General of all American Intelligence:

[Q24]

I’ll wait for you to catch up with the thread (you seem to be working through in order) before I post anything further, Scott

I am though in the process of registering on the CIT forum. I’ve decided to put my presumption to the test: -

I would be on ‘vacation’ in no time if I went in there questioning the impartiality of their eyewitness sampling…

[ValkyrieWings]

I would be on ‘vacation’ in no time if I went in there questioning the impartiality of their eyewitness sampling, so I won’t waste my time.

I am though in the process of registering on the CIT forum.

My bolding above.

Nuff said.

Scott, please review the fulll post after "No, It does not".

Heres a hint:

"The video is using the hypothetical argument/excuse used by impact theorists."... "its still too high..."

so that's 2 seconds prior to impact when this was recorded.

The last DME recorded was at 2 seconds prior to "impact time". DME is recorded every 4 secinds. That doesn't mean all data stopped at that time. Altitude is recorded every second, and if you open the data, and listen to the video, you'll understand this point being made. The last altitude data point was recorded at 1 second prior to "impact time" according to NTSB. P4T hypothetically "moved" the last altitude point to the DME point, to show that its still too high, based on "impact theorist" arguments.

Enojy your weekend guys!

Edited August 9, 2009 by ValkyrieWings

[Q24]

My bolding above.

Nuff said.

It looks like I’m going to have to spell this out like everything else. My first reaction was that I shouldn’t waste my time. On reflection I thought it wouldn’t hurt and we can see if my presumption is correct. It is a basic human right to be able to change ones mind.

I have asked the question of CIT now as you and Scott fail to engage on it. I’m going to add another assumption, that is I’m sure you will both swallow whatever answer is given there.

[Q24]

Well well Scott, for all of CIT’s claims that no eyewitnesses contradict their North of Citgo flight path, I found today this is not true and CIT know it! From their own interview, Keith Wheelhouse draws out in front of them what he witnessed - a flight path that matches near flawlessly with the official approach. See the link to the CIT forum above for details. If this does not demonstrate CIT’s insincerity to you then I don't know what will.

Any comments?

[Q24]

Best look now if you are going to Scott. I'm only 4 posts in and already they are threatening to ban me I wouldn’t be surprised to see the whole thread disappear after that. I am being very civil – asking questions, making suggestions, basing this on available evidence. But it’s obvious they don’t like that I’m questioning their North of Citgo path… don’t like it one bit and aren’t truly interested in debating. I reckon I have one or two posts left at best – this could beat my Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum record!

[Scott G]

Best look now if you are going to Scott. I'm only 4 posts in and already they are threatening to ban me I wouldn’t be surprised to see the whole thread disappear after that. I am being very civil – asking questions, making suggestions, basing this on available evidence. But it’s obvious they don’t like that I’m questioning their North of Citgo path… don’t like it one bit and aren’t truly interested in debating. I reckon I have one or two posts left at best – this could beat my Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum record!

I was afraid something like this would happen. Could you provide a link to the forum? I've been there in the past, but don't want to have to look it up again.

Rightly or wrongly, many forum administrators don't take kindly to having their fundamental beliefs disputed. I say rightly or wrongly because their beliefs may or may not be right. This is besides the point, however. The fact of the matter is that few people have the patience to do a thorough enough analysis to understand understand -why- people disagree with their beliefs. As I stated over at P4T, compared to others, you're pretty dang civil. And yes, I'm aware that the same can't always be said of how they've treated you, and you know that I've criticized them in the past for some of the language they've used to describe you.

For me, the admins of places like P4T and CIT are like wise hermits. I think they have immense amounts of knowledge, but if you don't get everything that they have to say quickly or atleast believe what they have to say even if you don't understand all the workings of their arguments, they tend to jump to the conclusion that you're a troll, handicapped, etc.

