General of all American Intelligence:

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 249, Part 1

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...

This speculation – if, could, might – is not in the slightest supportive of a flyover.

The point of yours that I was responding to was also speculative. Speculation in and of itself isn't a bad thing. When backed up by evidence, it becomes a theory. Both of these things help us to properly direct our search for evidence.

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.

I've already gone over the important role that speculation can play. You yourself frequently try to pass off speculation as fact. You state that Mike was someone who lived down the street. This appears to be the case, but do you honestly believe that, assuming that he actually did take pictures of the event, that the only picture he took was that pixelated photo that he gave Lloyd? Can you atleast admit that he might in fact be more than just some guy who happened to be passing by at the time of the event? If we were to speculate that the event was indeed staged, do you honestly believe that the people staging it would have allowed him to take pictures of them doing so?

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.

In a murder case, all you need to be an accomplice to it is to keep your mouth shut. Lloyd seems to imply that he didn't want to be involved in the event, but this doesn't mean that he doesn't know more than he's said. If the plane that approached the pentagon did indeed fly over it instead of into it, heads would roll if that news became clear to the masses, just as heads would roll if the masses became truly convinced that much of the rest of 9/11 was an inside job. Surely you don't think that the people behind 9/11 wouldn't stoop to dealing with someone like Lloyd if he were to say too much now, do you?

Edited August 17, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 249, Part 2

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.

True enough. However, if he was aware of the nature of powerful conspiracies, he may also have been aware of what can frequently happen to those who reveal the truth behind a coverup.

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”.

I'm glad that you atleast admit that you are going on a hunch here. You think that she was apparently being sarcastic; I don't. And since we're already in the realm of speculation, why not go further; what if she knows that the official story is a lie? Or as Lloyd said in an exchange with Craig Ranke:

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!

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.

Not necessarily. The human conscience can be a very powerful thing. I have frequently considered the possibility that Lloyd is a man who is wrestling with his conscience.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 249, Part 3 (last part)

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.

I think it's necessary that we define 'agenda'. Will you agree to use the one I found at MSN Encarta? In case you missed me mentioning it in post 236, here it is again:

3. personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias [e.g.:] Of course she's in favor, but then she has her own agenda.

In the aforementioned post, I further elaborated on this definition:

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...

I think that CIT simply tried to present the information in such a way so that what they believe to have learned from the witnesses would be evident to the viewers. Clearly, this hasn't always been the case; I believe you are a testament to this.

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.

Q, it is precisely because of the fact that I -do- think for myself that I don't automatically trust you, or anyone else. I use my own judgement. Using that judgement, I have generally found their videos to be good. I think they may not have fully comprehend the predicament that Lloyd was in, atleast in the "Eye of the Storm" video, but I know that they have done more work on his case since.

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.

I claim no special knowledge of how scenes are cut in the mainstream media. I believe I have read enough online, however, to know that certain information is cut out or unjustly ridiculed by it according to the dictates of those who control it.

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.

Perhaps Lloyd England removed the pole because he didn’t want to drive around with it sticking out of his taxi cab.

Assuming that he could have lifted it out of his car, even with the help of someone else, there are still all the other points that CIT has made, and which I see you have yet to address.

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?

The above wasn't my own comment, but part of CIT's "Eye of the Storm" video, which you would know if you had been paying close attention. I think the points that CIT made are good. I have also seen no evidence that the light pole was ever even in his cab, and the points that CIT has made to discredit the possibility that it was sound logical to me.

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.

From what I understand, it would have had to have done a lot more than 'touch' it. Just like the plane couldn't have simply 'kissed' a light pole...

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.

I think that CIT and P4T are somewhat harsh to its critics at times and I've let them know this. Conversely, I believe that they've done far more work than most people, and so I can sympathize that they'd be miffed when people who know so little come in and act like they know more than them. I have seen no evidence of hyping, warping or "dirty tricks".

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.

I have stated that I think that many members at both P4T and CIT are like wise hermits; they know their detractors are wrong but they're not so keen on explaining why. When seeking answers from them concerning issues you bring up, the advantage I have over you is that I believe that their theory is correct; it's just certain details that I'd like cleared up. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that they are always forthcoming with said answers; they may direct me to other posts, and expect me to glean the information I need from them myself. As the old saying goes, beggars can't be choosers; I'd much rather have them atleast point me in the right direction then not even get that. And sometimes they will essentially counter your points directly. However, there are limits to the amount of research that I'm willing to do in a given amount of time, so at times we get what I'll call an impass; you state that the list doesn't have the information required to counter your points and I don't want to spend the time trying to ascertain whether you're right or wrong.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

The point of yours that I was responding to was also speculative.

As all security footage around the Pentagon was quickly confiscated, the logical conclusion is that certain authorities specifically did not want the aircraft present to be viewed. To make the jump that authorities ‘did not want us to see a flyover’ is considerable speculation.

This appears to be the case, but do you honestly believe that, assuming that he actually did take pictures of the event, that the only picture he took was that pixelated photo that he gave Lloyd? Can you atleast admit that he might in fact be more than just some guy who happened to be passing by at the time of the event? If we were to speculate that the event was indeed staged, do you honestly believe that the people staging it would have allowed him to take pictures of them doing so?

All I hear is - assuming, might, if, speculate. Please put the facts before your imagination. First there is the Lloyd England spin and now because someone dared to show CIT a “pixelated photo” they must be ‘suspect’ too? Where does this paranoid fantasy of flyover theorists end?

Lloyd seems to imply that he didn't want to be involved in the event, but this doesn't mean that he doesn't know more than he's said.

You are confused – it’s innocent until proven guilty. You must show where you believe Lloyd England allegedly knows more than he said. The fact is there is no evidence of this – just speculative and unreasonable interpretation from a conspiracist mindset.

True enough. However, if he was aware of the nature of powerful conspiracies, he may also have been aware of what can frequently happen to those who reveal the truth behind a coverup.

You and me both are aware what may happen to those who reveal the truth of a cover-up. Does this mean we are more likely to be involved in some present or future cover-up? No, of course it does not and this is also the case for Lloyd England.

I'm glad that you atleast admit that you are going on a hunch here. You think that she was apparently being sarcastic; I don't.

As a minimum it is fact that Lloyd England’s wife has a problem with CIT; she understandably does not like them. She was also being deliberately uncooperative, eg when asked about the taxi cab. This is clearly observed in the interview. Stepping into your fantasy for moment then and assuming for whatever reason that ‘she knows all about the flyover’ why ever would she suddenly at that point ‘admit it’ to them? It makes as much sense as the rest of this rampant speculation – none.

And since we're already in the realm of speculation, why not go further; what if she knows that the official story is a lie?

Have you seen the movie Men In Black? ‘What if’ she is ‘maybe’ an alien ‘perhaps’ inhabiting the body of the ‘alleged’ Lloyd England’s wife? Hmmm… interesting theory yes? Well I’m sure you can’t prove this isn’t the case.

Will you agree to use the one I found at MSN Encarta?

Yes, but we must still be aware that there are different types of agenda – those based on what people want to believe and those based on evidence are two differing examples. One agenda can push fantasy and speculation whilst the other promotes the truth. My agenda and CIT’s agenda follow different philosophies.

