Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ExpandMyMind

General of all American Intelligence:

433 posts in this topic

Response to Q24's post #374

I don’t know what to do with you, Scott.

How about responding to the many points I've made :-p?

Let’s cut down to one point at a time.

Alright.

Madelyn Zakhem.

In one breath CIT are discrediting her by claiming trees are blocking her view, she is being uncooperative and that she could be Mossad… then in the next they try to claim that she indicated the plane flew in a direction toward the North of Citgo in support of their argument.

I don’t see [how] you can argue this both ways – either she is a North of Citgo witness and therefore you must say she is correct (because that’s where the plane flew according to you), otherwise she is a South of Citgo witness and lying (again, according to you).

Alright, the facts as I understand them here are as Aldo explained. Most importantly, in my view, as delineated by Aldo in his post #23 of the "No Witnesses" thread:

there are some serious problems with Madlene's account...

1. We have corroborated eyewitnesses statements that place the plane flying over Ed Paik's shop, over the Navy Annex, and north of the Citgo. The plane would essentially have been across the street from her and nowhere near over her.

So it would seem that she would have to be lying simply because from her point of view she shouldn't have been able to see the plane at all.

However, I know that you don't trust those North of Citgo witnesses, so we'll overlook this for now. Continuing to Aldo's second point in his post #23:

AllGroupsMap.jpg

2. As you can see from the blue Official SoC flight path line in the graphic above, the plane didn't even fly over the Smart Traffic Center OR Madlene according to the official data from the FDR and the official story. So her story doesn't even match with the gov't's and the physical damage path.

The reality is that the offical flight path has the entire plane significantly south of the VDOT building and would therefore not be directly over her even if the official flight path was accurate.

So there you have it. According to where the North of the Citgo gas station witnesses place the plane, she wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all. According to the official story damage, the plane shouldn't have flown over her as well. So what do you choose? I doubt you'll go for the north of citgo flight path at this point, and I also doubt that you're willing to admit that the official story damage was staged, so I think it's clear that you'll be tossing Madelyn as a credible witness.

But there's more.

Flipping back to Aldo's post#22, we discover the following:

currentviewfromvdot.jpg

As we stood there, I knew the north of the Citgo flight path as cited by Lagasse was still a possibility so I asked her when it came up Columbia Pike was it 1). closer to the Sheraton, 2) closer to the white house next to the brick building, or 3)closer to (coming from) 395 in an attempt to determine the direction:

madlenedirectione.png

When I did that she indicated a path more in line with the plane coming from the direction of 395 and heading toward north of the Citgo:

madlenedirection2.png

233a.jpg

Now here's the punchline that solves the question you asked:

So it seems that when pressed, Madlene knew the plane headed in that general direction and subtly abandoned her already vague and ambiguous SoC claim.

This became a point of contention when Russell Pickering started his very subversive attempt at establishing a SoC path. He boiled it down to memory and he said/she said. Yet, I remember standing there and pointing off in these 3 different directions to determine which direction Madlene claims the plane flew in. She agreed with the one that seemed to take it NoC. In retrospect, it seems as if she tried to blend her story with what actually happened...the plane flying over the Annex and toward NoC.

So the question, and this is all you need to answer in this post, in your opinion is she either: -

  1. A North of Citgo witness and telling the truth
  2. A South of Citgo witness and lying

To clarify, at the moment it appears you are claiming she is a North of Citgo witness and lying… which does not make sense to your theory.

She is a witness that different people have interpreted in different ways. Russell Pickering seems to have interpreted what she said as supporting a south of the citgo gas station approach. However, I have certainly never seen Russell Pickering do as detailed an analysis as CIT. CIT, ofcourse, claims that her relatively ambiguous direction would appear to favour a north side approach. What CIT thinks she is lying about is that the plane flew overhead; -here-, however, I am wondering if, perhaps, she may have simply been a bit off; after all, as Aldo points out in his post #23:

3. She claims she saw the cockpit and a wing. But in reality she very clearly admitted that:

" I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared."

This would be an indicator that she wouldn't have and couldn't have seen what she claims she saw in the official story's split second flyover of the VDOT/STC @ 535 MPH.

Personally, I wonder if this might be the truth of the matter; that people have 'helped' her remember various things, but in truth, she saw very little at all. I admittedly have always been rather uncomfortable with the notion that she was a Mossad agent; the only highly suspected Mossad agents I know of worked for a moving company, the name of which I forget; some of them "documented" the collapse of the twin towers, seeming to be quite happy with the results. They were briefly held, but then deported back to Israel.

I heard of some others, again working for this moving company (whose owner fled back to Israel as well), who were apparently going to blow up a bridge.. perhaps the Brooklyn Bridge. They were detained and the explosives in their van found before they could do it, but I don't remember much of a story coming out of this; in fact, I think I just heard of it recently in a forum (probably the loose change forum).

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were just talking about the Israeli’s detained in New York on 9/11 over here.

