General of all American Intelligence:

[thunkerdrone]

I still wonder why some do not believe that some group of religious extremists crashed a few planes into a handful of buildings?

Because the Pentagon could put this whole debate to an end by showing the public ONE video

of a plane hitting the Pentagon, and they will not do it.

If a four year old child ripped open a bag of nuts at Walmart and gobbled them down

without paying, there would be video evidence of the crime.

Yet we have no video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

You think Walmart has better video security and video surveillance than the Pentagon?

Edited August 21, 2009 by thunkerdrone

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's (old) post 265, part 6

He bets, then he knows.. all, within the timespan that it takes to make a sentence. No need for evidence; a hunch and he's off.

You said this of me regarding a comment in my post #218 and I thought I should clarify it. The “bet” was originally the way I was going to play this to draw ‘flyover/no impact’ theorists into making a commitment about how many official flight path and impact eyewitnesses they are aware of and are writing off. Literally in the middle of that sentence I got bored of playing the game and decided to be forthright in that I know there are more eyewitnesses to the official event than there are for the North of Citgo claim.

Or atleast you think you know. From all the evidence I have gathered, it seems clear to me that there are no credible witnesses that place the plane on a south of the Citgo gas station approach. I believe I am backed up in this by both P4T and CIT, the very same people who you skipped over so many points from.

There was no hunch involved – you are making the mistake of assuming I haven’t already been over the evidence.

As I think you should know, I believe it is you who are mistaken about how much you know. It seems clear to me that your knowledge regarding the witnesses is terribly flawed; P4T and CIT tried to educate you, but you apparently didn't have the time to actually listen to much of what they had to say.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's (old) post 265, part 7 (last part)

Q, I just found out that someone in the CIT forum has now also responded to your post 239. Here is their response:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=692

I can’t access the CIT forum even to view since I was banned.

Ligon saw that you posted this, and he believes that he has now changed your settings so that you can now see posts.

If you can't, I could ask them if I could quote it over here..

I’m not sure why you would trust someone who banned me rather than dared to debate this sort of thing.

Q, your debating style leaves much to be desired. In the case of CIT and P4T, your debating style tended to consist of skipping over mountains of information against your case, apparently because you felt you didn't have the time for their arguments, but you seemed to have plenty of time to bring up your own, which I have found to be fairly flawed. In a conversation, half the job is to listen, and here, I think you failed fairly badly. This being said, as you know, I believe my patience is higher than the patience of the people over at CIT and P4T.

Anyway, as I said above, 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.

Dmole has essentially done this over at P4T. If you don't want to check out the links he provided, many of which were posts that you failed to respond to, then it seems clear that all you really want to do is state what you believe to be true without much regard for the evidence that others have gathered.

[Q24]

Response to Q24's (old) post 265, part 6

Or atleast you think you know. From all the evidence I have gathered, it seems clear to me that there are no credible witnesses that place the plane on a south of the Citgo gas station approach. I believe I am backed up in this by both P4T and CIT, the very same people who you skipped over so many points from.

As I think you should know, I believe it is you who are mistaken about how much you know. It seems clear to me that your knowledge regarding the witnesses is terribly flawed; P4T and CIT tried to educate you, but you apparently didn't have the time to actually listen to much of what they had to say.

I have started a new thread on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum to roll one at a time through all of the eyewitnesses who support the official flight path. Try to follow and you may learn something. Though whether this will only result to be another demonstration of censorship is yet to be seen.

No Witnesses Who Place The Plane On The South Side?

[Scott G]

Response to Obviousman's (old) post 278

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?

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2009/08/company-vistor-melissa-data.html

I'm not sure. When attempting to discover people who are lying, telling them that you're recording the event probably won't help. I'm not knowledgeable concerning the laws of recording voice or video when speaking to people in the U.S.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

Response to Q24's (old) post 265, part 7 (last part)

Ligon saw that you posted this, and he believes that he has now changed your settings so that you can now see posts.

How very kind.

Q, your debating style leaves much to be desired. In the case of CIT and P4T, your debating style tended to consist of skipping over mountains of information against your case, apparently because you felt you didn't have the time for their arguments, but you seemed to have plenty of time to bring up your own, which I have found to be fairly flawed. In a conversation, half the job is to listen, and here, I think you failed fairly badly. This being said, as you know, I believe my patience is higher than the patience of the people over at CIT and P4T.

Lots of talking about me, nothing about the topic.