Assuming that he could have lifted it out of his car, even with the help of someone else, there are still all the other points that CIT has made, and which I see you have yet to address.

What points?

I have also seen no evidence that the light pole was ever even in his cab, and the points that CIT has made to discredit the possibility that it was sound logical to me.

So let’s get this straight – despite the fact his windshield was smashed, the dashboard damaged, the rear seat ripped, the light pole lay by his taxi cab and Lloyd England’s account itself are all well documented, you say there is no evidence the light pole was in the cab.

Yet you are happy to believe undercover agents ran into the middle of the road in broad daylight, faked the damage to the cab, dragged the light pole into position and then bribed or threatened Lloyd England to go along with this plot, all with no evidence.

Forgive me Scott but…

However, there are limits to the amount of research that I'm willing to do in a given amount of time, so at times we get what I'll call an impass; you state that the list doesn't have the information required to counter your points and I don't want to spend the time trying to ascertain whether you're right or wrong.

A quick glance of the list will tell you that it does not counter the eyewitnesses. I hope you are not meaning that I could provide the evidence supporting the official flight path and completely overwhelming the handful of North of Citgo claims yet you won’t spend the time to confirm this. That would be wilful ignorance of evidence against your theory.

[merril]

O.K. I just watched about 10 minutes of an absolutely sickening video. It's about Lloyd England.

Some guy acts like Bo Peep, setting his audience up for what is subsequently a verbal shark attack on that old man, Lloyd England.

They rip into honest people with stupid accusations and innuendo.

It's the way such persons have handled themselves, ever since 9-11 occured. Get aggressive with simple, honest people who were caught up in the al-Qaeda attacks. Just because they want to, to get attention and feed their sick egos.

What ever happened to showing respect for the older generation? For people who invite you into their home, to clear up some misinformation.

And the kicker is, Lloyd England said people are talking and accusing him of part of a coverup!

That is just so sick. But, hey. Leftwing attack artists don't care.

Edited August 17, 2009 by merril

[merril]

Another thing. These video makers make the old man nervous, they confuse him, and never back off.

They mention evidence to put some pressure on poor Mr. England. They hound him with typical falsehoods- namely a bunch of weak eyewitnesses, who offer stale testimony, long after the fact. Of course, they never tell him of the others who might have a different opinion.

Nor do they tell him As-Sahab has already confessed!

Why don't they let him in on that salient fact?

Typically leftwing propagandists who are trying to scam the public, when the evidence is IN!

al-Qaeda did it. Not some fantasy these guys concoct!

Come on! Time to tell the truth! Not propaganda!

[merril]

One final note. If I get their gist, and I remember some PFT video that I once saw, someone is suggesting that U.S. military jets attacked the Pentagon (how STUPID!).

No evidence, in nearly a decade, of anything- not one mote. Nothing, but years and years of al-Qaeda.

Anyone who sways from that, in order to exonerate the guilty, has some serious issues.

Leftwing, pro-islamic issues.

Islamic, al-Qaeda radicals have confessed, so move on.

[Guest]

That is just so sick. But, hey. Leftwing attack artists don't care.

And rightwing attackers don't either.

Your obvious political bias undermines you as a person.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 17, 2009 by Guest

[Scott G]

For those who would like to see the last 21 posts that were taken down by the hard drive failure, I've backed them up and have put them on to a free web site of mine. Perhaps an admin can put them back up here?

Page 18:

http://scott3x.tripod.com/backup_posts/18-old.html

Page 19:

http://scott3x.tripod.com/backup_posts/19-old.html

Apparently you can even reply to them by clicking on the reply button, although it seems that you'd have to copy and paste text from the posts manually in your replies.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

Nice work Scott Your backup doesn’t include my last four posts but fortunately I have two of those still myself…

All the solid evidence points towards the North of Citgo flight path.

Only if you continue to believe that around a dozen eyewitnesses, years after the event somehow negate the three times as many who corroborate the official version. Only if you invent bizarre scenarios of a stealth flyover, light pole planting team and faked security footage, etc, involving many accomplices. And yet you have the audacity to claim elsewhere… “I think you'd agree that when delving into the speculative, we should try to stick to the more plausible possibilities.” Well here is the most plausible possibility from every single angle: a plane impacted the Pentagon.

Let me tell you a true story…

There was once a theory floating about that a small plane, probably military, had impacted WTC1. This was due to some eyewitnesses reporting a “non-commercial aircraft”, a “small plane” and even what looked like a “missile” impacting the building. There was no video footage of this first impact available at the time to confirm the official event. There were a good number of eyewitnesses who of course told their account of a large passenger airliner impacting the building but some so called ‘truthers’ chose to ignore them in favour of the lesser number of eyewitnesses who claimed otherwise. When the physical evidence was brought up, ie the impact hole in the side of the building, it was argued by some of the more wildly speculative that explosives must have been set to ‘cut-out’ the large plane shape in the facade. This was all utterly debunked at the time though it took the video footage of the impact to become available before some of the more pig-headed fantasists could be convinced.

There are undeniable similarities that can be drawn between the above and the Pentagon ‘flyover’ theory which should serve as stern warning to all concerned.

Since the plane could not have caused the damage that was done to the pentagon if it were on a north of the citgo gas station approach, the logical conclusion is that it did not, in fact, hit the pentagon. CIT and P4T have explained in great detail how they could have been fooled into thinking it hit the pentagon; the timing of the explosion had to have been very close to the flyover.

No, the logical conclusion is that the outnumbered eyewitnesses simply misinterpreted the flight path of the plane that impacted the Pentagon. The same way as those few eyewitnesses mentioned above misinterpreted what they saw at the WTC.

CIT and Pilots for Truth have not explained in the slightest detail how the many eyewitnesses were all fooled into thinking the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. All I’ve heard said is that an explosion was set-off at the time of the flyover. Yet not one single eyewitness that believed the plane was too high to impact. Not one single account of seeing an aircraft swoop over the top of the building at the precise time of the explosion – where if it were the case there should be many. Even those limited eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a North of Citgo flight path still all unequivocally support an impact.

But please feel free to explain ‘in great detail’ how you suppose this magic trick was performed. If I were an eyewitness to the attack that day, as there were many all around the area, and a large airliner swooped over as an explosion was set-off, I’m damn sure I would not be so blind as to miss a flyover and the plane disappearing into the distance.

You seem to be resting on the fact that he has said that the plane crashed into the building.

If you see a problem in this then I really do despair.

What you don't seem to understand is it's much easier for him to mistake the plane crashing into the building then it is for him to mistake the plane's approach path.

What hogwash – obviously the largest event will be most memorable. Let’s bring this to a lower level we can all imagine ourselves in and understand. Suppose we watched a random short video clip of a plane flying before crashing… then 6-7 years later someone asks what you remember of the video. It is guaranteed that the overriding memory will be of the actual crash far above recollection of precise features it flew over.

[Q24]

I'm not confused; we're not a court of law and I don't have to prove anyone guilty of anything. We're voicing our believes concerning what's the more plausible possibility.