She is a witness that different people have interpreted in different ways. Russell Pickering seems to have interpreted what she said as supporting a south of the citgo gas station approach. However, I have certainly never seen Russell Pickering do as detailed an analysis as CIT. CIT, ofcourse, claims that her relatively ambiguous direction would appear to favour a north side approach.

Ok, they are the views of Pickering and Marquis. I would like to establish between us what Zakhem’s account of the flight path actually is. Here are the vital descriptions she gives: -

  • Over the VDOT STC building.
  • “No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.”

The only way to depict that flight path as I see it (green dot Zakhem’s location): -

zakhem.jpg

Can we agree between us that this is what Zakhem describes?

A South of Citgo flight path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Q24's post #348, Part 6 (really the last part this time ;-))

The North of Citgo witnesses all show variation in the exact flight path they describe. Brooks and Lagasse contradict every witness who describes the aircraft coming over the Navy Annex. Turcios and Lagasse, two witnesses located at the Citgo, contradict one another as well - Turcios draws the flight path passing over the corner of the Citgo station but if this were true then Lagasse wouldn’t have even seen it as the Citgo canopy would be in the way. One of them is obviously lying! Further, Lagasse cannot even place the downed light poles correctly which can only be consistent with a glitch in his memory or else fabrication in his account. In fact both Lagasse and Brooks are government employees - the same government from which 9/11 was perpetrated - highly suspicious! And the men Lagasse is seen talking to in the van on security footage shortly before the alleged Flight 77 arrived, one must wonder what their role was in the operation. The North of Citgo eyewitnesses are clearly unreliable. If you think that I’m being silly then please consider that this is a reverse of precisely how you treat the greater number of eyewitnesses to the official South of Citgo flight path.

Avenger over at Loose Change was kind enough to respond to these, as I had been at a loss. Here's his response:

Some people choose to focus on the differences as if it's reasonable to expect them all to draw the same flight path.
Brooks and Lagasse contradict every witness who describes the aircraft coming over the Navy Annex.

Nope.

Turcios and Lagasse, two witnesses located at the Citgo, contradict one another as well - Turcios draws the flight path passing over the corner of the Citgo station but if this were true then Lagasse wouldn’t have even seen it as the Citgo canopy would be in the way. One of them is obviously lying!

Or maybe one of them is just mistaken. Sometimes witnesses will be mistaken. Lagasse himself said it's possible he could be mistaken about certain details, but not about whether the plane flew north or south of the CITGO.

Further, Lagasse cannot even place the downed light poles correctly which can only be consistent with a glitch in his memory or else fabrication in his account.

Why would he place them lined up south of the CITGO if he saw the plane north of the CITGO? He didn't see any light poles get hit. He was mistaken, but not about whether the plane flew north or south of the CITGO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Q24's post #377

We were just talking about the Israeli’s detained in New York on 9/11 over here.

Yeah, that's what I'd been reading, laugh :-).

She is a witness that different people have interpreted in different ways. Russell Pickering seems to have interpreted what she said as supporting a south of the citgo gas station approach. However, I have certainly never seen Russell Pickering do as detailed an analysis as CIT. CIT, ofcourse, claims that her relatively ambiguous direction would appear to favour a north side approach.

Ok, they are the views of Pickering and Marquis. I would like to establish between us what Zakhem’s account of the flight path actually is.

I admit that Madelyn's account gives me a headache. I -don't- think she saw the Citgo gas station, but I think she -may- have been able to see the direction in which the plane went. CIT clearly believes that while her somewhat ambiguous direction of the plane favoured the north side. At the same time, they certainly have stated that she has said statements that would favour a south side approach.

Here are the vital descriptions she gives: -

  • Over the VDOT STC building.
  • “No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.”

The only way to depict that flight path as I see it (green dot Zakhem’s location): -

zakhem.jpg

Can we agree between us that this is what Zakhem describes?

A South of Citgo flight path.

No, we don't agree. Clearly, CIT believes that her testimony is contradictory; I'll go with that. The only thing that I'm still not sure about is what she was able to see; could she have seen whether or not it did, in fact, not go over the Navy Annex and instead went straight to the pentagon? It's details like this that I'm not sure of. Nevertheless, she was much further away from the pentagon than those at the Citgo gas station, or a few more that were even closer, and all of -those- witnesses clearly favour the north side approach.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, they are the views of Pickering and Marquis. I would like to establish between us what Zakhem’s account of the flight path actually is. Here are the vital descriptions she gives: -

  • Over the VDOT STC building.
  • “No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.”

The only way to depict that flight path as I see it (green dot Zakhem’s location): -

zakhem.jpg

Can we agree between us that this is what Zakhem describes?

A South of Citgo flight path.

No, we don't agree.

In that case you are not mentally fit to be having this discussion and there is no value in continuing. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but it is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case you are not mentally fit to be having this discussion and there is no value in continuing. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but it is true.