Dmole has essentially done this over at P4T. If you don't want to check out the links he provided, many of which were posts that you failed to respond to, then it seems clear that all you really want to do is state what you believe to be true without much regard for the evidence that others have gathered.

How would you feel if I stopped discussing with you and just threw half a dozen links at every point you raise?

[Scott G]

I still wonder why some do not believe that some group of religious extremists crashed a few planes into a handful of buildings?

Because the Pentagon could put this whole debate to an end by showing the public ONE video

of a plane hitting the Pentagon, and they will not do it.

If a four year old child ripped open a bag of nuts at Walmart and gobbled them down

without paying, there would be video evidence of the crime.

Yet we have no video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

You think Walmart has better video security and video surveillance than the Pentagon?

A good point. It's well known that the FBI confiscated the many videotapes that recorded what really happened. A presentation of the videotapes confiscated can be seen in the following relatively short video, which is actually mentioned at the start of another thread in this forum which I just saw today, What hit the Pentagon?:

http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm#Main

More importantly, they did so mere minutes after the attack. So, let's review;

When it comes to actually stopping the plane from getting so close to the pentagon, the people in charge simply can't be reached. But when it comes to confiscating the evidence for the crime? I think it'd be hard to have done it faster. 8 years later, and all we have is a blurry 5 frame video, with something approaching the pentagon that many believe was not a 757. The rest of the videos are still under lock and key. How anyone could view this as unsuspicious, I have no idea, but apparently we have a lot of people in this very forum who believe just that, if their derisive comments concerning alternatives to the official story are any indication.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 261, Part 1

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.

No; I'm just arguing that CIT's theory is more plausible than your own.

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 have used no label.

[merril]

It's well known that the FBI confiscated the many videotapes that recorded what really happened. A presentation of the videotapes confiscated can be seen in the following relatively short video, http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm#Main

The matters of propaganda, insinuations and untruths in this video have BEEN DEBUNKED. Naturally, you trot it out; why, because it starts off with NAZI themes?

The video is TOTALCRAP!

More importantly, they did so mere minutes after the attack.

Obviously, you know squat about civil defense, the FBI, disaster preparedness. They work on things for years, in advance. Like if a truck bomb went off, how to proceed quickly!

Just another silly suggestion, on your part, exemplifying why NOBODY BELIEVES YOU!

But when it comes to confiscating the evidence for the crime? I think it'd be hard to have done it faster.

How do they do it in Canada? Mañana? What idiocy!

8 years later, and all we have is a blurry 5 frame video, with something approaching the pentagon that many believe was not a 757. The rest of the videos are still under lock and key.

So what? How will that help anything? Or, comfort the surviving family members of those who died?

Nobody believes a thing you say!

Edited August 22, 2009 by merril

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 261, Part 2

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.

Clearly it doesn't settle the matter. Clearly I'm relying on intuition here, but I have found that intuition can be helpful in investigations as starting points, as I have mentioned to you before.

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.

How does that detract from what he says? If anything, it might lend even more credence to it, considering that he may have decided that since he wasn't being filmed, he might as well intimate that his official version of events is false.

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

CIT: Absolutely.

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

The 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.

Certainly. But surely you have noted that Lloyd is relatively intelligent. In the past, I quoted an excerpt of another passage in the video, concerning a conversation Lloyd had with CIT concerning the author of a book he had in his taxi on 9/11, David Icke. Upon careful examination, I have determined that it's well worth seeing it in its entirety. Starting at 42:38 in the documentary, here it is:

Craig Ranke: Well how about this, Lloyd, on 9/11 you had that book in your car from David Icke.

Lloyd: Right. (smiling) I did!

Craig Ranke: (laughter) Well.. you know what that book's about, it's your book, right?

Lloyd: Yeah.

Craig Ranke: What? What do you have to say about the things he says?

Lloyd: Well, he's familiar with a lot of things I'm not familiar with, he has experiences and interviews with people that have more knowledge about different things.

Craig Ranke: Like what?

Lloyd: Well everything. See, at the time that I was reading David Icke's book,

Craig Ranke: Mmhm

Lloyd: uh, I was going to a class every week. We were dealing with stuff like this. I mean, it was a surprise to me that it happened to me, [emphasis mine] but we were dealing with uh, we were dealing with the thing that happpened with, uh, what's the woman that was killed? All this government stuff. [emphasis mine] She, I think they're from England. They were killed in this car in a tunnel.