Sorry, it just seemed for a moment that you were inferring I had to prove Lloyd England innocent.

However, if one was aware of what might happen if one revealed the truth, perhaps one might decide to go along with the official story for fear of rocking the boat, as it were?

Of course but you cannot just slap that label on anyone you fancy without good reason.

I'm not sure if she doesn't like CIT per se, so much as how their expose might affect her and her husband. I have a feeling that she may also be tormented as to how much she should reveal.

Oh… well… if you “have a feeling” that settles it.

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!

I’m not entirely sure Lloyd England even knows they are filming at this point. The beginning of the conversation in the car is not recorded but it appears they had been discussing conspiracy theories in general at some point. The above quote would fit with something a conspiracy course would teach and Lloyd is then repeating. Leading comments/questions then give the impression that he may be referring specifically to 9/11 when he does not actually say any such thing.

I personally would like to believe that both you and CIT want to reveal the truth. In your defense, I have noticed (and have made this clear to both CIT and P4T) that their patience is not as long as my own.

You can believe I honestly state the evidence as I see it and CIT know exactly what they are doing. This is nothing to do with patience but control of opinion through censorship. I could ask questions all day long on the CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth forums so long as I was prepared to cheerlead for and spread their theories along the way. That’s the only reason they tolerate you there I’m afraid to say, Scott.

Sigh. The paragraph you were responding to was the punchline of the 3rd point in my post 243. You skipped right over the first 2. Here they are again..

I still don’t get it. The light pole went through the windshield, the dashboard and embedded in the rear seat – this is what held one end in place. The point where the dashboard and hood come together acted as a fulcrum with the end of the light pole outside of the vehicle slanted slightly upward. Lloyd England and another man then pulled the light pole out of the vehicle and placed it on the road. What do you believe is so amazingly impossible about this?

I’ve noticed something about Lloyd England’s taxi cab – it’s facing sideways on the road (this would be where he skidded to a stop after the light pole came through his windscreen). Why would he skid to a stop facing sideways on the highway if there was no reason? In fact, why would the ‘light pole plant’ team think to come up with such a convoluted staging event at all? Why not just put a dent in the roof of the car and have Lloyd England support that is where the light pole hit - much simpler.

Ran? Please. They walked. With notepads. This close to the pentagon, this was clearly their turf.

So you are happy to believe undercover agents walked into the middle of the road with notepads and, in broad daylight, faked the damage to the cab, dragged the light pole into position and then bribed or threatened Lloyd England to go along with this plot, all with no evidence.

[Q24]

However, the most important point is that the black box data has the plane on a North of the Citgo gas station approach.

This is a common misconception – one that I also held for too long because forums like Pilots for 9/11 Truth are not entirely upfront about it. I have been looking into this further and found that the black box raw data matches with the official flight path so far as heading is concerned. This is essentially what Rob Balsamo confirmed to me whilst simultaneously confusing the issue by claiming it’s “not that simple” (yes actually, the heading data is that simple). The only problem remaining is the altitude reading which appears too high at the final recording. It has been suggested this could be due to a section missing from the end of the data. The NTSB animation showing North of Citgo does not match with the black box data yet nobody seems to know why.

I understand that Rob Balsamo has logged a call with the NTSB raising these discrepancies. Has any further action been taken, such as letters or a petition sent from the aviation professionals of Pilots for 9/11 Truth to the NTSB? This area is of genuine concern and, if Pilots for 9/11 Truth take themselves seriously and stand for what they say they do, should be pursued vigorously.

The reason I stated it was impossible was because of the information contained in one of P4T's videos.

If the black box data is lacking, therefore unrepresentative of full reality, then it is pointless as a base for calculations.

[Q24]

CIT has recorded several witnesses without permission, and according to what a researcher told me, his phone conversation was recorded without permission. Does this strike you as behavior that should be supported or endorsed by the truth movement?

There is a post from Arabesque in the link which states, “This individual told me that his posts were edited, deleted, and moved to another section of the forum… ”

I can vouch from experience that this is a true representation of the CIT forum and I’m not surprised to hear others have received the same treatment.

[Space Commander Travis]

So you are happy to believe undercover agents walked into the middle of the road with notepads and, in broad daylight, faked the damage to the cab, dragged the light pole into position and then bribed or threatened Lloyd England to go along with this plot, all with no evidence.

Of course. That's so much more sensible than the absurd notion that soemone just flew a plane into the building, hitting various things like light poles on the way.

[Space Commander Travis]

O.K. I just watched about 10 minutes of an absolutely sickening video. It's about Lloyd England.

Some guy acts like Bo Peep, setting his audience up for what is subsequently a verbal shark attack on that old man, Lloyd England.

They rip into honest people with stupid accusations and innuendo.

It's the way such persons have handled themselves, ever since 9-11 occured. Get aggressive with simple, honest people who were caught up in the al-Qaeda attacks. Just because they want to, to get attention and feed their sick egos.

What ever happened to showing respect for the older generation? For people who invite you into their home, to clear up some misinformation.

And the kicker is, Lloyd England said people are talking and accusing him of part of a coverup!

That is just so sick. But, hey. Leftwing attack artists don't care.

Another thing. These video makers make the old man nervous, they confuse him, and never back off.

They mention evidence to put some pressure on poor Mr. England. They hound him with typical falsehoods- namely a bunch of weak eyewitnesses, who offer stale testimony, long after the fact. Of course, they never tell him of the others who might have a different opinion.

Nor do they tell him As-Sahab has already confessed!

Why don't they let him in on that salient fact?

Typically leftwing propagandists who are trying to scam the public, when the evidence is IN!

al-Qaeda did it. Not some fantasy these guys concoct!

Come on! Time to tell the truth! Not propaganda!

One final note. If I get their gist, and I remember some PFT video that I once saw, someone is suggesting that U.S. military jets attacked the Pentagon (how STUPID!).

No evidence, in nearly a decade, of anything- not one mote. Nothing, but years and years of al-Qaeda.

Anyone who sways from that, in order to exonerate the guilty, has some serious issues.

Leftwing, pro-islamic issues.

Islamic, al-Qaeda radicals have confessed, so move on.

Can it really be reduced to a simple left/right, good/bad (Left=Bad, Right=Good) argument? that's almost bringing it down to G.W.B.'s "for us or against us" argument.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's (old) post 265, Part 1

Look, from where I, P4T and CIT stand, the official flight path was:

(1) impossible (as P4T has made clear)

False. Near everyone appears to agree that there are some problems with the Flight 77 black box data released by the NTSB and I can’t find a serious rebuttal to this anywhere. This does not logically lead to the conclusion that the official flight path was “impossible”. Instrument error, human error or even faked data could be responsible for the black box data problems.

I'm going to answer this part again, since my original answer was deleted and can only be seen on my web page...

I agree that some of the data may have been faked; the fact that there was no push back of the dial when going down is one place that was clearly faked. However, the most important point is that the black box data has the plane on a North of the Citgo gas station approach. Clearly, they didn't do a very good job faking the data, because it clearly contradicts the official flight path, as well as the damage trajectory at the pentagon. But this isn't why I said that the official flight path was impossible.