You're free to believe whatever you wish Q. Anyway, I brought up our discussion concerning Madelyn over at the loose change forum, particularly regarding Pickering's claims of what Madelyn saw, and I got the following post from avenger:

I see on page 25 of your thread that Russell Pickering claimed he received an e-mail from her stating the plane never flew over the Annex and flew straight to the Pentagon. I don't know. Russell Pickering also claimed that he received an e-mail from Lloyd, claiming that his car was actually hit by some little metal stick, instead of a light pole.

Regardless, I don't see how she could have known whether it flew straight or not. For one, she said she fell to the ground, crying. Number two, there were trees blocking her view.

To which I responded:

That bit about Pickering and Lloyd claiming that he'd been hit by a little metal stick is a laugh ;-). It definitely makes one suspicious of Pickering's claims anyway :-p.

I agree about the crying bit, but perhaps she did that after she'd seen the plane? It was only in her field of view for a second or so anyway, right? As to the trees, I've definitely gone over that one with Q24; but in the brief time that she saw the plane, I suppose she could vaguely determine direction, which is all she's ever seemed to have done, Pickering's suspicious claims notwithstanding.

As I mentioned to Q24, Madelyn doesn't seem to have seen much and her point of view was clearly much further and much more obstructed than that of people at the citgo gas station itself, or beyond it. If all we have is Pickering's word, I think we may actually have better evidence that she was more of a north side witness than a south side, always taking into account that even Pickering didn't claim that she actually saw the citgo gas station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q,

First of all let me state that I do not believe a plane hit the pentagon. I more or less believe that a plane did a flyover on an North of Citgo approach. Where I differ with CIT in a big way is on their take of Lloyde England. What they did was an interesting sleight of hand because Lloyde agrees with the conclusions of National Security Alert: no plane hit the pentagon, the plane was on a North of Citgo approach, and that the evidence of the southside approach must be staged. It is impossible to believe, as CIT suggests, that Lloyd is in on it and intentionally lying because Lloyd states that he was North of the Citgo (NoC) and nowhere near the bridge. The only conclusion one can draw if you take Lloyd's testimony at face value is that the pictures of his cab which place him on the bridge SoC must be the product of photo manipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only conclusion one can draw if you take Lloyd's testimony at face value is that the pictures of his cab which place him on the bridge SoC must be the product of photo manipulation.

Agreed :) However…

Is it wise (or even possible in this case) to accept all witness testimony at face value?

It doesn’t appear so given the many conflicting witness accounts that exist.

So why should we take Lloyd’s testimony at face value rather than that of other witnesses?

To my mind the majority witness consensus rules - that is, a plane approached South of Citgo and impacted the Pentagon.

In reality, what makes “photo manipulation” more likely than a failure of Lloyd’s memory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed :)

Wow, thank God someone finally gets this simple point.

However…

Is it wise (or even possible in this case) to accept all witness testimony at face value?

Definitely not.

It doesn’t appear so given the many conflicting witness accounts that exist.

The main thing I am concerned about is that CIT's charge that Lloyd is the "first accomplice" is not internally consistent. CIT claims that they have "proven" that all credible witnesses are North of Citgo (NoC) witnesses. Then they find Lloyd and accusing him of being part of the staged SoC evidence. Yet he continually insists that he was NoC and insists that the photos of him can't be real.

So why should we take Lloyd’s testimony at face value rather than that of other witnesses?

We shouldn't take any witnesses at face value per se. You have referenced Elizabeth Loftus several times so we both agree that witness testimony is not always reliable.

To my mind the majority witness consensus rules - that is, a plane approached South of Citgo and impacted the Pentagon.

Can you give me the name of the SoC witness (or a few) you consider most reliable? Perhaps a link.

In reality, what makes “photo manipulation” more likely than a failure of Lloyd’s memory?

I personally find Lloyd to be a very convincing witness (I know that's not hard evidence). What I am primarily concerned with is the internal inconsistency in CIT's accusation. They say Lloyd must be lying to sell the SoC staged evidence. Yet Lloyd claims he was NoC and that the photos of him can't be right. The only thing to me that makes sense is that Lloyd is telling the truth and the photos are fake. From your perspective Lloyd is misremembering and really was SoC. We both agree CIT must be wrong.

Here are a few things that support my belief in photo manipulation:

1) The NoC witnesses seem credible to me (I could be ignorant about credible SoC witnesses though).

2) I don't believe that the pentagon was hit by a plane. In this scenario it would make sense that they would have evidence control personnel on the ground including photographers.

3) I will post a photo from Steve Riskus which I consider evidence of photomanipulation (second photo down here, but we need a bigger one for me to expain http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror.html).