Craig Ranke: Oh, Princess Diana?

Lloyd: Right, that's right.

Officially, Princess Diana's murder was an accident. Unofficially, many people that it was set up by people within the government in the country it occured. While people don't believe that 9/11 was an 'accident', many do believe that it was also planned in large part within the government in the country where it occured. Surely you see the possibility that he might be trying to reveal something that he's afraid of revealing?

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.

As I have already mentioned, 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.

So clearly he wasn't only talking about conspiracies far away from home. Note that he also uses the term 'stuff', as he does concerning Princess Diana's death. Concerning Lloyd's involvement as an alleged witness of the flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon, I remembered something he said, and decided to feret it out in the video. I have found it, and have bolded the part that I had in mind. When I found it, however, I also found that it coincided with something else of interest that his wife said, and more things besides. I thought I'd put it up here for now, and we can analyze what it all means later. Starting from 34:32:

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

Craig Ranke: And when was that?

Shirley Hughes: The next day.

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

Shirley Hughes: They say somebody towed him away.

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

Craig Ranke: They just took away the body huh?

Shirley Hughes: Yeah, and left the car

Lloyd: You know,

(laughter)

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

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

CIT 2: Injured, were you injured?

Shirley Hughes: No.

CIT 2: There you go.

Lloyd: That's the story.

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

Lloyd:

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

CIT 2: Mmhm.

Lloyd: You see to keep it from spreading.

CIT 2: Oh absolutely, yeah, to keep it from getting this far to where we're talking..

Craig Ranke: Yeah, but if there was a lie, we need to expose it.

Lloyd: That's right.

Craig Ranke: And that's.. and we, if they did a lie to do what they're doing now, the problem is 9/11 isn't over and done with, 9/11 is permanent global war, permanent death for people every day right now, dying. Innocent people, innocent children...

CIT 2: 9/11 was an event was that a lot of people recognize as this big, 'now we have a war on terror', now we have, you know, but 9/11 was..

...

Craig Ranke: Well we found out that that it didn't hit the Pentagon and just kept on going.

Shirley Hughes: Yeah.

Craig Ranke: Yeah what?

Shirley Hughes: Yeah.

Craig Ranke: Yeah what?

Shirley Hughes: What you said!

Craig Ranke: What did I say?

Shirley Hughes: I better go fix dinner so he can... if you're gonna...

Craig Ranke: You know something. Your wife, she's smart, she knows something! So let's... go!

At that point, they decide to go off to check out Lloyd's cab.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Post 261, Part 3

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.

What, exactly, do you think CIT is doing?

This is nothing to do with patience but control of opinion through censorship.

I strongly disagree with you that this has nothing to do with patience, but I do believe there is some truth in the second part of your statement. I don't think it's so much control of opinion, though; you didn't even make a dent in the prevailing opinion over at CIT and P4T. I think it has more to do with control of their boards, and the type of posters they want on it.

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.

What they don't tolerate is people who go to their boards with their minds made up that the board they're going to is wrong -and- "don't have the time" to read the opposing arguments. I mean, seriously, I understand that you had some questions you wanted to ask them, but I think you might have spent just a -little- more time listening to their arguments on the subject of the witnesses, say, don't you think?

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..

Point 1:

And now we get to look close at the interior, and see if there's anything here, because Lloyd claims that the pole speared the windshield of the cab. So a lot of people figured, well you don't know, maybe the pole went all the way through the back seat, and that's what held it up over the hood and why it didn't scratch the hood, so this means it would literally have to puncture the back seat and through the floor boards, perhaps.

This may have held up such a long pole, but the fact is there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So now we know for a fact that the floor boards were intact, in fact they were holding water at the time. There was only a minor puncture [picture of minor puncture] in the back seat, very minor. So the pole certainly didn't go through it.

Point 2:

Ofcourse, even if it had, it would be strange, because the top part of the pole was bent [picture of pole], so if it had punctured all the way through, it's doubtful that it would have been able to lift the pole out at all.

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.

It seems clear that Craig Ranke is implying that the only way that it might have been possible for the pole to have been held up by the cab is if the pole had punctured the back seat and "gone through the floor boards, perhaps." However, Craig makes it clear through the photos he took of the cab that this didn't happen: "there's no damage to the cab in this regard. So now we know for a fact that the floor boards were intact, in fact they were holding water at the time. There was only a minor puncture [picture of minor puncture] in the back seat, very minor. So the pole certainly didn't go through it."

