that CIT and the work they did, actually interviewing so many witnesses, and photographing and videotaping the area to verify whether they could see what they claimed to have seen, lends great weight to their case. You have neither interviewed anyone, nor photographed the area in question; I believe the only thing you did was state that the pentagon was visible in one of their panning shots, apparently realizing that the issue in question is not whether the pentagon was visible, but whether the Citgo gas station was visible. The most damning piece of evidence against the official story's flight path is the actual eye witnesses who had the best vantage to see whether or not the plane passed north or south of the Citgo gas station; the witnesses who were actually at the gas station itself. In that case, all of the witnesses have declared that the plane passed on the North side. Your only counter to this has been to say that perhaps there are other witnesses that have yet to be found and to bring up people like Wheelhouse and Walters, who were nowhere near the gas station, and apparently couldn't see the gas station at all. Anyone can claim to see anything they want. But if they claim to see something in a place where they clearly can't, well... don't you think it sounds just a little suspicious? or all those working for the media are suspect, CIT never made such a claim. I have in the past stated that the mass media is controlled by very few. Reporters who have stepped out of line have been severely dealt with. Christopher Bollyn is a good example. I'm willing to concede that he may be a bit paranoid when it comes to the 'zionism', but the things he's suffered due to not following the official story in his reporting is well documented. or that there are irregularities in the account does not come into it whatsoever. Most of the witnesses that CIT interviewed corroborate the north of the Citgo gas station flight path. Of the few that don't, such as Walter and Wheelhouse, their testimony has been shown to have many holes in it, as I have already described to you. CIT refuse to answer a relevant question and when you do that in an honest debate, you lose. yes.gif Q, you have a penchant for forgetting that some things have already been answered. Admittedly, in the point made at the beginning of this post, I found Aldo's response somewhat wanting. However, the point has since been clarified by both me and Craig Ranke. I hope you understand why they would not answer that question. If they had supplied all of the eyewitnesses who support the official flight path, it would destroy CIT’s theory. It does nothing of the sort. Q24, as they have suggested, if you think that there are eyewitnesses that they haven't mentioned whose accounts are important, by all means, bring them up. They've interviewed a bunch of eyewitnesses corroborating the North of the Citgo gas station. You've interviewed 0 witnesses. I understand that you're happy with the official story concerning the south of the Citgo gas station approach, and see no reason to do anything more than ask CIT and others to provide yet more evidence that the official story is mistaken. That is certainly your right, but I can certainly understand that they're not interested in spending yet more of their own time and money on something they already feel has more than enough evidence to support it, while you have clearly interviewed no one. I, for one, find that the evidence for the North of the Citgo gas station approach is already quite compelling. Edited August 15, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 15, 2009 #234 Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) Response to Q24's post 218, Part 3 (last part) In the case of Wheelhouse, Craig didn't say that he 'thought' the trees would be blocking his view if he were in the location that he said he was in; he stated it as fact. I don’t care what Craig says in this instance – I’m not some automaton that can be programmed what to believe. Neither am I. However, I didn't take panoramic shots of the place either; CIT did. As a matter of fact, you're using their evidence in order to try to discredit them; don't you even suspect that they might, in fact, have carefully analyzed their own evidence? I have my own two eyes and a brain, so do you. Look at the image: - The top of the Navy Annex and approach to it is visible, you can see over the trees, there are gaps between the trees, the Pentagon is visible also. I’m not saying that gives a perfect view but it is absolutely plausible that Wheelhouse could witness a large portion of the flight path. Do you see the Citgo gas station? I certainly don't see it. CIT has claimed that it's simply not visible as well. I know that they have frequently abbreviated their flight path to the "North flight path", but never forget that it's an abbreviation for "North of the Citgo gas station flight path". He could also see if there was a flyover – there wasn’t. Please stop letting Craig brainwash you and start thinking for yourself. On the subject of 'brainwashing': I admit that Aldo mistepped in atleast one comment in my previous post, but you just mistepped above. There "wasn't"? What evidence have you gathered that suggests that the plane didn't fly over the pentagon? A bunch of witnesses who were in all likelihood interviewed -after- the news declared that a plane had crashed into the pentagon? CIT and P4T have made is amply clear that it would have been easy to mistake the plane approaching the pentagon followed closely by an explosion to mean that the plane crashed into the pentagon, especially if that's what the news was saying. However, many of the witnesses unwittingly stated things that conflict with the form in which the plane crashed, most notably the flight path it took before it allegedly crashed into the pentagon. The -reason- the north of the citgo gas station flight path is so important is that if the plane did indeed approach from that direction, the plane -couldn't- have crashed into the pentagon. Why? Because the trajectory of the damage done to the pentagon would only work if the plane had approached from the official trajectory. Some witnesses have also stated that momentarily before the explosion at the pentagon, the plane banked upwards, which not only conflicts with the 'low and level' official flight path, but suggests that the plane flew over the pentagon. And then, ofcourse, there is atleast one witness who claimed to have seen a 'second plane' go over the pentagon; but since he never saw a plane before it, it makes far more sense that he actually saw the only plane that came so close to the pentagon; that is, the one that almost certainly flew over it. Whether it's one fraudulent account or 10, how would it make a difference? In my opinion there is nothing fraudulent about the great number of eyewitness accounts to the official flight path and impact. I think you have yet to address many points that I, CIT and P4T have made against them. What my question is designed to uncover is exactly how many of these eyewitnesses CIT have attacked and ignored for one reason or another. I have seen no evidence that they have ignored any eyewitness. As to attacks, I think that they have attacked a few witness statements, if they clearly seem to be suspicious if not downright false. I think that this is completely justified, although I think that at times, especially in Lloyd's case, they may not have always taken the best approach. I think that Lloyd revealed a fair amount as it was; I also think that Lloyd himself is in a risky position; put simply, regardless of his level of involvement, I believe that his interview with CIT was immensely damning to the official story. When all’s said and done I am willing to bet, no – I know, that there are more eyewitnesses to the official account than there are for the North of Citgo claim. First you're willing to bet, then you "know". It's easy to bet, or claim that you know something Q. The hard part is providing evidence. Anyhow, I’ve had the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT experience… Loose Change forum next? Perhaps, although I'm thinking that perhaps now may be the time to slow down; you've already been banned from 2 forums, after all, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were to get banned from a loose change forum relatively quickly as well. I suggest that instead of looking for yet another truth movement forum that supports the flyover theory, why not just bounce your ideas off of me? I still have access both to P4T and to CIT and if there's anything that I can't resolve, I can ask them myself. There may come a time when you concede that they may well be right; I think it would be better if you hadn't burned all your bridges with this crowd before you get there. Edited August 15, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 15, 2009 #235 Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) Response to merril's post 220 Wow. They point fingers at some innocent, older, uneducated southern black gentleman, who drives a cab. What evidence do you have that he is innocent of any knowledge that damns the official story? From what I saw, he provided a wealth of information that did just that. He probably listens to local radio stations, while he works. Upon what do you base this probability on? Considering that A.M. radio has been known for an occasional foray into the world of the sensational (conspiracy topics, etc.), it's of little wonder what Mr. England was exposed to. Remember that he alleges to have gone to classes that brought up conspiracy theories. I don't know about you, but I've never seen such a class being offered. I'm willing to consider the possibility, but I'd certainly like to know more about them, wouldn't you? So, what now? They use round about, indirect questions to infer something that did not happen. Merril, it's clear that you've already made up your mind about what did not happen. However, in the above statement, you make the same mistake that Aldo from CIT made; you state your belief as if it were fact and to even disagree would be foolish. I can easily imagine that if you had your own forum, you'd boot anyone who supported the flyover theory, just as Q24 was booted for voicing the opposite view. Intolerance to differing viewpoints won't resolve this matter. I believe that the only thing that can resolve this issue is by carefully listening to the positions of the other side, then analyzing to see where the perceived flaws in logic are occuring and pointing them out. You think those questions are subtle enough to suggest a crime, right from his response?That is so low-life! Trying to implicate that old man. I believe that they may have been a bit too harsh with him; I personally Lloyd was torn; on the one hand, as I think he suggested quite clearly, the official story is a lie. Once again quoting part of his conversation with CIT: 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! [emphasis mine] He seems equally clear that the people responsible for 9/11 were not from his class. He also states, more than once, that he was not supposed to be involved. Assuming that he got involved by accident, it would be interesting to find out how that occurred. Alternatively, he may be lying about this part. Regardless, the below quoted text is noteworthy for his clearly explaining his view of those he believes carried out the pentagon attack. Starting from around 40:00 of CIT's documentary Lloyd England and his Taxi Cab: The Eye of the Storm: Lloyd: No I wasn't supposed to be involved in this. This is too big for me man this is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening, I'm a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff. CIT: But you said. Lloyd, what do you mean? Lloyd: Well I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I don't have nothing. CIT: So your point that these people that have all the money.. Lloyd: This is their thing. CIT: This is their thang. LLoyd: This is for them. CIT: Meaning they're doing it for their own reasons. Lloyd: That's right. I'm not supposed to be in it. CIT: But they used you, right? Lloyd: I'm in it. CIT: You're in it. Lloyd: Yeah, we came across, across the highway together. CIT: You and their event. Lloyd: That's right. CIT: But they must have planned that. Lloyd: It was planned. CIT: They meant for you to be there didn't they? Lloyd: No. They didn't mean for me to be there. Edited August 15, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 15, 2009 #236 Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) Response to Q24's post 228 By the way, Craig Ranke has mentioned that you have now been unsuspended (page 4, post 51, identifying terms "I know there are"). I’ve got the job done properly this time and received a full ban grin2.gif >.