4) From the photos of Lloyd we know that he had to be blocking the road for at least a half hour (we know this are picturs of him after the pentagon collapsed at 10:10) To me it doens't make sense that they would have left the road blocked for a half hour when for an easily moved cab - they needed that road for Emergency vehicles. It makes much more sense that the photos are manipulated. (Alternately, it is possible they moved Lloyd's cab from NoC to SoC if the SoC evidence was all preplanned and then they only photo shopped Lloyd into the pictures and not the whole scene).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Steve Riskus photo.

p1010013cm.jpg

You might need to click on the image (and then click the magnifier) to get to a larger version to see what I'm saying. But take a look at the people in the background of that photo. Does their behavior seem right to you? They just witnessed a terrorist attack after WTC 1 and 2 got hit and they are just kind of milling about seemingly unconcerned. Only 1 or 2 of them are even looking at the pentagon. Does that make sense? Also, does the man in the foregrounds pose look natural...who walks with their arm out stretched like that while the other one is at your side?

Edited by enzian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, cars have stopped, people are opening the doors, standing, staring. it's not surprising that a single caption would catch some who weren't looking at the pentagon in that exact moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

well, cars have stopped, people are opening the doors, standing, staring. it's not surprising that a single caption would catch some who weren't looking at the pentagon in that exact moment.

No, did you look at the enlarged photo? They aren't opening their doors. They are already out of their cars. And it's not that some aren't looking...it's that almost all are not looking. They are just casually and aimlessly milling about. Why are they out of their cars in the first place? Are we to believe they shut the road down? In which case wouldn't they be instructed to stay in their cars or evacuate in an orderly fashion? If they didn't shut down the road wouldn't they be in their cars hoping for traffic to move? Also keep in mind that there was talk of a second plane headed towards the pentagon...these people sure are calm considering the circumstances. Just compare their behavior to the behavior of people in NY city and you can see plain as day their is something way off here. The picture is absurd.

Edited by enzian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, did you look at the enlarged photo? They aren't opening their doors. They are already out of their cars. And it's not that some aren't looking...it's that almost all are not looking. They are just casually and aimlessly milling about. Why are they out of their cars in the first place? Are we to believe they shut the road down? In which case wouldn't they be instructed to stay in their cars or evacuate in an orderly fashion? If they didn't shut down the road wouldn't they be in their cars hoping for traffic to move? Also keep in mind that there was talk of a second plane headed towards the pentagon...these people sure are calm considering the circumstances. Just compare their behavior to the behavior of people in NY city and you can see plain as day their is something way off here. The picture is absurd.

My suggestion would be that they are all in shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestion would be that they are all in shock.

Ok, funny how much shock looks like a mall parking lot. Funny how different their behavior is from the people in NYC on 911. In NYC First plane hit and everyone had their eyes on the tower before they knew it was a terror attack. Then second plane hit second tower and now people knew it was a terror attack and still had their eyes on the tower. The behavior of the people in NYC looked like people that had just witnessed a terror attack...visibly shaken. The behavior in the Riskus photo, on the other hand, doesn't look like that at all. (I'm talking pre-collapse so don't bring it up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, did you look at the enlarged photo? They aren't opening their doors. They are already out of their cars. And it's not that some aren't looking...it's that almost all are not looking. They are just casually and aimlessly milling about. Why are they out of their cars in the first place? Are we to believe they shut the road down? In which case wouldn't they be instructed to stay in their cars or evacuate in an orderly fashion? If they didn't shut down the road wouldn't they be in their cars hoping for traffic to move? Also keep in mind that there was talk of a second plane headed towards the pentagon...these people sure are calm considering the circumstances. Just compare their behavior to the behavior of people in NY city and you can see plain as day their is something way off here. The picture is absurd.

well at least one car door is open. but i'm not sure if you actually have a point here. are you suggesting the photo is a forgery?

what's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

well at least one car door is open. but i'm not sure if you actually have a point here. are you suggesting the photo is a forgery?

what's your point?

I actually came into this forum and thread specifically to discuss something with Q24. The photo is just supporting evidence in a larger discussion. If you would like to join the discussion then feel free to get up to speed by reading some of the relevant posts and watching the relevant movie ("The First Known Accomplice?", 90 minutes, available at google video). Otherwise, your opinion that you don't think there is anything weird about the Riskus photo has been duly noted.

Edited by enzian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I actually came into this forum and thread specifically to discuss something with Q24. The photo is just supporting evidence in a larger discussion. If you would like to join the discussion then feel free to get up to speed by reading some of the relevant posts and watching the relevant movie ("The First Known Accomplice?", 90 minutes, available at google video). Otherwise, your opinion that you don't think there is anything weird about the Riskus photo has been duly noted.

actually if you'll care to note it was i who started the thread.

the reason i addressed you in a quizzical nature was merely because i thought the evidence that you presented looked so insignificant, that i wasn't actually sure that you could earnestly be claiming the photo was a forgery.

for instance you say, 'almost all are not looking', when quite clearly at least six of them are facing the building, with one on the phone and some of others in the middle of the road (one in a car that i noticed also). it's as though you expect everyone to react in a certain way, already prefixed in your mind. you expect them to all be standing facing the fire with their mouths open or running around in a frenzy. quite unreasonable assumptions.

why would they not be out of their cars immediately? again you continue with your assumption on how you think people would react under those circumstances. is it not possible that if you see a plane or missile or whatever hitting the head of your military, that maybe you would stop (or even crash) your car, get out and have a look? all of these assumptions you make, like a road block and how you assume to know how the police would react to traffic in such a moment, if there were even police present in numbers at that moment in time.

you then bring in the people of new york city - a completely different situation altogether. panic can spread through a city like wildfire, especially when two of the biggest buildings in the world are brought down. how can you compare the two?

you've just made a mountain, only you're lacking the molehill.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

...