The reason I stated it was impossible was because of the information contained in one of P4T's videos. Specifically, information from P4T's 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 9:52 and ending a few minutes later:

...we will demonstrate the accuracy of the scale and topography at the end of this presentation.

The radius of this ark is 20.5 centimeters. But remember the scale of this presentation is 1 cm= 100 ft. So we need to multiply 100 to 20.85 and we get a radius of 2,085 feet.

With the radius, we can use a simple formula required for measuring acceleration as "a = v^2 / r". This is the proper formula to use for such a problem.

Using the velocity as provided by the NTSB for both scenarios, 781 f/s, we need to square that, then divide by 2085, to get 292.5 f/s squared. We then divide that by 32 f/s squared to get 9.14 G.

[The math involved]:

781*781 = 609,961

609,961/2085 = 292.5 f/s squared

292.5 f/s squared/32 f/s squared = 9.14G

G force calculation for this pull up equals 9.14 Gs. We also need to add 1 G for earth's gravity, for a total of 10.14 Gs required.

Transport category aircraft are limited to 2.5 positive Gs. Although a 757 could perhaps withstand more G forces then 2.5, it's highly unlikely it could withstand more than 5 or 6.

Remember, this calculation is for the least challenging pull. If we hypothetically lower the aircraft altitude from the NTSB plotted altitude, to the lower height of the VDOT antenna.

As we can see, G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757. It is off the charts if we account for altitude as plotted and produced by the NTSB.

Placing the aircraft at the FDR altitude, the most challenging pull, we can measure the radius of the ark needed to pull out of such a dive.

Again, we switch to the orthogonal view, for accurate measurements and we get a radius of 576.9 feet. Plugging that radius into the same formula, and adding 1 g for earth's gravity, we get 34 Gs.

781*781 = 609,961

609,961/576.9 = 1057.3

1,057.3/32 = 33G

Impossible.

This is the proper way to determine G loads in a 2 dimensional problem such as aircraft pulling out of a dive.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's (old) post 265, Part 2

Although clear discrepancies have been pointed out to them, the NTSB refuses to comment and so we are left without a conclusion. I do believe this area can be viewed with cautious suspicion and I’m all for chasing up the NTSB for clarification. Something is wrong here but it is unknown exactly what.

They did actually comment and what is wrong was known even before those comments. First Jeff Hill, a Pilots for 9/11 Truth representative, talked to Jim Ritter, who signed off on the NTSB report obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Jim Ritter is the Chief of the Vehicle Performance Division for the NTSB. This is the tail end of that conversation, which you can see at about 50 minutes into Chapter 2 of Pilots for 9/11 Truth's video, Pandora's Black Box:

Jim Ritter: Um, hold on just a second. What uh, flight, are you, what uh..

Jeff: It's American Airlines 77, I guess, the NTSB, you guys, released the Flight Recorder Data Information.

Jim Ritter: Right

Jeff: And uh, if you go to uh, website, it's pilotsfor911truth.org

Jim Ritter: Ok.

Jeff: Under the pentagon section, there's a whole analysis of the.. discrepancies and the questions we wanted answered.

Jim Ritter: Ok

Jeff: Um, it has to do a lot with the true altitude and pressure altitude, uh, being a discrepancy, and also uh, in the simulation, I don't know if you've seen the simulation yet?

Jim Ritter: Did you, well hold on a second, you said the discrepancies with the true altitude and what?

Jeff: Uh, the true altitude and uh, pressure altitude.

Jim Ritter: Oh ok.

Jeff: And that they know the difference between that.

Jim Ritter: Ok.

Jeff: And it shows.. in your flight simulation animation, it shows the flight path being north of the reported flight path when it's looked at.

Jim Ritter: You'll have to refresh my memory, just going from the flight number, I don't remember, ah, where did that plane crash?

Jeff: Well, it's the one that hit the pentagon.

Jim Ritter: Ok. You probably said that at the beginning, I didn't catch that.

Jeff: But there's all these discrepancies, and a number of professional pilots have got together and they analyzed this data and...

Jim Ritter: Alright Jeffrey, well, I'm sorry, I'm right in the middle of something here and my boss is looking at me like where did I go, I just came in here to check my voice mail, I saw that I had a voice mail and your phone was, and the phone was ringing so, uh...

Jeff: Well, all the questions, you'll be able to find the questions on that page that I gave you and if you could get back to me I would really appreciate it. Like answering these questions would put to rest a lot of discrepancies that people have

Jim Ritter: Ok.

Jeff: so I don't see why..

Jim Ritter: Well it's the first I'm aware of it and so, you know, I just uh.. we'll have to check around here and get back with you, because uh, you know, this, catching me out of the blue and I'm right in the middle of something, so.

Jeff: Well yeah, I didn't mean to catch you off guard or anything

Jim Ritter: Ok

Jeff: Thank you very..

Jim Ritter: Alright Jeffrey, we will get back in touch with you.

Jeff: Ok, thank you very much, I look forward to hearing from you.

Jim Ritter: Ok.

Jeff: bye.

A few hours later, Jeff gets a call at home from the NTSB:

Jeff: Ok, but what I needed was specific questions answered according to the Flight Data Recorder Analysis that you guys...

NTSB Rep: Yeah, all, and, we can't elaborate on this so, we work on behalf of another agency as you know, so.. we cannot elaborate on the information we put out.

Jeff: So you have no answers to the discrepancies that are involved with the analysis that you put out?

NTSB Rep: I have no comment on the existence of discrepancies. What we've done is we put out the work products that we provided to the FBI that is available to you. This investi, it's not our investigation, we can't collaborate beyond..

Jeff: I was told to get a hold of Jim Ritter, because he was the one who signed off on the analysis. I have the CVS file and, if you guys are signing off saying this is .. this is the actual flight data recorder and you used it.. information and you've compiled and analyzed this information, coming with all these contradictions and everything, and, so there's nobody that are going to be able to answer any of these questions?

NTSB Rep: That's right, we're not elaborating on these reports. Uh, they're factual reports..

Jeff: But how could they be factual reports, if there's contradictions and discrepancies with everything that's within this report?

NTSP Rep: Well, you're welcome to your opinion.

Jeff: It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

NTSB Rep: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get into a discussion. You're welcome to read the information that we've provided, the work product that we provided to the FBI is available to you. We're not accounting for anything, we're giving you the information that we have read out of the, uh, of the recorder, and we've made it public to anyone who wants to read it.

Jeff: But if, ok, so obviously then the people that you have working for you don't know what they're talking about. Is that what we've come down to?

NTSB Rep: You can make any characterization you want, sir. All I can tell you is we've released what we can under the law and we cannot elaborate on any questions about the 9/11 investigation.. save what we've been able to put out.

Jeff: Well that's... I just don't understand how you'd have nobody there that could answer questions just to get some contradictions resolved..

NTSB Rep: That's our policy. We're not in a position to discuss an investigation that was uh, under someone else's jurisdiction.

Jeff: But the person that signed off on the analysis that you did, shouldn't he have the answers?

NTSB Rep: You can, sir, we could go around this 50 times, I'm telling you what the policy is and, what our requirements are under the law.