< They didn’t like it when I asked the following on another thread: -Why do CIT feel it is acceptable to carry out a smear campaign against Lloyd England, a man who welcomed them into his home and spent considerable time telling his story, with no reasonable grounds to do so? I saw no smear campaign. Craig may have been a little too harsh, considering what was at stake for Lloyd, but I think it's understandable. And they had more than reasonable grounds to question his story, which I felt their documentary made clear. I got the distinct impression that Lloyd is torn between revealing the truth and saving himself and those he cares about from repercussions. Your other accusatory questions build on the unfounded assumptions of your first unfounded assumption; without it to support them, they fall. It really shows the difference between a neutral forum where fair and open debate can take place and forums that exist only to promote an agenda. I find it quite ironic that you bring up the term agenda. In the past, people both at P4T and CIT have accused you of having an agenda. In my last defense of you (top post on page 3 in your south side thread), this is what I told Aldo: I'm fine with the idea that he has an agenda, if we use the following definition found in MSN Encarta: 3. personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias [e.g.:] Of course she's in favor, but then she has her own agenda. But then, don't we all have personal motivations and viewpoints? And I have yet to meet a person who has no bias at all. I find that the most useful thing is to simply try to put yourself in the shoes of others. Why do they believe or atleast claim to believe this or that? I have found that by attempting to keep to this way of seeing things, that the world becomes an incredibly complex place. On the plus side, however, I find that I get frustrated with people less. When attempting to persuade someone, to me it becomes something like a very complicated puzzle; if I could just find which pieces of evidence that they'd believe and that I could provide, I could persuade them... Regardless of what side of the debate one is on regarding any particular aspect of 9/11, I find that the above is immensely helpful in keeping one's calm and not making false accusations regarding people's motives. I find it quite ironic that certain sites proclaiming to seek the truth actually choose censorship over freedom of speech. Everyone has their tolerance level. A site is frequently something of a home to the people who run it; like any home, I believe they should have the right to remove anyone in it that they don't want to see. I spoke in your defense both at P4T and CIT, but at the same time, I understood their frustration with you. I think I have something of a gift of impressive patience, which, I believe, is why I have been able to discuss issues concerning 9/11 with people for almost a year now, and still not have anyone on my ignore list; that doesn't mean that I haven't at times ignored posts, but even with people who have used fairly foul language, I have given them other chances, while many would have probably put them on ignore long ago. As I have mentioned at both P4T and CIT, you are atleast civil. This doesn't mean that you can't be frustrating at times, however, especially with people who know this subject so well, such as those at P4T and CIT. Edited August 15, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 15, 2009 #237 Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) Response to Q24's post 232 If I remember correctly (no pun irony (someone help me out, there has to be a word I can use here) intended) from “The Eye of the Storm” presentation, before Lloyd stated his location he had just been shown an image of the alleged North of Citgo flight path, ie he had been told by CIT, “This is where our eyewitnesses place the flight path”. This is the leading element equivalent to those in the examples above.Now Lloyd knows he was somewhere below the flight path as he had the impacted light pole smash through his windshield. His memory then transposes his exact location to fit with the leading element of the North of Citgo flight path he has just been supplied. A case of, “If that’s where the flight path was, then that’s where I must have been!” Whatever the reason, Lloyd’s memory has certainly failed on this point because all photographic evidence places him further South on the bridge. I have a feeling that when Lloyd is shown these conclusive images, he may on a subconscious level realise his mistake but then, after having already fully committed himself, another characteristic of the human mind comes in and that is the stubbornness and pride preventing one from admitting that they are wrong. Could all of this, expected human behaviour, be the cause of Lloyd England’s account not matching perfectly to the actual events as they happened? Yes, this could certainly be the case and it would appear very natural to be so. I think your argument is fairly sound here. But while it may be that CIT's wording got Lloyd to believe that he was in a place that would allow him to observe