Edited by enzian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually if you'll care to note it was i who started the thread.

No, I don't really care.

the reason i addressed you in a quizzical nature was merely because i thought the evidence that you presented looked so insignificant,

You already told me what you think. No need to repeat yourself.

that i wasn't actually sure that you could earnestly be claiming the photo was a forgery.

I am.

for instance you say, 'almost all are not looking', when quite clearly at least six of them are facing the building,

This is not quite clear to me at all. I count 13 people in the phot. If the black man in the foreground is #1 and the guy at the far right is #13 then I get 1, 7, and 9 are looking at the building. I see no evidence of terror at all. I know, I know this is when you tell me it is unreasonable to expect to see evidence of terror at a terror attack.

with one on the phone and some of others in the middle of the road (one in a car that i noticed also). it's as though you expect everyone to react in a certain way, already prefixed in your mind.

You got me there. You could easily transpose this picture to a mall parking lot or a baseball game. If you think there is no difference between a mall parking lot and a terrorist attack that is your business.

you expect them to all be standing facing the fire with their mouths open or running around in a frenzy.

That's a silly caricature of my opnion.

quite unreasonable assumptions.

I think you are the one making the unreasonable assumption - that a terror attack wouldn't necessarily look different from a mall parking lot. Absurd.

why would they not be out of their cars immediately?

They would need that road cleared for emergency vehicles. Common sense.

again you continue with your assumption on how you think people would react under those circumstances.

Common sense.

is it not possible that if you see a plane or missile or whatever hitting the head of your military, that maybe you would stop (or even crash) your car, get out and have a look?

Now here comes the anything is possible talk.

all of these assumptions you make, like a road block and how you assume to know how the police would react to traffic in such a moment,

Yes, I do know that at a bare minimum the police would want the roads cleared for emergency vehicles. There was just a terrorist attack and a possible second one coming. They are not going to want people abandoning their cars and then jsut apparently millingabout on the road. It's absurd.

if there were even police present in numbers at that moment in time.

There are always police present at the Pentagon. They have their own police force.

you then bring in the people of new york city - a completely different situation altogether. panic can spread through a city like wildfire, especially when two of the biggest buildings in the world are brought down. how can you compare the two?

Gee how can I compare a terrorist attack on 9/11 to a terrorist attack on 9/11? You got me there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

enzian, I would like to filter out your answers to the questions I asked before getting into everything else: -

Q1. “Is it wise (or even possible in this case) to accept all witness testimony at face value?”

Definitely not.

So whilst we agree that “photo manipulation” could fit “if you take Lloyd’s testimony at face value”, we also agree that witness testimony should “definitely not [be taken at face value]. The second agreement highlights the irrelevance of the first.

Q2. “So why should we take Lloyd’s testimony at face value rather than that of other witnesses?”

We shouldn't take any witnesses at face value per se. You have referenced Elizabeth Loftus several times so we both agree that witness testimony is not always reliable.

This is further agreement with the above. I will rephrase the question: -

Why do you take Lloyd’s testimony at face value rather than that of other witnesses?

Or: -

Why accept the smaller witness sample that opposes the Pentagon impact over and above the larger witness sample that supports the event?

Q3. “In reality, what makes “photo manipulation” more likely than a failure of Lloyd’s memory?”

I personally find Lloyd to be a very convincing witness (I know that's not hard evidence).

I agree again – it appears you are going by a personal preference rather than evidence.

To summarise your responses, you have shown that witness testimony is always going to be weak at best as evidence of photo manipulation and that your assertion is ultimately based on a gut feeling of sorts. Following from that, I accept your personal point of view but I hope you can see why those of a fact-based persuasion do not adhere to it.

____________________________________________________________________________________

The main thing I am concerned about is that CIT's charge that Lloyd is the "first accomplice" is not internally consistent. CIT claims that they have "proven" that all credible witnesses are North of Citgo (NoC) witnesses. Then they find Lloyd and accusing him of being part of the staged SoC evidence. Yet he continually insists that he was NoC and insists that the photos of him can't be real.

Again I completely agree – in fact, CIT’s treatment of the witness evidence as a whole is inconsistent. Where a witness supports North of Citgo, there are no questions asked and all effort is made to promote the account. Where a witness supports South of Citgo, all attempt is made to discredit and conceal the account. This is their strategy – to be selective of the evidence - and the sooner it is realised by honest researchers the better.