Jeff: Well, how about you, as a citizen of the United States, don't you care about what really happened?

NTSB Rep: I'm not here to talk about my personal beliefs... Our policy is that we've done work for another agency. We have, under the freedom of information, published some of that work. It is available to you. But we cannot elaborate on it.

Jeff: But..

NTSB Rep: It's not our investigation. We cannot elaborate on the information that was provided on behalf on another agency.

Jeff: So basically there's nothing at the NTSB that can help.

NTSB Rep: That's correct. And we cannot elaborate on it. That's just the way it is.

Jeff: Well, you, yourself, are you aware..

NTSB Rep: I'm going to hang up now, because otherwise I'll be here until 7 oclock tomorrow morning.

Jeff: Um, well thank you very much for contacting me and taking the time to uh,

NTSB Rep: [unintelligible]

Jeff: Alright, you have a good day.

NTSB Rep: Good day.

Jeff: Alright, thank you.

Since then, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also tried to learn more from the FBI, but apparently they refused to comment.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's (old) post 265, Part 3

Look, from where I, P4T and CIT stand, the official flight path was:

...

(2) unsupported by all reliable witnesses.

False. The official flight path is supported by numerous eyewitnesses who are as reliable as any other.

I strongly disagree, and I believe that Little Fish, P4T and CIT's responses to you have delineated how your view on this is mistaken, but I'll get into all this later.

We don't agree on the facts.

Sure we agree - facts are facts.

I think it's time that we define facts. From wikipedia's entry on the term:

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation.

Now here is the problem: While a statement can in -theory- be checked and confirmed, this is only theoretical. Secondly, there is no timeline on how long it will take any particular person to confirm what is a fact. Because of this, it is easy to believe something is a belief or even speculation when it is in truth a fact. The reverse is also true- a belief or opinion can be stated as a fact. I believe you have done this many times, and I also believe that this is what has so frustrated CIT, P4T, and to a lesser extent myself.

My interpretations are just more moderate than your own speculations.

Clearly we disagree on what interpretations/speculations are more plausible, but we also disagree on what the facts are as well.

First there is the Lloyd England spin

See, unlike me, you want to impose your personal viewpoint as a fact. I do -not- agree that Lloyd England's account was given 'spin'

I never mean to propose that my pure opinion is fact.

Then quit stating it as such. You have absolutely no evidence that anything Craig Ranke said was 'spin'.

If ‘The Eye Of The Storm’ presentation contained nothing but Lloyd England’s interview from start to finish, then this would be factual information.

Untrue. Lloyd's account is clearly contradictory; he simply couldn't have been in a position to observe the north side approach and you know this full well.

Once the presentation has been edited with cut scenes alleging that Lloyd England is a liar and inferring he is an accomplice to the Pentagon attack, then it becomes spin.

He has clearly stated some things that simply can't be true. You yourself have admitted as much in regards to his claim that he was in a position that would allowed the light poles to be knocked down from a north side approach. You say that he was confused. I can go with that. But I think you mistake where his confusion lies. What he clearly doesn't want to do is to rock the boat. If CIT's witnesses said that they saw the plane approach from North of the Citgo Gas station, clearly Lloyd's story would fit better if he was in a position where he and the light poles were knocked down from the plane making a North of the Citgo gas station approach. But as P4T and CIT have made clear, there is no way in hell that he could have been in such a position. So perhaps Lloyd felt he could pull a fast one on CIT by saying that he was where he was supposed to be in order to have that light pole spear his car, but you know full well that he and the light poles were nowhere near the North side approach. Now, if he wasn't an accomplice, I see no reason why he wouldn't admit that he couldn't have been on the north side approach. After all, what does he have to hide? But he stubbornly refused to do so, despite all the evidence that he couldn't have been there. Why do you suppose that is?

This is not my opinion; this presenting style is simply the definition of spin: -

“In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure.”

The interpretation one should make seems fairly clear to me. Propaganda is generally defined as dessiminating false information; I don't see that happening in the CIT videos, or the P4T videos for that matter. What I don't understand is how you could see it any differently.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's (old) post 265, part 4

Again, I ask you; do you honestly believe that if this guy who produced that pixellated photo had really been taking pictures of the event that that's all he would have to show for it? I mean, what did he use, his cell phone? Secondly, pictures is a plural term. And finally, if you would simply consider the possibility that it was a staged event, there are only 2 possibilities; 1, Lloyd is lying, and for some reason his neighbour is backing him up in his lie (the less likely possibility in my view) or 2, he was telling the truth, and that guy was -part- of the staging of the event. And once again, who was the man who split the dollar with Lloyd? Was this the man? What did the splitting of that dollar mean?

Yes I believe the picture you are referring to was possibly the only one Mike had available.

Assuming that the picture that Mike gave Craig was actually a picture he took and not something he just grabbed off the internet, what do you think happened to the rest? Lloyd says he had some hanging around his house, but he never produced them. Here's an excerpt from CIT's documentary Lloyd England and his Taxi Cab: The Eye of the Storm, starting at around 36:48:

But before we got on the road to see the cab, we insisted on stopping by his neighbor Mike's house to see if we could get the images from 9/11.

Craig Ranke: You actually took some pictures of his cab on the highway that day.

Mike: I took some pictures of his cab, uh, I think after the light pole had fallen on it and broke the window where I was parked there. Did you have to leave it there? I don't remember the circumstances.

Lloyd: I picked it up the next day.

Mike: Yeah so.. And I gave you those pictures, right?

Lloyd: Yeah.

Craig Ranke: But he didn't.. do you have them or?

Mike: Uh, I probably still have them some place, yeah.

Craig Ranke: You don't have them?.. Oh.. We were hoping we could take a look at them.

Mike: Well, I don't want to get into that right now but, I can get you a disk if you want to send something to him or something like that, that's up to you. I'd have to look through, I can't remember, I can't remember what it is I provided.

Lloyd: Yeah.

Mike: And there's probably just half a dozen or something like that.

Craig Ranke: There's no way you could help, dig those out?

Mike: Well..

Craig Ranke: 'cause we're here... We're from California. We're actually going to go out to the country with Lloyd right now and take a look at the cab.

Mike: Why don't you do that and I'll go and uh, get a disk or look and see what I can come up with.

Lloyd brought up neighbor Mike and his images again while we were in the car on the way to see the cab.

Lloyd: Well I'm involved with it see, I mean that's it, I mean I was there... There's no, you know the only thing that can convince me. You know there's only, no one has come up... The only person who has come up with anything similar to me is the house that we just left.

Craig Ranke: Were those pictures?

Lloyd: Yeah.

Craig Ranke: Now were those pictures published anywhere?

Lloyd: Not that I know of.

Craig: Yeah. We gotta see those pictures. He was there on route 27 that day, is that it?

Lloyd: Yeah.

Craig: And he was driving?

Lloyd:

No, he was, I don't know why he was there.

[emphasis mine]

Craig: But he's your neighbor, anyway, did you know him before then?

Lloyd: No.

Craig: You didn't know him before?

Lloyd: No, no.

Craig: Ok. Mike's his name?