a north flight path, it doesn't change the fact that he himself claims that he never saw the plane at all. So he's not a witness to the south flight path. Now you may say, wait, even if he didn't see the plane, a light pole that the plane allegedly knocked down fell on his car. The only problem here is that CIT makes mince meat of the light pole claim. If you want, I can go into detail, but I'll leave it at that for now. Edited August 15, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 16, 2009 #238 Share Posted August 16, 2009 I’m will just pick the notable points mentioned first: - Furthermore, why do you think it is that all the videotapes were confiscated shortly after the pentagon explosion? The fact that security footage from the area surrounding the Pentagon began to be confiscated within minutes of the impact could suggest there was a plan in place to restrict information. If the aircraft was indeed not Flight 77 this would explain why footage that could potentially identify it was quickly seized. Lloyd: Well I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I don't have nothing. CIT: So your point that these people that have all the money.. Lloyd: This is their thing. CIT: This is their thang. LLoyd: This is for them. CIT: Meaning they're doing it for their own reasons. Lloyd: That's right. I'm not supposed to be in it. CIT: But they used you, right? Lloyd: I'm in it. CIT: You're in it. Lloyd: Yeah, we came across, across the highway together. CIT: You and their event. Lloyd: That's right. CIT: But they must have planned that. Lloyd: It was planned. CIT: They meant for you to be there didn't they? Lloyd: No. They didn't mean for me to be there. There is nothing suspicious here – Lloyd is simply trying to convey that he is a regular guy caught up in an international event. If you stop looking for a conspiracy and view the interview objectively, this is an obvious interpretation. There is then a cut to Craig Ranke preparing us for a further segment of the interview: Have you ever wondered why the interview/presentation is arranged that way? I’ll tell you why – it’s because CIT don’t want to give you the chance to view and form your own opinions about what you are seeing and hearing; they want to tell you what you are going to see and plant their opinion in your mind from the outset. Perhaps, although I'm thinking that perhaps now may be the time to slow down; you've already been banned from 2 forums, after all, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were to get banned from a loose change forum relatively quickly as well. But it’s fun… … The only problem here is that CIT makes mince meat of the light pole claim. If you want, I can go into detail, but I'll leave it at that for now. No they don’t – CIT’s interview confirms the taxi cab damage where the light pole speared the dashboard and embedded in the rear seat. Their ‘mince meating’ amounts to the complaint that there is no damage to the cab hood. Obviously the light pole was angled upwards and out of the cab so there is no problem. The attack on Lloyd England is just desperate and sadly due only to the fact that his account confirms the official flight path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 16, 2009 #239 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Scott, to keep this simple I’m just going to list all of the eyewitnesses to the official flight path that CIT have contacted and/or interviewed so we know they are aware of: - Madelyn Zakhem – executive secretary at the VDOT Smart Traffic Center said, “It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level.” A flight path up Columbia Pike supports the official South flight path. Edward Paik – in his interview and sketches, describes a flight path coming from South of Columbia Pike, along this road and then over the Navy Annex. When the line in his sketch is extended it falls at best over the Citgo station. Overall, this is closer to the official South approach and Craig Ranke even admitted that Paik does not support North of Citgo. Terry Morin – stated, “The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB [Navy Annex]”. Without assuming the aircraft went on to perform a large kink before reaching the Pentagon, this account places the aircraft South of the Citgo, as the official flight path. Keith Wheelhouse – sketch showed a flight path near identical to the official South flight path. Wanda Ramey – at the time of her CIT interview she could not remember the light pole damage but in an earlier interview had said, “"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.” Obviously the light pole impact supports the official flight path. Lloyd England – taxi cab driver had light pole spear his windshield. Again, obviously the light pole impact supports the official flight path. Roosevelt Roberts – is at the Pentagon South parking lot and describes the aircraft coming from where I-395 merges with Route 27. This places the aircraft well South of the Citgo on approximately the official flight path. Mike Walter – confirmed an image of the official flight path. Sean Boger – “I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building.” Stephen McGraw – “I saw it crash into the building”. That is ten eyewitnesses who expressly corroborate the official approach and have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path. Two further eyewitnesses to the official flight path that I am unaware CIT have contacted: - Albert Hemphill – viewed from the Navy Annex: “Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport.” If the aircraft was on the right when facing the Pentagon from the Navy Annex, this supports the official South of Citgo flight path. Alan Wallace – firefighter at the heliport, “I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees.” This description supports that the aircraft was not coming in face on to the Pentagon West façade as the North of Citgo claim but at an angle as per the official South flight path. Then there are