The reason that I can state this with confidence is that I have previously participated on the CIT forum and spoken with the founding members. What I experienced is that they will suspend, ban and censor anyone there who questions their ‘conclusion’. I have personally asked them how many witnesses they are aware of who support the official approach path… they refuse to respond to that question because the answer destroys their credibility.

I researched the answer to the above question myself and the findings are in my post #239 of this thread here. You also asked for South of Citgo witnesses, enzian, which the post provides. There are twenty witnesses to the official flight path noted though I believe around double this number exist in total (I did not fully complete my research into the area admittedly as neither CIT nor Pilots for Truth were interested in discussing such evidence).

Once the available physical evidence is considered, such as the light pole/generator damage and building performance study (all of which line up with a flight path as per the official story) and other facts such as the security footage and radar data are added, this provides an overwhelming case that an airliner impacted the Pentagon.

You might need to click on the image (and then click the magnifier) to get to a larger version to see what I'm saying. But take a look at the people in the background of that photo. Does their behavior seem right to you? They just witnessed a terrorist attack after WTC 1 and 2 got hit and they are just kind of milling about seemingly unconcerned. Only 1 or 2 of them are even looking at the pentagon. Does that make sense? Also, does the man in the foregrounds pose look natural...who walks with their arm out stretched like that while the other one is at your side?

I find no problem with the photo. I see what you are saying, though your comments appear to be based on gut instinct again rather than evidence. For example, I cannot agree that the people are “unconcerned” as this is not possible to tell from the photo. My own personal speculation is that those people are likely very concerned indeed to have stopped and got out of their cars. To give your own concerns a fair hearing I did take a look at some photos from the WTC as comparison. Here is the first useful one I came across: -

US-NY-NYC-World-Trade-Center-attack-sequence-2-12-seen-from-street-level-close-up-both-towers-on-fire-bright-sunshine-people-watching-police-car-World-Financial-Center-building-to-left-ANON.jpg

As we can see, it could possibly be suggested that the people are “just kind of milling about seemingly unconcerned”. I’m not sure that any of them are looking up at the damaged and burning WTC, possibly the man in the orange shirt. The man in the yellow shirt has his back to the scene. The man in the black suit just to the right of him appears to be standing “casually and aimlessly” with his hands in his pockets.

Is this image also manipulated? I don’t think so and it is comparable to the photo by Steve Riskus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

enzian, I would like to filter out your answers to the questions I asked before getting into everything else: -

Q1. Is it wise (or even possible in this case) to accept all witness testimony at face value?

So whilst we agree that photo manipulation could fit if you take Lloyds testimony at face value, we also agree that witness testimony should definitely not [be taken at face value]. The second agreement highlights the irrelevance of the first.

Fair enough. However I would say if any one could be considered an expert witness about where on a road they were at the time of a an accident it would be a cab driver. Lloyd never waivers that he was north of the bridge. If you watch CIT's garbage you will notice that on numerous occasions they ask Lloyd leading questions and try to trap him into stating he was SoC - even then Lloyd never waivers. If you think about Loftus's research much of what she shows is that memories can easily be planted with leading questions or evidence. Even with leading questions and the "evidence" of the photographs Lloyd never waivers. (As a side note Loftus's research could also be considered as supporting flyover, in that due to the malleable nature of memory one might remember seeing the plane hit the building when in reality all they saw was the plane fly towards the building and then a massive explosion).

Q2. So why should we take Lloyds testimony at face value rather than that of other witnesses?

This is further agreement with the above. I will rephrase the question: -

Why do you take Lloyds testimony at face value rather than that of other witnesses?

Or: -

Why accept the smaller witness sample that opposes the Pentagon impact over and above the larger witness sample that supports the event?

Admittedly, my understanding of the evidence has been shaped by watching National Security Alert so I might not know what the counter-arguments are. I have however looked into a few of the SoC witnesses and their testimony has seemed suspect to me. My personal belief is that CIT is disinfo. They got their foot in the door with the Truth movement by throwing us a true but useless bone (flyover) and then once they got some credibility that's when they start in trying to turn the truth movement against itself (go after Lloyd England, get people accusing each other of being disonfo etc.)

Q3. In reality, what makes photo manipulation more likely than a failure of Lloyds memory?

I agree again it appears you are going by a personal preference rather than evidence.

To summarise your responses, you have shown that witness testimony is always going to be weak at best as evidence of photo manipulation and that your assertion is ultimately based on a gut feeling of sorts. Following from that, I accept your personal point of view but I hope you can see why those of a fact-based persuasion do not adhere to it.

Well, I disagree. From the evidence I've seen so far the NoC witnesses seem more reliable. From the evidence I've seen the Pentagon does not show evidence of a 757 having hit it. One side question - if a plane did hit it where is the footage? WOuldn't they have wanted clear footage of it to play on TV over and over to scare us into going along with them? At any rate I'm coming at it from an evidence perspective...this isn't hard science though, there is no "proof" either one of us can provide. You and I both agree that it is completely possible that a pole speared his cab exactly as he said.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Again I completely agree in fact, CITs treatment of the witness evidence as a whole is inconsistent. Where a witness supports North of Citgo, there are no questions asked and all effort is made to promote the account.