Craig: I mean y'all, this is just circumstantial. I mean you know, it just happened.

Craig: Yeah.

Lloyd: Yeah. I can't..

Craig: Now did he get pictures of the pole inside the cab before you took it out?

Lloyd: I don't know.

Craig: But you just said you saw the pictures!

Lloyd: I did. But man, we're talking about.. Well, we're talking about the importance of different things. I just looked at them, and I still have them somewhere in the house.

Craig; Mhm.

Lloyd: You know.

Cut to Craig after the interview:

We had an hour and a half to talk with him about his feelings and various things about the event. Lloyd seemed to agree with us in the sense that there is more to the 9/11 story and he seemed to question his involvement with the event. What he kept repeating was that this is bigger than he is. This is bigger, this is for the people with a lot of money, and that he doesn't have a lot of money. So in essence, this puts him on a different class or a different scale, which is clearly the case. But it doesn't absolve him of involvement, as we know that assets on many different levels would have been involved. He did express on multiple times how this is a big event, and how history is typically different than what is reported.

Yes I believe it would be possible that he used a cell phone to take the picture if you like.

Alright.

As requested, I shall now suspend all logic and consider that the light pole damage was staged and… it still does not follow that Lloyd England as a genuine accomplice would lead anyone to a member of the ‘light pole staging’ team.

His own words strongly suggest that he's an accomplice, atleast of the 'after the fact' type, albeit an unwilling one. As you may recall, Llloyd stated the following in his interview with Craig Ranke, 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.

I do not know who the man was that “split the dollar” with Lloyd England, therefore I’m sure you will speculate he is some masonic baddy who was also involved in the Pentagon attack.

Do you atleast admit that it would be interesting to know who he was?

You are reading too much into minor details.

Details in a story can at times help in determining its veracity. Surely you know that lies are much harder to maintain than the truth. The truth speaks for itself; lies the size of 9/11 have to be carefully maintained to even continue with a semblance of reality. The things that usually slip away, however, are the details. And sometimes, those details can be rather large. I personally believe that the official story concerning the WTC buildings contains the most blatant falsehoods, as, as David Ray Griffin has put it, not only the most sophisticated air defense system in the world would have had to have been defeated for the planes to hit their targets, but the laws of physics themselves would have to have been "defeated", considering the way the Twin Towers and WTC 7 fell down, if they came down due to jet fuel initiated fires alone, or in the case of WTC 7, just some debris from the Twin Towers. Nevertheless, many professional pilots over at P4T and the citizen investigators over at CIT have unearthed a wealth of information which makes it clear that the official story concerning the pentagon attack is false as well.

Look at the way Lloyd England was posing for a picture opportunity with the taxi cab sign when he went to revisit the vehicle. This obviously means he was proud of his involvement in the 9/11 plot and no doubt was indicating to the world “Look, I duped you all and flaunt it like this yet there’s not a damn thing anybody can do about it”.

People are complicated creatures. It may be that Lloyd wasn't someone anyone had heard of before 9/11. Afterwards, he got his 15 minutes of fame. Perhaps he wanted to relive those 15 minutes, if only briefly. There is also the possibility that he -wants- the truth to be revealed, and yet, at the same time, fears the consequences to himself and his wife if he reveals too much.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

You have absolutely no evidence that anything Craig Ranke said was 'spin'.

You misunderstand that the spin is self apparent. If the presentation contained nothing but Lloyd England’s interview in full, this would have been a purely factual report of his personal account. As soon as Ranke and Marquis edit in the cut scenes inferring that Lloyd England is a liar and accomplice to the Pentagon attack, then it becomes spin. A definition of spin is “a heavily biased portrayal of an event or situation”, which is very clearly true in the case of CIT’s work. At any rate it could never be claimed they give a balanced analysis.

Now, if he wasn't an accomplice, I see no reason why he wouldn't admit that he couldn't have been on the north side approach. After all, what does he have to hide? But he stubbornly refused to do so, despite all the evidence that he couldn't have been there. Why do you suppose that is?

You are going in circles, Scott. The whole of my post #232 responds to these questions regarding Lloyd England’s placement. You yourself stated in reply to that post: -

“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.”

You accepted that my explanation for the failure of Lloyd England’s memory is “sound” and then set off on another tangent. Now for god knows what reason you are raising the original questions again! Please do try to retain information and learn as we go along.

Assuming that the picture that Mike gave Craig was actually a picture he took and not something he just grabbed off the internet, what do you think happened to the rest?

Maybe the rest of the photos are in a shed at the bottom of Mike’s garden, maybe they are in a box under his bed, maybe his partner threw them away when she was tidying. I don’t know, I just wouldn’t wildly leap to the conclusion that Mike is ‘hiding’ them. This is pointless anyway – if the photos did not show the light pole in the taxi cab then they were taken at the same time as those already available, if the photos did show the light pole in the taxi cab you would claim they are faked.

Cut to Craig after the interview:

We had an hour and a half to talk with him about his feelings and various things about the event.

Lloyd seemed to agree with us in the sense that there is more to the 9/11 story

and he seemed to question his involvement with the event. What he kept repeating was that this is bigger than he is. This is bigger, this is for the people with a lot of money, and that he doesn't have a lot of money. So in essence, this puts him on a different class or a different scale, which is clearly the case.

But it doesn't absolve him of involvement,

as we know that assets on many different levels would have been involved. He did express on multiple times how this is a big event, and how history is typically different than what is reported.

The bolded text is a good example of the spin I mentioned. It is planting in the mind of the viewer that Lloyd knows more about 9/11 than meets the eye and that he is guilty of involvement. The problem is that this is not fact by any means but just the speculation of Ranke.

His own words strongly suggest that he's an accomplice, atleast of the 'after the fact' type, albeit an unwilling one.

No, Lloyd England’s own words do not suggest in the slightest he was an accomplice – whether it’s intentional or not, please stop making things up. It’s as though no matter how many times Lloyd tells you the light pole came through his windshield and no matter when Ranke basically accuses him of lying and he denies it, you will continue to choose to overlook this. Start listening to exactly what Lloyd says and not what your imagination is telling you he says.

Do you atleast admit that it would be interesting to know who he was?

My interest in anything to do with Lloyd England as a pointer to the nature of 9/11 is at rock bottom. I’d much rather know who the individual was that gave updates of the incoming aircraft to Dick Cheney in the PEOC. To know the “order” that Cheney had in place and got riled up about – a real issue - now that would be very interesting. But instead time is wasted on CIT’s small fry.

Details in a story can at times help in determining its veracity. Surely you know that lies are much harder to maintain than the truth. The truth speaks for itself; lies the size of 9/11 have to be carefully maintained to even continue with a semblance of reality. The things that usually slip away, however, are the details. And sometimes, those details can be rather large.

Details in eyewitness testimony are not likely to be perfect years after the event – a rational view must make allowance for this. There were incorrect details in Sgt. Lagasse’s testimony if we are to be strict about it – he didn’t remember where he was located, he placed the light poles wrongly, his account doesn’t match identically to that of Robert Turcios (also at the Citgo). I’ve known some double-standards before but the way you are treating the Pentagon eyewitnesses takes the biscuit.