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.

Alright, I admit I don't know how to respond to this part. I'm fairly sure that P4T or CIT will be able to explain it to me though.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Scott G

[merril]

I don't know how to respond. I'm fairly sure that P4T or CIT will be able to explain it to me though.

Let's see where you are going with this, since you obviously support and spread these untruths (it's pretty clear what you think).

You and these others believe the old man is part of an unproven plan. A plan that is in reality an untrue story, hatched in the mental backwaters of the Internet, and in the backrooms of Iranian Vivak.

It is sheer idiocy to ignore the reality of the damaged light poles, the destruction to the building, the deaths, and just as importantly, what amounts to confession from As-Sahab.

No matter how long you persist in your untruths and incorrect insinuations, no one will believe you! No person of important standing supports these groups of huxters- casting untruths about those that died on 9-11.

Write a million words- spread a million rumors- what value to society? Zero!

[thunkerdrone]

]

Merril , millions of people know that 9/11 was an inside job. They know about the fluoride-poisoning of the water,

they know about the tainted vaccines, and the depopulation agenda.

These are people from all walks of life and professions, from Congressmen to doctors to physicists to university professors to teens and students. You can gloat all you like about how intimidated many of them are by

people within the system who exert the necessary pressure to keep them silent. It's not working.

More and more people are coming forward, rejecting their televisions, sharing information, etc.,

and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.

This forum was created to discuss the conspiracies and secret societies that drive world events.

If you don't like the fact that we have a place to discuss the truth , too bad.

[Scott G]

I don't know how to respond. I'm fairly sure that P4T or CIT will be able to explain it to me though.

Let's see where you are going with this, since you obviously support and spread these untruths (it's pretty clear what you think).

My primary belief is that the plane flew over the pentagon, not into it. Issues such as whether a light pole may have been able to have been supported within Lloyd England's car without scratching the hood is a relatively minor detail in all of this. I brought it up only because CIT claimed that it wouldn't have been possible. I now remember that Q brought this up before with CIT and Craig Ranke redirected the conversation to what I believe are arguments for the north side flight path that had a much more solid foundation. Due to this, and Craig Ranke essentially doing the same thing when I brought it up, I am forced to concede that CIT's argument that the light pole couldn't have been held up in Lloyd's car without damaging the hood to not be a strong one. I have heard that there is evidence the the pole was never in the car, and I have certainly never heard of -anyone- but Lloyd claim to have witnesses a light pole sticking out from his car, but I fully acknowledge that those are separate arguments from the one that Q was making.

You and these others believe the old man is part of an unproven plan.

Cleawrly, I and CIT believe that he was part of a coverup, yes. I know that you believe the official story in regards to the pentagon attack, as does Q24, atleast in the sense that he believes that the plane that approached the pentagon crashed into it. Because of our differing views, I have put in a fair amount of time in providing Q and anyone else who's interested in the evidence I have found that supports this view that differs from official story, namely the north side approach witnesses. There is also the fact, as clearly delineated by P4T, and mentioned in the Eye of the Storm documentary at the ending, that the G forces required to have performed the final maneuver in the official flight path are impossible. I have quoted P4T's reasoning concerning this in the past, and I will do so again now, this time expanding the excerpt to make it clear that it's referring to the south flight path theory, not the north flight path one. The following excerpt begins at 8:52 of P4T's presentation, 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON:

Placing the aircraft on the south path, lowered from the FDR altitude of 699 feet above sea level at this point in space to the top of the VDOT antenna, we can examine the pull up needed at pole 1 and measure the radius using a 3 point ark radius tool provided with this 3d animation software program.

Remember, the scale of this presentation is 100 feet= 1 cm box. To get an idea of how we demonstrate this in 3d software, we switch to an orthogonal view. An orthogonal view is different than a perspective view in that it eliminates the effect of distance from a viewpoint. Therefore, we can accurately determine radius of an ark and precisely draw an ark based on the pull up needed in this view.

Here is the ark drawn in the orthogonal view. We will remove the topography and obstacles in order to get a better view of the ark drawn. Again, we we will demonstrate the accuracy of the scale and topography at the end of this presentation.

The radius of this ark is 20.85 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.

A plan that is in reality an untrue story, hatched in the mental backwaters of the Internet, and in the backrooms of Iranian Vivak.

I have seen you present no evidence that the north side flight path is untrue, or that it was hatched in the places you claim.