That is why there treatment of Lloyd is so fascinating. He is a North Side witness and they tried to get the Truth Movement to go after him.

Where a witness supports South of Citgo, all attempt is made to discredit and conceal the account. This is their strategy to be selective of the evidence - and the sooner it is realised by honest researchers the better.

Completely agree. They are totally untrustworthy and this is obvious the second you start critically thinking about what they are saying.

The reason that I can state this with confidence is that I have previously participated on the CIT forum and spoken with the founding members. What I experienced is that they will suspend, ban and censor anyone there who questions their conclusion. I have personally asked them how many witnesses they are aware of who support the official approach path… they refuse to respond to that question because the answer destroys their credibility.

Me too. They found me on a 911 forum questioning them. I ended up agreeing with them about NoC and flyover but then watched the Lloyd video and COMPLETELY disagreed with them. This is when they got nasty and stopped making sense. They couldn't defend their position on Lloyd at all, which I find interesting.

I researched the answer to the above question myself and the findings are in my post #239 of this thread here. You also asked for South of Citgo witnesses, enzian, which the post provides. There are twenty witnesses to the official flight path noted though I believe around double this number exist in total (I did not fully complete my research into the area admittedly as neither CIT nor Pilots for Truth were interested in discussing such evidence).

OK, I'll look at it. Believe me, I can easily be persuaded they are lying about SoC. I already think they are lying about Lloyd. One major difference you and I have is that you think a plane hit the Pentagon.

Once the available physical evidence is considered, such as the light pole/generator damage and building performance study (all of which line up with a flight path as per the official story) and other facts such as the security footage and radar data are added, this provides an overwhelming case that an airliner impacted the Pentagon.

Well, I think we have to put a big addendum onto this claim and state that the "official story" provides "overwhelming" evidence. Don't forget that the person who said he was hit by a lightpole claims he was NoC...that is evidence against the official story (even iff it is weak evidence, but his story is confirmed by at least some other witnesses.) What punched a hole in the C-ring? You know at first their story was it was the nose of the plane...Rumsfeld even said he saw it sticking out of the building. So they are at least lying about some of the official story.

I find no problem with the photo. I see what you are saying, though your comments appear to be based on gut instinct again rather than evidence.

There is no "proof" when it comes to something like this. You and I both believe that a pole hit Lloyd's cab...but we can't prove it can we? Same with the photo. Other things to consider about the photo - the website on which it was posted was set up on 9/10 (coincidence), the photos were up in an hour and a half of being taken (that is really fast), the photogarpher was paid $1,250 by ASCE for one of his photographs for the Performance Report but the photograph they credited Riskus for was not one of his original 13 photos. There is a blog called SteveWarRan that has more info if you want to look at some of the info on Riskus. I have to admit it is hard to make heads or tails with some of it (as with everything with the Pentagon).

For example, I cannot agree that the people are unconcerned as this is not possible to tell from the photo. My own personal speculation is that those people are likely very concerned indeed to have stopped and got out of their cars. To give your own concerns a fair hearing I did take a look at some photos from the WTC as comparison. Here is the first useful one I came across: -

We are just going to have to agree to disagree about that photo. It doesn't make sense to me that since they would need that road cleared for emergency vehicles yet these people are just aimlessly out of their cars and milling about...one lady decided instead of getting out of her car to sit on her unrolled window looking out over the roof? It just seems weird to me. I hope at least you keep an open-mind in regards to the photomanipulation hypothessis.

US-NY-NYC-World-Trade-Center-attack-sequence-2-12-seen-from-street-level-close-up-both-towers-on-fire-bright-sunshine-people-watching-police-car-World-Financial-Center-building-to-left-ANON.jpg

Okay, I looked at thst photo. To me that looks normal. The Riskus one doesn't (to me). This is subjective...and perhpaps not worth pursuing. One thing I will add is that the majority of the people in this photo have their bodies towards the building...there is clearly a central focus. In the Riskus photo everyone there is no central focus.

As we can see, it could possibly be suggested that the people are just kind of milling about seemingly unconcerned. Im not sure that any of them are looking up at the damaged and burning WTC, possibly the man in the orange shirt. The man in the yellow shirt has his back to the scene. The man in the black suit just to the right of him appears to be standing casually and aimlessly with his hands in his pockets.

Is this image also manipulated? I dont think so and it is comparable to the photo by Steve Riskus.

Well, I disagree.

Thanks for responding. I will look into the SoC witnesses. If I am convinced they are correct then like you I will have to conclude that Lloyd is misremembering. However, if I remain persuaded that the NoC witnesses are reliable I will be forced to conclude the photos are manipulated. We both agree on the important point though - CIT is not to be trusted!