[Q24]

First Jeff Hill, a Pilots for 9/11 Truth representative, talked to Jim Ritter, who signed off on the NTSB report obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Thank you - it was Jeff Hill who logged a call with the NTSB, not Rob Balsamo as I said above. I would still suggest a formal letter be sent to the NTSB and FBI clearly stating the discrepancy between the black box data and animation. If no response were received then there must be legal routes this could be taken through. This should be a top priority of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

I strongly disagree, and I believe that Little Fish, P4T and CIT's responses to you have delineated how your view on this is mistaken, but I'll get into all this later.

Until you actually respond to the eyewitnesses provided here then you are not justified in disagreeing.

Nevertheless, many professional pilots over at P4T and the citizen investigators over at CIT have unearthed a wealth of information which makes it clear that the official story concerning the pentagon attack is false as well.

The WTC demolitions are theorised off the back of the laws of physics, piles of visual support, physical evidence, witness testimony and much notable circumstance, compounded by a total failure of the official investigation to prove their case. To even suggest the lack of information at the Pentagon and a meagre handful of eyewitnesses are on the same level as the WTC evidence is an insult. But what the bad theories will do, is drag the good theories down kicking and screaming with them.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's (old) post 265, part 5

Ok Q, Dmole has now compiled a list to rebutt your own that you brought up in post 239, which he brought up in 2 separate posts:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775245

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775246

You (or others) may not want to go over there. Furthermore, it's a lot of information and people may be put off by that. For this reason, I've decided to respond to your claims of the first 2 witnesses on your list for now.

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.

Dmole's response to this:

ORIGINAL SOURCE?? This shows "impact" how??

Madelyn Zackem (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT) Saw a "silver plane"

I don’t want a link to a pile of other links. Please could you quote for each eyewitness to the official approach and impact that I supplied in my post #239 and then provide in your own words an explanation below every individual as to why you perceive them to be unreliable. By all means start with dMole’s links but you will only accept the truth by examining and discussing the eyewitness evidence yourself.

I will sift through the links, but I think that the least you can do is respond to some points; above is a quote from Dmole. Can you atleast answer his question?

I myself will be reading the various posts they made to get a better understanding of why you are wrong concerning Paik.

It seems you have made up your mind that I am wrong before even reading those various posts – if this is the case then why bother.

Why bother what? I doubt you read through all the posts and many of them were directed at -you-, not me. You certainly didn't respond to them all, much less respond to all the points in them. I question whether you even read them all. You walked into P4T with your mind made up based on many unfounded assumptions, despite the fact that its founders are pilots who have studied the issues for years. Your penchant for making unfounded assumptions is alright with me, because I started out at around your level of knowledge. But they're way over your head and it seems clear they don't have the amount of patience I have in helping you to see where you're mistaken; essentially, I believe that they go for something like a '3 strikes and you're out' philosophy, whereas I tend to let the strikes pile up and keep on looking for that angle wherein I can persuade my opponents in any given subject. The only thing I generally like getting is a civil opponent, and here, atleast, you do fairly well. You're one of the most civil opponents I've ever come across, laugh :-p.

If you are going to go over this information then do it objectively.

What evidence do you have that I'm not?

I discussed Edward Paik’s account both at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum and with Craig Ranke on the CIT forum who stated, “However for the sake of discussion I will concede that Paik's account alone does not PROVE the plane was north of the citgo.” There you have it from the ‘eyewitness expert’.

The fact that Craig Ranke admits taht Edward Paik's account doesn't prove the plane was north of citgo is a far cry from you suggesting that he was saying that it was a south approach. This is the assertion that I was challenging.

Edward Paik’s account does not prove a North of Citgo flight path and I have demonstrated how his account is inextricably closer to that of the official approach.

From everything I've heard, Edward Paik's account fits in far more with the north side approach than the south side approach. I think that I'll probably have to go sifting through the posts initially meant for you, however, in order to show the evidence for this.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Alright, here's the rundown on Edward Paik as well as a few others. Starting from Dmole's post 4 in the thread you participated in over at P4T:

I noticed that "Q24" is also wrong about Edward Paik's account in

post #70

there. He most certainly does NOT place the aircraft that he witnessed "South of the Navy Annex (therefore South of the Citgo station." Ask "Q24" to provide a time and link where Paik ever said that.

Edward Paik places the aircraft over the Navy Annex and even mentions "it almost hit the roof" in the one interview. The particularly nasty "Reheat" and other prominent "debunkers" have attempted to spin this one for years (read manipulative lying), and it looks like "Q24" is either doing the same or was taken in by them. Take a look at Craig's replies here:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/59592/1/

Craig probably has the links to the Ed Paik interview(s) quicker than I can search for them (I've heard it several times though on various videos), but here is Craig's YT channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/lytetrip

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic1.htm

You responded to his post in post 13, stating the following:

Never heard of Reheat and if I had I’d take as much notice of him as I do of NIST or anyone else. I’m independent and draw my own conclusions based on the evidence. The evidence of Edward Paik’s account is that the alleged Flight 77 flew to the South of the Citgo station. Please see here for what I see as the obvious interpretation. This is the clear impression I have upon viewing Paik’s interview – no agendas involved. Please demonstrate how the account can possibly support the North flight path witnessed by Turcios, Lagasse and Brookes.

The response to your post was overwhelming; you got 7 responses. Of those 7 posts, I will presently only one which you responded to for now, Dmole's Post 15:

Never heard of Reheat and if I had I’d take as much notice of him as I do of NIST or anyone else. I’m independent and draw my own conclusions based on the evidence. The evidence of Edward Paik’s account is that the alleged Flight 77 flew to the South of the Citgo station. Please see

here

for what I see as the obvious interpretation. This is the clear impression I have upon viewing

Paik’s interview

– no agendas involved. Please demonstrate how the account can possibly support the North flight path witnessed by Turcios, Lagasse and Brookes.

Hello and welcome to the forum, Q24.

Just to clarify, in your

post #70

at the UM forum you stated:

How do you fit in Edward Paik’s account? You say his account is credible but then he described the aircraft as coming from the South of the Navy Annex (therefore South of the Citgo station) as the official story describes. In my opinion he was obviously viewing the alleged Flight 77 and not the C-130 as the other three witnesses.

Thanks for linking the Ed Paik interview- that was one (of about 4 interview videos) that I was thinking of. The Edward Paik interview is around 03:40-05:00 in that YT video.

I'm not sure why you use such a blurry, crappy crop of the original Paik photos/drawings in your

post [88]

at UM (and you may want to take a look at the non-blurry Paik drawing, esp. the "midpoint" of the east Annex wall in your drawing).

Especially since the 3 original Paik drawings are at the LCF thread that I already referred everyone to above:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/59592/1/

Craig addressed Q24's (and others') interpretation/version of the Edward Paik information at his

post #2

on that thread, waaay back on Jan 26 2008. [Craig's language is a bit harsh, but it shows -3- lines that Edward Paik drew on 3 different perspectives of the plane's approach; very good]

One more point- where is it written that airplanes

must

travel in laser-straight lines? I seem to recall them having ailerons and rudders for a reason.