It is sheer idiocy to ignore the reality of the damaged light poles,

If anyone is ignoring the circumstances surrounding the damaged light poles, I contend it is you. Whether or not Lloyd's car could have held up a fallen light pole, the fact remains that all credible witnesses place the plane on a north side flight path. Given the fact that no credible witness places the plane on the south flight path, it becomes clear that the light poles must have been taken down by another means.

the destruction to the building,

The destruction of the building and the debris left behind is inconsistent with a flight 757. The fact that the damage is only consistent with a south path further buries this theory, as all the credible witnesses place the plane on the north path.

the deaths,

Other than alleged DNA evidence of the alleged people on the plane, I have seen absolutely no evidence that any remains of people who were allegedly on flight 77 was found at the pentagon.

and just as importantly, what amounts to confession from As-Sahab.

Link this alleged confession, and I'll deal with it.

No matter how long you persist in your untruths and incorrect insinuations, no one will believe you! No person of important standing supports these groups of huxters- casting untruths about those that died on 9-11.

I have never contended that those who died on 9/11 said anything untruthful. What I believe is untruthful is the official story concerning 9/11.

Write a million words- spread a million rumors- what value to society? Zero!

Merril, I know that you believe the official story and thus believe other stories to be false. However, just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

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.

Alright, I admit I don't know how to respond to this part. I'm fairly sure that P4T or CIT will be able to explain it to me though.

CIT's Craig Ranke has now made a bunch of good points. I have commented on them here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=724&st=0entry2308446

Edited August 23, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Another CIT member, RLW, has now gone over the physics of why the official story concerning Lloyd's light pole is a farce. His post and my comments on it can be found here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=724&st=0entry2308492

[Q24]

Officially, Princess Diana's murder was an accident. Unofficially, many people that it was set up by people within the government in the country it occured. While people don't believe that 9/11 was an 'accident', many do believe that it was also planned in large part within the government in the country where it occured. Surely you see the possibility that he might be trying to reveal something that he's afraid of revealing?

Well the event actually took place in France but the belief of some is that it was setup by British intelligence. Princess Diana was dating a Muslim and, whether the rumours of her impending engagement and pregnancy were true or not, the theory goes that the British Royal Family could not tolerate a potential heir to the throne of Muslim descent.

It does not logically follow that talking about a Princess Diana conspiracy theory means you want to reveal you are involved in the 9/11 plot – there’s simply no link there. This is just a topic discussed on the conspiracy course Lloyd England attended and is unremarkable.

CIT 2: Injured, were you injured?

Shirley Hughes: No.

CIT 2: There you go.

Lloyd: That's the story.

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

Lloyd:

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

I don’t understand why you place any significance in the bolded text. Immediately before this, it can be seen that inaccurate stories are being discussed, ie of Lloyd England being injured. Lloyd is then saying that if people get away with telling inaccuracies before clarifying true details then they become too big and widespread for him to rectify.

It does not logically follow that talking about inaccuracies in the story means you want to reveal you are involved in the 9/11 plot – there’s simply no link there. This is just Lloyd England wanting an accurate reflection of his account to be known and is unremarkable.

Craig Ranke: Well we found out that that it didn't hit the Pentagon and just kept on going.

Shirley Hughes: Yeah.

Craig Ranke: Yeah what?

Shirley Hughes: Yeah.

Craig Ranke: Yeah what?

Shirley Hughes: What you said!

Craig Ranke: What did I say?

Shirley Hughes: I better go fix dinner so he can... if you're gonna...

The way it is laid out above does lead one to believe that Shirley Hughes is agreeing with Ranke. From my recollection of this section I supposed Shirley was in a sarcastic way playing along. But, listen to the recording again – there are four people talking over each other all at once and I’m not sure Shirley even hears what Ranke says.

Have you ever failed to hear someone properly and, through a disinterest or embarrassment about asking them to repeat themselves, just said “yeah”? It’s actually very common, having seen it and even done this myself before. This would be the reason Shirley does not repeat what Ranke had said when he asks – because she never heard it in the first place!

Also the contention that Shirley believes there was a flyover does not fit in with the discussion immediately prior where she had said, “That plane could have hit my house, the house I was living in at the time.” Well why would Shirley think the plane could have hit her house if she really believes the plane never even crashed? It doesn’t make sense in this context.