approximately thirty eyewitnesses to the actual impact. Below is a selection: - Steve Anderson – “I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball.” Although this account is inaccurate in so far as the wing dragging along the ground (probably due to the bank angle immediately prior impact), he sees the Pentagon impact. Deb Anlauf - “Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon).” Mike Dobbs – “"It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion. I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running.” Penny Elgas – “At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building.” Tim Timmerman - “The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.” Carla Thompson - “I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building.” Terrance Kean - “I saw this very, very large passenger jet... It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon.” James Mosley – “I looked over and saw this big silver plane run into the side of the Pentagon” There are many I have not quoted but when all is said and done there are over forty eyewitnesses that corroborate the official flight path and/or impact one way or another. It is these that CIT would not admit to when I asked how many they are aware of. Now what would make anyone believe that the three Citgo eyewitnesses plus less than a dozen other dubious accounts open to perspective error could outweigh these forty plus in favour of the official flight path? We cannot just say they are all made up or mistaken, I even tried justifying this when I was exploring the Pentagon theories, but it begins to get ridiculous. Not only do the eyewitnesses to the official approach outweigh those for a North of Citgo flight path but when all implications of the physical evidence are also considered the idea of a flyover becomes completely untenable. Even from a purely theory standpoint there are questions which show the incredibility of a flyover: - Why set up an elaborate scene faking the South flight path and then perform a flyover from an inconsistent direction? How can the massive risk of performing an unnecessary flyover be justified? The flyover theory is illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 16, 2009 #240 Share Posted August 16, 2009 (edited) Response to Q24's post 238, Part 1 I’m will just pick the notable points mentioned first: -Furthermore, why do you think it is that all the videotapes were confiscated shortly after the pentagon explosion? The fact that security footage from the area surrounding the Pentagon began to be confiscated within minutes of the impact could suggest there was a plan in place to restrict information. On this we can agree. If the aircraft was indeed not Flight 77 this would explain why footage that could potentially identify it was quickly seized. Again, we can agree here. But I'd go further; if the aircraft didn't hit the pentagon at all, but instead flew over, I think we could agree that they would -definitely- not want anyone seeing that footage. It might be interesting to try to find and interview the people who saw the footage before the MIBs confiscated it from them... Edited August 16, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 16, 2009 #241 Share Posted August 16, 2009 (edited) Response to Q24's post 238, Part 2 Lloyd: Well I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I don't have nothing. CIT: So your point that these people that have all the money.. Lloyd: This is their thing. CIT: This is their thang. LLoyd: This is for them. CIT: Meaning they're doing it for their own reasons. Lloyd: That's right. I'm not supposed to be in it. CIT: But they used you, right? Lloyd: I'm in it. CIT: You're in it. Lloyd: Yeah, we came across, across the highway together. CIT: You and their event. Lloyd: That's right. CIT: But they must have planned that. Lloyd: It was planned. CIT: They meant for you to be there didn't they? Lloyd: No. They didn't mean for me to be there. There is nothing suspicious here I strongly disagree. Lloyd is simply trying to convey that he is a regular guy caught up in an international event. He never specifies whether he feels the event is national or international. From what I understand, the event was indeed organized by elites in various nations, amoung them the U.S. I think his mention of people who have money is quite educational. You ever wonder who it was who he introduced CIT to? You know, the guy who gave CIT that crummy picture of the event that he probably just downloaded from the internet? In many crimes, it's good to analyze who benefits; honestly, Osama Bin Laden certainly didn't benefit from all of this. And at first it was made clear that he flatly denied being involved. Then we get a tape, with a man with a darker complexion and different facial features, purporting to be Bin Laden and "admitting" to the crime. The FBI certainly didn't buy it; to this day, they have never charged Bin Laden with the events of 9/11, simply because they never felt they had enough evidence to do so. Even the Bush administration back pedalled on acusing Bin Laden of the crime, preferring to switch the accusation to a man who, if he wasn't mentally disturbed before he was imprisoned and tortured a horrendous amount, certainly appears to be now. I can't even remember his name right now; the Bush administration seemed to simply use him as a prop. It's no secret that the 9/11 comission wasn't all that interested in following the money trail, whether it had to do with Pakistan's military financing the Mohammed Atta, or with a company with CIA connections profitting from 9/11 by shorting shares in the 2 airlines involved. Nor is it a secret that Silverstein acquired a hundred year lease on the Twin Towers a few weeks before 9/11, and stipulated in the lease that if the towers were demolished (something that couldn't be legally done due to New York City law), he would have the right to rebuild. And, ofcourse, he bought some hefty terrorist insurance on his buildings. And