Edited by enzian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Q, I had a problem with quoting on this one so I put a "---" before my repsonses.

  • 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. Mike Dobbs
    ---No, Columbia Pike is both N and S of Citgo ©
  • 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.
    ---This is ambiguous.
  • 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.
    ---This could go either way too.
  • Keith Wheelhouse sketch showed a flight path near identical to the official South flight path.
    ---He saw two planes. His testimony is therefore ambiguous.
  • 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.---No, we have to consider the possibility that the plane clipped a lightpole NoC.
  • Lloyd England taxi cab driver had light pole spear his windshield. Again, obviously the light pole impact supports the official flight path
    ---No, Lloyd said he was NoC. He has more or less stated the SoC pictures of him can't be right. He also states the damage from the Pentagon was not from a plane. You might call Lloyd the strongest NoC witness...it's interesting -he is the one CIT tries to discredit.
  • 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.
    ---He is also a flyover witness.
  • Mike Walter confirmed an image of the official flight path.
    ---OK.
  • 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.
    ---Eye witness testimony is not reliable. What we can conclude is that Sean saw an airplane and an explosion at the pentagon. That does not mean he saw the plane hit.
  • 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: -

---This is father Mcgraw right. I looked into his testimony and it is very suspicious.

  • 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.
    ---Not necessarily.
  • 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.

---He sees a giant orange fireball and makes the assumption that the plane had caused it.

[*]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).

---Same as Anderson.

[*]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.

---Interesing that they all started running. This would contradict the Riskus photo would it not?

[*]Penny Elgas At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building.

---OK

[*]Tim Timmerman - The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.

---There is no way he would have seen that much detail.

[*]Carla Thompson - I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building.

---OK

[*]Terrance Kean - I saw this very, very large passenger jet... It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon.

---Funny, this testimony sounds eerily just like this testimony:

[*]James Mosley I looked over and saw this big silver plane run into the side of the Pentagon

---OK, but bottom line with people that say they saw a plane hit is that we can't conclude that's what they saw. We can conclude they saw a plane and then a fireball. You can't dismiss research that shows the limits of perception such as this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkn3wRyb9Bk.

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.

---Some of these witnesses are not clearly SoC witnesses. One like Lloyd is actually an NoC witness. One is a flyover witness. The rest merely fell for the magic show that was going on.

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.

---There are many people that believe the damage to the pentagon is not consistent with a 757. Where is the footage if it was simply a plane? Why confiscate the footage from surrounding businesses if it was just a plane.

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.

---Not necessarily. Again, where is the footage of the plane? Perhaps the reason they didn't hit the building with a plane was because they didn't have to (they just needed to destroy some files and other evidence). They decided it would be to risky to have this be based on the success of the plane reaching target (shootdown, other problems). So they devises a plan where the plane would be the cover story (just like WTC I might add...the planes were just a plausible explanation) and if the cover story doesn' work just blow up the building anyways and say it was a car bomb.

Edited by enzian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Eyewitness Mike Dobbs and Mike Wlater both contradict the Riskus phot. Both say people were eager to get out of the scene:

Dobbs says they started running. Walters says they tried to leave by their cars. Neither states that people got out of their cars and were calmly walking aimlessly around or standing in the road.

Edited by enzian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

instead of getting involved in one of the never ending circular debates that seem to be so inherent to 'conspiracy' threads, i too will have to just agree to disagree.

what i will say though is that anyone who reads my reply to you, pointing out where i think your mind has went wrong when coming to your conclusions, then goes on to read your next reply, can easily (and correctly) decide for themselves. it's not controversial at all.

the whole problem with the photo is that you had completely made up your mind (as q mentioned) before posting, and it is obvious that you will not consider anything other than your own assumptions.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i will say though is that anyone who reads my reply to you, pointing out where i think your mind has went wrong when coming to your conclusions, then goes on to read your next reply, can easily (and correctly) decide for themselves. it's not controversial at all.

I dsiagree with you there. You falsely claimed that six people were looking at the building. Anyone can verify for themselves this is incorrect.

the whole problem with the photo is that you had completely made up your mind

I have absolutely no idea where you came up with this assumption. The way I stumbled onto the Riskus photo was someone directed me to a thread which had a link to a blog called "SteveWaran" where he discusses the Riskus phots. I considered his discussions and decided that I agree with him about the Riskus photos. Also in my last post I listed two eyewitness accounts that directly contradic the photo - they state that people were running away or trying to evacuate the scene by car. Neither states that people were out of their cars and calmly, aimlessly millingabout on the road. But, bottom line you made an assumption that I had made up my mind before looking at the photos is just false and shows how you are given to believing in your preconceived notions.

before posting, and it is obvious that you will not consider anything other than your own assumptions.

And again it is you that is making assumptions (not reasoned arguments I might add). Tell me why did Mike Dobbs say people were running away from the scene and Mike Walter say that people were trying to get off the road in their cars, yet in the Riskus phot people are just calmly milling about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.