A final point – don’t you think if Ranke truly suspected Shirley ‘knew’ something then he should have been all over her with questions? He should have absolutely clarified it right there and asked if she believes the plane performed a flyover. He doesn’t, and I strongly suggest this is because he didn’t want to receive the ‘wrong’ answer and ruin the theory that Shirley is ‘in the know’.

What, exactly, do you think CIT is doing?

I don’t believe the CIT members are unintelligent so there are a number of options to explain their behaviour – delusional, seeking their fifteen minutes of fame or the pawns of a counter intelligence operation. To answer the question, I think intentionally or not, CIT are spreading false information that is damaging to the truth movement.

I mean, seriously, I understand that you had some questions you wanted to ask them, but I think you might have spent just a -little- more time listening to their arguments on the subject of the witnesses, say, don't you think?

I spent hours watching their whole National Security Alert, The Eye of the Storm and other interviews such as with McGraw and Wheelhouse. I do follow arguments and seriously consider the plausibility and logic behind them before responding. You are wrong to paint me as someone who isn’t interested in listening. It’s because I gave the 9/11 theories a chance in the first place that I’m where I am now.

CIT's Craig Ranke has now made a bunch of good points. I have commented on them here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=724&st=0entry2308446

Ranke: “It is not our responsibility to offer "reasoning" for this fact.”

A complete lack of critical thinking at best - detrimental to CIT’s theory.

Another CIT member, RLW, has now gone over the physics of why the official story concerning Lloyd's light pole is a farce. His post and my comments on it can be found here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=724&st=0entry2308492

I admire the effort but it is not so simple to apply physics to such multifaceted real life events. The calculation seems to assume that the pole is suspended in air and will take a full horizontal impact of the plane before passing directly into the taxi cab.

I see no allowance for the angle the force is acting where energy could be lost through the base. The location on the pole where it is impacted is not factored in and this will affect how much energy is lost in its bending and also damage to the wing. Breaking the windshield and deflection from the dashboard are omitted altogether, along with very importantly the number of times the pole may have hit the floor as it spiralled.

Depending on some of these various factors, a pole could go flying through the air at the speed of the aircraft for a distance, be snapped and deflected at an angle rather more slowly and finish up laying closer to the base or anything inbetween.

I’m just waiting for your comments to my posts #262 #270 & #274, Scott. Don’t feel you have to respond to every line individually as it makes a lot of work for yourself. I’d soon let you know if you did happen to skip over anything important.

[Scott G]

Response to Post 261, Part 4 (last part)

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,

"Belief" doesn't enter into this; it's a fact that pictures have been taken of unidentified individuals who cordoned off the area around Lloyd's car. Do you honestly think that anyone but government officials could have done this?

faked the damage to the cab,

The damage is real. What is in question is what caused it.

dragged the light pole into position

The light pole could have been placed near the road before 9/11 and then just dragged a few meters over into the road afterwards.

and then bribed or threatened Lloyd England to go along with this plot, all with no evidence.

I wonder if Lloyd is being completely honest regarding his just accidentally getting there. Why was he the only official witness there? This would clearly suggest that he was more involved than he admitted to CIT. I remember seeing that another woman had someone wave her down, but she chose to just get off at an exit, which is possibly what the person waving her down would have directed her to do.

Who was this 'silent man' Lloyd spoke of? I have never heard of the official story even mentioning him. Did he even truly exist? From what I've heard, evidence suggests that the light pole was actually moved into its final location only shortly before the cameras of the unidentified officials started rolling. Much ado has been made of the people who recorded events on 9/11 regarding the WTC buildings. But who took the famous official pictures of Lloyd's taxi cab? Was it the man who Lloyd introduced CIT too? Was that man also the man that split the dollar with Lloyd? There are far too many unanswered questions here.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 262, Part 1

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).

I'll bring up your view concerning whether Rob did or did not confirm this up at P4T.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 262, Part 2

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.

From P4T's 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 13:21:

Others have argued that the flight data recorder must be missing its final seconds due to the fact it shows too high and not enough Gs to pull out of such a dive. We put the following clip together in February of 2008 to address such concerns.

Some have argued that the flight data recorder information stopped recording 6 seconds from the Pentagon wall. The reason they argue this is to justify the fact that the flight data recorder shows too high to hit the light poles, too high to hit the pentagon if the trends are continued.

The flight data recorder information based on the raw file decode that we did shows the latitude and longitude position at this point; that's the very last point that it shows and some argue that this is the point where all the data ends which would explain why the aircraft shows too high.