then there's a bunch of companies within the twin towers that had some shady pasts. If you stop looking for a conspiracy and view the interview objectively, this is an obvious interpretation. I disagree. He himself mentions a conspiracy, involving what he believes to be the government; what happened to Princess Diana. And it's well known that the author of the book that he was allegedly reading in his car, and that he agrees he was reading, David Icke, is heavy with conspiracy theories. And then there is the 'class' he took that he states he was going to when he was reading this book. I'm puzzled by all of it; it leaves me wanting to know much more; what was this class he went to? Why does his story have so many flaws to it? Who was this man who he split a dollar bill with as he left home? Did the splitting of the dollar bill represent something? What does his wife know? I'm sure there are many more, but this gives a good sampling of how many things have yet to be answered concerning Lloyd's account. And, ofcourse, there are many things we -do- know that I'll get to later. Edited August 16, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 16, 2009 #242 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Response to Q24's post 238, Part 3 There is then a cut to Craig Ranke preparing us for a further segment of the interview: Another notable detail that we found out in our first interview with Lloyd is that he was reading a book by David Icke called children of the matrix on 9/11 and that this book was sitting on the front seat of his cab on that day. We know because they brought up photos showing the cab, showing the inside of the cab and showing how that book was sitting there on the seat. So, we initially asked Lloyd, as soon as he saw the images, 'so you read David Icke?' and he said "Well yeah, I read a little bit of everything" was his response at the time. So now that we have Lloyd in the car, figured it'd be important to have him elaborate a bit on this and sure enough he admitted that he read David Icke, but what's very curious is that he also said, prior to 9/11, he learned about David Icke and other factors from a class that he would take in the area, so, I'm not sure if it was a conspiracy class or what it was exactly, but he suggested that they talked about conspiracies regarding the [death of] Princess Diana and other things, so the real details behind what this class was and whether or not this has anything to do with Lloyd's involvement in this operation we'll never know, but it was certainly a curious point that I think deserves to atleast be mentioned. Have you ever wondered why the interview/presentation is arranged that way? It seems to me that it's arranged that way to better present the points they'd like to make. I’ll tell you why – it’s because CIT don’t want to give you the chance to view and form your own opinions about what you are seeing and hearing; they want to tell you what you are going to see and plant their opinion in your mind from the outset. I have seen no evidence of this. I think they are simply trying to explain the significance of what we are about to see at certain parts. One is free to draw one's own conclusions, and those conclusions clearly don't have to agree with theirs; yours certainly don't. Perhaps, although I'm thinking that perhaps now may be the time to slow down; you've already been banned from 2 forums, after all, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were to get banned from a loose change forum relatively quickly as well. But it’s fun… devil.gif … laugh.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 16, 2009 #243 Share Posted August 16, 2009 (edited) Response to Q24's post 238, Part 4 (final part) The only problem here is that CIT makes mince meat of the light pole claim. If you want, I can go into detail, but I'll leave it at that for now. No they don’t – CIT’s interview confirms the taxi cab damage where the light pole speared the dashboard and embedded in the rear seat. Their ‘mince meating’ amounts to the complaint that there is no damage to the cab hood. Obviously the light pole was angled upwards and out of the cab so there is no problem. I question how well you remember CIT's video, Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm. In an effort to refresh your memory, I have transcribed what Craig Ranke said from 44:55 to 47:05: So we reached the cab. You can see now the footage of us examining the cab, taking a look at it inside and out. Ofcourse the hood didn't have scratches on it as you can see on 9/11, it was still preserved that way today. And now we get to look close at the interior, and see if there's anything here, because Lloyd claims that the pole speared the windshield of the cab So a lot of people figured, well you don't know, maybe the pole went all the way through the back seat, and that's what held it up over the hood and why it didn't scratch the hood, so this means it would literally have to puncture the back seat and through the floor boards, perhaps. This may have held up such a long pole, but the fact is there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So now we know for a fact that the floor boards were intact, in fact they were holding water at the time. There was only a minor puncture [picture of minor puncture] in the back seat, very minor. So the pole certainly didn't go through it. Ofcourse, even if it had, it would be strange, because the top part of the pole was bent [picture of pole], so if it had punctured all the way through, it's doubtful that it would have been able to lift the pole out at all. Which brings up another point. I've always wondered if, in fact, you were in his situation and a pole did spear his windshield. And he ended up on the side of the road, with a pole still sticking out over the hood, what are the chances that you or anyone would attempt to remove that pole, under any circumstances, let alone under a situation where the pentagon was burning right behind