Since Paik never mentioned the Citgo station in any of the interviews (and from my research he could not have even seen the Citgo from his shop's location), I find myself wondering why everyone keeps

making assumptions

about what Ed Paik "meant" in the interview.

I would suggest one of the Citgo witnesses for the Citgo portion of the flight in question. Another interesting thing from the Paik interview is the "black wings" which I would not expect to see on American Airlines livery. Hmmm...

As "Little Fish" pointed out on that UM thread, there were also some Arlington Nat'l Cemetery witnesses to an aircraft. I just find it curious how so many are so quick to disparage the work of CIT when many of them have only viewed a very small portion (or none) of the work that CIT has done.

As paranoia pointed out above, try this pinned thread here:

Witness List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

So Father Stephen McGraw and this unsourced "Afework Hagos" are your only other "lightpole" witnesses then?

# “It hit some lampposts on the way in.”

Afework Hagos

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

Father Stephen McGraw

1. I don't think that Lloyde England was injured by a light pole from the photos, and he never mentioned an injury that I recall in CIT's "Eye of the Storm." (although that is a very interesting video in its own right).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4770996865659781278

[Note: he doesn't. As a matter of fact, he clearly states that he was -not- injured]

2. Which one of the cars is Father McGraw's in the famous photo of Lloyde's taxi then? The white Saturn being moved around the Pentagon area (in various photos) with VA Fire Department plates?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums...56&t=805019

3. You might want to watch CIT's "From the Law to the Lord" if you are going to claim McGraw's accounts as accurate. He apparently has some interesting connections, and there are several inconsistencies in the McGraw accounts.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5085491450059007792

This discussion has veered off-topic from the 2 Plane fish story, but we have threads here about Lloyde England and the taxi. I suggest the search function here and the other thread that paranoia recommended.

Does anyone know where one could find this "Afework Hagos" then?

EDIT: So is the Guardian the original (and only) source of the Hagos account?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/1...eronmensfashion

Your response to this mountain of evidence against your argument? The following statement made in post 23:

Thank you

I’m just sorry I don’t have time to respond to all the points here as well as over on UM.

It's one thing to state that you don't want to check out links that have a bunch more links. It's quite another to respond to the aforementioned mountain of evidence that Dmole gathered, essentially saying that you don't have the time to respond, but would rather continue to expound on your theories that lack so little evidence to back them up, instead of taking the time to read and respond to his points. So yes, I can see how you frustrated them enough to give you a temporary ban.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

Dmole's response to this:

ORIGINAL SOURCE?? This shows "impact" how??

Madelyn Zackem (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT) Saw a "silver plane"

I will sift through the links, but I think that the least you can do is respond to some points; above is a quote from Dmole. Can you atleast answer his question?

Madelyn Zackhem: “It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level”. This quote is sourced from what appears to be a VDOT in-house publication - The Friday Report, September 21, 2001.

After this, Madelyn Zackhem was interviewed by CIT in 2006. The below image showing the location of Zackem and the described flight path was supplied by Marquis in regard to the interview: -

This road is Columbia Pike, South of the Navy Annex and the flight path matches reasonably well with the official approach. Funny that you won’t find this account in CIT’s ‘National Security Alert’ presentation. So you see this is an eyewitness that CIT are well aware supports the official story yet deliberately ignore (the old ‘trees in the way so she must be lying' excuse yet again ).

Why bother what? I doubt you read through all the posts and many of them were directed at -you-, not me. You certainly didn't respond to them all, much less respond to all the points in them. I question whether you even read them all. You walked into P4T with your mind made up based on many unfounded assumptions, despite the fact that its founders are pilots who have studied the issues for years.

You are not giving credit to the amount of evidence I have already viewed.

Your penchant for making unfounded assumptions is alright with me, because I started out at around your level of knowledge. But they're way over your head and it seems clear they don't have the amount of patience I have in helping you to see where you're mistaken; essentially, I believe that they go for something like a '3 strikes and you're out' philosophy, whereas I tend to let the strikes pile up and keep on looking for that angle wherein I can persuade my opponents in any given subject. The only thing I generally like getting is a civil opponent, and here, atleast, you do fairly well. You're one of the most civil opponents I've ever come across, laugh :-p.

The above is mostly grandstanding so I won’t respond.

What evidence do you have that I'm not?

Evidence that you are not objective? Scott G: “I myself will be reading the various posts they made to get a better understanding of why you are wrong concerning Paik.” I’d say that declaring someone is wrong whilst admitting to not even understanding why is not a very objective stance.

From everything I've heard, Edward Paik's account fits in far more with the north side approach than the south side approach. I think that I'll probably have to go sifting through the posts initially meant for you, however, in order to show the evidence for this.

My advice would be to stop listening to other people and do some research and testing of the eyewitness accounts for yourself. Edward Paik and Terry Morin pretty much said the aircraft flew over them. The image below shows where these two eyewitnesses were located: -

The yellow line is what CIT try to claim that Paik describes, though his account does not actually show this at all. After some pressuring, Ranke even admitted as much. Further, this would obviously contradict Morin’s account as he said the aircraft was level with the edge of the Navy Annex as he looked out, whilst the yellow line would place it behind him!

As you can see, when the blue line is drawn between Paik and Morin, thus conforming with both accounts, it extends right up to the Pentagon impact point. This is further shown in the following image: -

The blue line extended from the accounts of Paik and Morin is exactly the same as the previous image. The red line is the official flight path. The green line is CIT’s North of Citgo approach.

Now you decide which flight path Paik and Morin best represent.

Note to add: I believe neither Paik nor Morin got the flight path perfectly accurate due to perspective error. This is to be expected of eyewitness accounts and we are left to decide which approach they most closely corroborate.

[merril]

I watched a few minutes of another video "Flight 77" The White Plane", by the CIT group.

I had to mute the sound every time they played that stupid trance music...

Now, why do they fill the vacuum between silly points with that kind of noise?

I guess to make it a continuum of sillyness...

The video was about some interviews with people who saw AA 77 fly over, just before the awful impact.

Now, I wonder why people tend to describe a B 757 flying just overhead as "white". Could it be because of the leading question, such as "What color was it?". There is paint on some areas, a silvery tint of white or grey. And, it is light in color. And, there is the brilliant white stripe.

There is also the possibility that the belly of the plane was reflecting what was on the ground- lots of light colored rooftops.

It all adds up to a blur, and AA 77.

Why did the interviewer not follow up with a question like, "How could you identify or read numbers on the tail at that speed?"

Or, "How do you reconcile what you saw with the plane that crashed into the Pentagon?"

Regardless, the idea of multiple planes and some fantasy scenario cooked by people hell-bent on exploiting the weakest of evidence- scared, imperfect recollections from less-than-photographic memories of unprepared bystanders, is easily seen for what it is. It's an approach that is not totally credible.

Problems involving human perception are as old as humankind.

These video makers are obsessive conspiracy mongers, who fail to convince anyone, by presenting even one mote of hard evidence. There are lots of loose ends, from what exact time somebody says about about this or that, to what colors were on the plane.

None of this rises to any academic or intellectual level of worth.