However, this positional data is based on what's called an inertial navigation system. The inertial navigation system is a self contained unit on the aircraft based on accelerometers which calculate the position of the aircraft as it flies. The accelerometers are prone to error, the inertial and navigation system itself are prone to errors especially when the aircraft is doing extreme maneuvering, accelerating rapidly and so forth.

It's very possible that during the 330 degree maneuver and the rapid acceleration during this dive caused the INS system to crash at this point. So we must see if there is any other data within the flight data recorder that shows more accurate position, as a matter of fact there is. The CSV file that was provided to us by the National Transportation and Safety Board, the original file, not the raw file, the original file that we were supposed to have that was provided to us and produced by professionals at the NTSB for public distribution through the Freedom of Information Act, shows what's called DME or Distance Measuring Equipment, it's not a self contained unit, it's based on a ground facility and a receiver in the aircraft and the ground facility was DCAVOR which is a radio beacon basically, on the ground, and it shows the distance from that facility at the last point at 1.5 nautical miles, or 1.5 DME, at 09:47:43. The NTSB reports the impact time at 09:47:45, so that's 2 seconds prior to impact when this was recorded.

So what we need to do now is determine that position of 1.5 DME. The 1.5 DME was recorded off of DCAVOR, which is Reagan National and here is the radio beacon, the VOR on the field, that it was recorded from. We'll go out to 1.5 nautical miles, roughly on the south flight path and we'll measure the distance in feet from the impact hole to get the time based on speed. 2695 feet, it shows, from the impact hole. Now remember, this aircraft, based on the files that the NTSB gave us, this aircraft recorded 1.5 DME at 2 seconds from the wall. Calculating its distance based on speed, we can get the time.

Roughly 3 1/2 seconds from the wall, so that's too far. However, if we look at the northern approach, we'll put this back into nautical miles, go to 1.5 DME, go back to feet. 2 seconds represents roughly 1600 feet, that is a lot closer, so the DME itself even reflects the northern approach.

So what does this mean? It means that it's impossible that al the data stopped recording at this point. It's impossible to have recorded even northern or southern approach at 1.5 DME, if all data stopped here.

So now that we have established that it's impossible that this aircraft stopped recording at the last latitude and longitude position, we'll move on to the next argument. The next argument states that the aircraft stopped recording at 1.5 nautical miles. Well, we already know that the NTSB places it 2 seconds prior to impact, so this is too far away.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

I'll bring up your view concerning whether Rob did or did not confirm this up at P4T.

Ok, then come back and admit you were wrong to doubt me.

[Scott G]

View PostScott G, on 24 August 2009 - 03:53 PM, said:

I'll bring up your view concerning whether Rob did or did not confirm this up at P4T.

Ok, then come back and admit you were wrong to doubt me.

Q, your confidence knows no bounds, laugh :-p. I asked if your claim had merit. Rob Balsamo responded with the following link, which is a modified version of a scene from P4T's Pandora's Black Box, Chapter II:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8166

I'll transcribe most of the text in it:

On the left, we have the NTSB animation, and on the right, we have the 9/11 Commission Report animation. Let's see if they match.

(NTSB Plotted Flight Data Recorder Path North of 9/11 Commission Report Path)

However...

Heading shows a southern approach...

Let's see if the FDR Numbers line up with the physical damage...

Including...

Descent and Bank Angles

Transition to Southern Data

(61.2 degrees)

Flight Data Recorder Descent Angle and Bank Angle

(~5.0 degrees)

VDOT Pole Too Far Inside Wingspan for Limited Damage Claim

This Presentation is to Scale using Google Sketchup)

Flight Path Incline, Navy Annex and Sheraton Hotel Models by Rob Balsamo pilotsfor911truth.org

All Other Models and Software Available Through Google.com

Flight Data Recorder Information does not account for physical damage from a northern or southern approach

He makes a point, subtly made at just before 7 minutes in, that the NTSB animation has the plane going down at 5 degrees even in the final moments, while the 5 frame video recording has an object (real or computer generated, I'm not sure) coming in low and level.

Next, I'll provide the same original version of the scene, which sheds additional light on the issue. From Pandora's Black Box, Chapter II, starting at 39:04:

On the left, we have the NTSB animation, and on the right, we have the 9/11 Commission Report animation. Let's see if they match.