you and it was a major attack going on at the time. This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyd's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyd's account. And after visiting the cab, and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible, in fact now we're even more certain that this light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyd's cab. Edited August 16, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 16, 2009 #244 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Scott, to keep this simple I’m just going to list all of the eyewitnesses to the official flight path that CIT have contacted and/or interviewed so we know they are aware of: - I've linked to your list over at CIT. We'll see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted August 16, 2009 #245 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Why is there never any outrage against what actually happened, by these outfits who pursue "truth". People murdered on such a scale and in such a way as to be simply primative, animal, psychotic and brainwashed, showing no principles or internal self-restraint. All I see are the most disgusting tangents, from people who weren't there, who don;t have all the data, and who only seem to want to further attack the U.S., like a bunch of leftist propagandists. I would not doubt if there were, at least in the beginning, some islamic sugar-daddies involved in the online smear campaigns. The Iranians are accused by As-Sahab of initiating much of the propaganda. Then, there are the junkyard dogs at those "truth" outfits. Why do they defend their lies (people did not die on an airliner that was hijacked)? They have their little minions. But, who is really behind those "truth" scams? Truth is fine. But, scams are for shady groups who are suspect in their outrageous accusations. Oh, they say "we make no determination..." Bull. They are propagandists from the start. They never denounce the hijackers or their philosophy. And, they never denounce the lax airline security in 2001. They just aim to drive an arrow in one place. It's just anti-american for the sake of being anti-american. They never talk up american principles, or denounce islamic extremists. That's a scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 16, 2009 #246 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Why is there never any outrage against what actually happened, by these outfits who pursue "truth".People murdered on such a scale and in such a way as to be simply primative, animal, psychotic and brainwashed, showing no principles or internal self-restraint. All I see are the most disgusting tangents, from people who weren't there, who don;t have all the data, and who only seem to want to further attack the U.S., like a bunch of leftist propagandists. I would not doubt if there were, at least in the beginning, some islamic sugar-daddies involved in the online smear campaigns. The Iranians are accused by As-Sahab of initiating much of the propaganda. Then, there are the junkyard dogs at those "truth" outfits. Why do they defend their lies (people did not die on an airliner that was hijacked)? They have their little minions. But, who is really behind those "truth" scams? Truth is fine. But, scams are for shady groups who are suspect in their outrageous accusations. Oh, they say "we make no determination..." Bull. They are propagandists from the start. They never denounce the hijackers or their philosophy. And, they never denounce the lax airline security in 2001. They just aim to drive an arrow in one place. It's just anti-american for the sake of being anti-american. They never talk up american principles, or denounce islamic extremists. That's a scam. The observation that the official explanation doesn't account for the actual facts is plenty enough reason to go looking for the truth. If your happy to live with cover ups why not go and live in Iraq. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted August 16, 2009 #247 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Scott, to keep this simple I’m just going to list all of the eyewitnesses to the official flight path that CIT have contacted and/or interviewed so we know they are aware of: -... Sean Boger – “I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building.” .... Sean Boger places the plane north of the citgo gas station, so disagrees with the official flight path. http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm can you explain what made you believe Sean Boger is a witness to the official flight path? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott G Posted August 16, 2009 #248 Share Posted August 16, 2009 (edited) I've linked to your list over at CIT. We'll see what happens. CIT still hasn't said anything, but dMole from P4T has: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775204 I suppose now is the time to tell you that your temporary ban on P4T expired August 8th. Anyway, as I've mentioned to you before, you may want to simply write here; if they want to respond to what you have to say, they can simply come here themselves or respond over there and I'll bring it up. I just don't want to have you permanently banned from there as well. Edited August 16, 2009 by Scott G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 16, 2009 #249 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Again, we can agree here. But I'd go further; if the aircraft didn't hit the pentagon at all, but instead flew over, I think we could agree that they would -definitely- not want anyone seeing that footage. It might be interesting to try to find and interview the people who saw the footage before the MIBs confiscated it from them... This speculation – if, could, might – is not in the slightest supportive of a flyover. He never specifies whether he feels the event is national or international. From what I understand, the event was indeed organized by elites in various nations, amoung them the U.S. I think