As they come up to the navy annex, it appears they conflict. One is north, one is south. Let's continue. There's the citgo gas station. The NTSB report has it on the north side. The 9/11 Commission report on the the south side.

According to the official report, the aircraft that struck the pentagon also struck down light poles. There's pole number 1. Pole number 2. There's pole 3. Pole number 4. And there's pole 5.

And if we compare that to the animation provided by the NTSB? Poles 1 and 2 [plane is way too far to have struck them]. Poles 3 and 4 [again, way too far away for the plane to have struck them]. And there's pole 5, with a flight path to the left and too high.

He then gets into the altitude and a certain issue concerning snap back, but I'll planning to transcribe that one for the next part of my response to your post 262...

[Q24]

I asked if your claim had merit.

Merit? It’s simply fact. I’m not out to fool anyone, Scott.

Heading shows a southern approach...

That’s end of discussion in relation to the black box data showing North or South of Citgo.

As I said, the only issue left is the altitude reading and precise placement of the aircraft along the South approach.

Forget about the NTSB animation - it is not reflective of the the black box data.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 262, Part 3

The NTSB animation showing North of Citgo does not match with the black box data yet nobody seems to know why.

Not so. According to P4T, someone working on the NTSB animation clearly engaged in a blatant coverup. To explain why they believe this, I once again refer to Pandora's Black Box, Chapter II - Flight of American 77, starting at 40:40:

Let's take a look at the altitude. The altimeter in the animation, according to the flight data recorder, shows 180 feet one second prior to impact. Let's see if this is accurate. All aircraft have an altimeter that measure aircraft height above sea level, according to barometric pressure.

Note in the animation provided by the NTSB that the aircraft altimeter shows 300 feet while it's sitting on the runway, ready for take off. This is the field elevation above sea level for Dulles Airport, as the pilots have set the local barometric pressure of 30.21. To set the altimeter to the local barometric pressure, pilots use this window. This altimeter shows 29.92. To change that to the correct local barometric pressure, they use this nob.

This is a diagram from the FAA that shows the layout and classes of controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Once above 18,000 feet, all aircraft set their altimeters to 29.92. This is shown in the animation provided by the NTSB. As the pilots climb through 18,000 feet, they set their altitude to 29.92 from their previous barometric setting and the altimeter snaps back. Watch again. Note the aircraft doesn't change in pitch. There it is. They just set 29.92 in the window.

The hard data file that we have from the NTSB shows the altimeter being set on the climb through 18,000 and on the descent through 18,000 feet. Let's see if that's the case in the animation. Upon descent, we should see the same type of snap back we saw on the climb, however in reverse. As the aircraft descends through 18,000 feet, once the local barometric pressure is set, it will indicate actual altitude above sea level. Let's watch to see if this altimeter is being set during descent in the animation [the altimeter doesn't snap back after descending 18,000 feet]. The trend continues. There is no snap back. The altimeter is still set to 29.92. We will have to manually correct for this from here on out, as the aircraft is actually 300 feet higher than indicated.

Considering the hard data file that we have shows the altimeter being set through 18,000 feet, and the animation does not, that is a blatant coverup to make the animation aircraft appear lower than it actually is.

I understand that Rob Balsamo has logged a call with the NTSB raising these discrepancies.

As you now know, it was Jeff Hill, who represented P4T, who made and recorded his call to the man from the NTSB who signed off on the information given to P4T, and to the NTSB's callback as well.

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?

Not to my knowledge. However, they have said that they contacted the FBI, but have said that they refused to comment.

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.

I disagree. The NTSB have made it clear that they don't wish to elaborate on the discrepancies. The FBI have apparently done the same. I personally believe that P4T shouldn't spend any more time with these organizations who clearly wish to avoid revealing anything more than they already have. Instead, I believe that their focus should be on people like you, who disagree with their stance but are atleast willing to go over why you disagree.

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

Q, the alleged black box is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire official story concerning the pentagon attack is lacking. This is just one more piece.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Scott G

[merril]

Pandora's Black Box, Chapter II

I scrolled through this to see what it was, and could not believe what I saw. Someone had included footage of a cruise missile, with animation of it hitting the building. I think it's clear, they don't know enough about what happened. There is make-believe, and there is inaccuracy.

Just because the Atta gang did not walk everyone through a primer of what they intended to do, with instructional videos and national broadcasts, does not mean it did not happen.

NORAD tapes-

Pentagon Strike: We've also lost American 77

Pilot Witness- Pentagon Attack