his mention of people who have money is quite educational. You ever wonder who it was who he introduced CIT to? You know, the guy who gave CIT that crummy picture of the event that he probably just downloaded from the internet? There is no reason to ‘wonder’ who Lloyd England introduced CIT to. He is a guy named Mike who lived down the street, happened to be passing the Pentagon on 9/11 and says he took some pictures. There is nothing notable about this… unless we bring in imagination and speculation again. To explain, when I said “international event” I could equally have specified “large scale event” or as Lloyd describes, “world thing”. Lloyd states that he “wasn’t supposed to be involved”, that it is “too big” for him and that it is for people “who have money”. All he is trying to convey is that he is a regular guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught up in the 9/11 event. To infer Lloyd is talking about being an accomplice to a conspiracy is absolutely unfounded. I disagree. He himself mentions a conspiracy, involving what he believes to be the government; what happened to Princess Diana. And it's well known that the author of the book that he was allegedly reading in his car, and that he agrees he was reading, David Icke, is heavy with conspiracy theories. And then there is the 'class' he took that he states he was going to when he was reading this book. A class teaching about conspiracy theories such as that of Princess Diana and a book by David Icke – I just cannot see how you are jumping from this to the idea that Lloyd England was an accomplice to the 9/11 attack. I have also read sections of David Icke’s books and looked in some detail at a number of conspiracy theories – obviously it doesn’t mean I’m going to be an accomplice to an event. I found a conspiracy theories course for you Scott, though if you attended I’m sure it won’t mean you will be an accomplice to any future event either. What does his wife know? Lloyd England’s wife certainly knows that CIT are bad news. There are a couple of points where it seems she is trying to be ‘smart’ with CIT (I don’t blame her) and it comes across like she knows more than she is letting on. For instance, there is an exchange between her and Craig Ranke where it appears she is agreeing to a flyover – “what you said” – but once again, viewed objectively and applying critical thinking, this is apparently sarcasm as in the statement, “yeah, whatever you say”. If Lloyd or his wife knew any ‘inside’ details of the 9/11 plot then CIT would have been booted into touch right at the doorstep. It seems to me that it's arranged that way to better present the points they'd like to make. In my view you are being naïve if you don’t believe that presentations with an agenda will try every trick in the book to sway you. Trust me, the cut scenes from CIT are edited that way specifically to implant their opinion in your mind prior to viewing the evidence; it is a way of restricting viewers from thinking for themselves. The cut scenes could easily have been placed after the viewer has had chance to independently form their own opinion but this would not serve the above purpose for which they were designed. I know you are aware of how the mainstream media works, in which case you should know these techniques. This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyd's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyd's account. And after visiting the cab, and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible, in fact now we're even more certain that this light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyd's cab. [/indent] Perhaps Lloyd England removed the pole because he didn’t want to drive around with it sticking out of his taxi cab. You are making these crazy jumps again – Lloyd removed the light pole from his taxi cab therefore he must be a part of the 9/11 conspiracy? Even if the pole did touch the hood at some point there is absolutely no reason to assume this must cause damage – vehicle paintwork is not going to flake off as soon as it’s touched and neither is a light pole going to corrode wherever it touches like acid or some such. Really, this whole Lloyd England thing is being hyped and warped into something it is not, and with the assertive nature of CIT and their dirty tricks such as the cut scenes and false premises, people are unfortunately falling for it. CIT still hasn't said anything, but dMole from P4T has:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775204 I am aware of the eyewitness list mentioned and it does not account for or excuse the many eyewitnesses that I described to the official flight path and impact – dMole is desperately handwaving but failing to address the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 16, 2009 #250 Share Posted August 16, 2009 (edited) Sean Boger places the plane north of the citgo gas station, so disagrees with the official flight path.http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm can you explain what made you believe Sean Boger is a witness to the official flight path? We have a contradiction in Sean Boger’s account in that he places the aircraft North of the Citgo station and also witnesses it impact the Pentagon (necessarily as the official South flight path). Due to the physical damage of the Pentagon we know that these claims cannot simultaneously be true – either he was mistaken in the precise flight path of the aircraft or mistaken in that it impacted the Pentagon. Due to perspective error and/or fallibility of the memory, I find it far more likely the exact location of the aircraft was misremembered rather than the fact that he “watched it hit the building” was misremembered. What I do know is that if CIT can somehow find this account satisfactory enough to support their flyover theory then I sure as hell can use it to even better support the official impact event. Edited August 16, 2009 by Q24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now