My approach is somewhat different. I don't only determine whether or not someone is wrong. Once one knows enough, I don't think this is too hard. Instead, I attempt to determine -why- a person is wrong. This takes a lot more time. With this in mind, I spent hours creating a post tree for this thread. It is now complete:

http://scott3x.tripod.com/post_trees/um/co...ntelligence.htm

It may not mean anything to anyone else, but with this knowledge, I've created 17 subthread flowcharts. With this information, I can determine what posts have never been responded to; this was something that came in handy when I mounted your defense over at P4T, although I made a mistake, due to your penchant for responding to multiple posts in a single post; this time, I have been fairly careful in making sure that I connect -all- the posts you respond to in your multi-response posts. Now, armed with my flowcharts, it should be easy to verify what has and has not been properly responded to in this thread.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

I decided to go look for your posts Q, and I found them. For anyone interested, his thread is here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=677

Their last post looks persuasive to me anyway. And as to your claim that you look like you're in trouble over there already, I would tend to agree, from this statement from Aldo Marquis:

Sir, I suggest you stop your campaign or contact the witnesses yourself. The north side flight path overrides anyone who claims to have seen the official flight path. This logically has to be given more credence. If you continue to disregard the criteria we followed, I will be forced to ask you to leave. Do you understand?

I, ofcourse, think that CIT is quite right when they say that they have interviewed 100% of the witnesses at the citgo gas station and that you should give it more credence. However, my approach to your obstinacy in not seeing things this way is somewhat.. different than theirs.

And I do have an account over there, as I confirmed when I tried to re-register. The problem is I don't remember my username, and without that, I can't get my info again. I even have my original validation email, but it doesn't say my user name either, laugh ;-). Fortunately, I still have my P4T account, so I'll just ask Craig over there...

Edited August 10, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

With this in mind, I spent hours creating a post tree for this thread. It is now complete:

http://scott3x.tripod.com/post_trees/um/co...ntelligence.htm

That looks interesting Scott. Can you send me a PM describing how it works and how to interpret the post tree?

I decided to go look for your posts Q, and I found them. For anyone interested, his thread is here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=677

Their last post looks persuasive to me anyway. And as to your claim that you look like you're in trouble over there already, I would tend to agree, from this statement from Aldo Marquis:

Yes, looks like I’m doomed!

The north side flight path overrides anyone who claims to have seen the official flight path.

I asked Aldo to explain this statement of his because as I said over there it seems completely void of logic or reason to me Could be the nail in my CIT forum coffin but heck I just can’t keep quiet about these things

[Scott G]

QUOTE (Scott G @ Aug 10 2009, 02:33 AM) *

With this in mind, I spent hours creating a post tree for this thread. It is now complete:

http://scott3x.tripod.com/post_trees/um/co...ntelligence.htm

That looks interesting Scott. Can you send me a PM describing how it works and how to interpret the post tree?

Since I put it here, I figure I might as well explain it here. In theory, someone else might be interested :-). It's important to note that the first row defines what will be in all the rest. I think Post# and Poster are self explanatory. Subthreads are branches of this thread. Post responded to and Replyee are self explanatory as well I think.

So, in the next row, we have:

1, which stands for the post#

Next, we have the poster, expandmymind, which I abbreviated to e.

Next, we have the subthread that this post is in; since it's the very first post, it's in subthread 1. Note that the subthreads have a beginning and subthread 1 begins (naturally) with post 1, which is why it is named subthread 1.

Next, we have the post that post 1 is responding to. Since it's the beginning of the thread, it's clearly not responding to anyone, which is why it has the -.

Next, we have the person that the post is responding to. Again, since it's the beginning of the thread and is thus not responding to anyone, it has a -.

The second row works the same way, as do the 203 rows that follow it.

Even by itself, the post tree can be useful. If you want to backtrack a conversation, it's simple enough.

Case in point. I take a look at your post 143. I want to see my original reply to you, to see if you perhaps missed something important in it. Now if I didn't have the post tree, it would mean I would have to go searching quite a few posts. With the post tree, however, I would simply look up 143 (quite easy since the list is organized by post number) and then simply go to the "Post responded to" part and determine that you were replying to my post 116.

But the real magic of the post tree is what you can do with it. For while I have used the above mentioned scenario in the past, especially in threads that get into the thousands, what post trees are essenital for are for creating post flow charts of the various thread branches. As a matter of fact, I create the thread branches -after- I do the flow charts; their beginnings are generally formed when I'm getting too close to the bottom of a page to continue (I use letter sized pages). With the post flow charts, I can then determine something which I have frequently found invaluable; whether or not any given post has ever been responded to. There are few things I find more annoying then responding to a post only to find that someone else had already responded to the post in the past; at times, -I- may have been the responder, which is even more embarassing. With the post flow charts, these types of scenarios are avoided. Furthermore, one can do rather neat tricks without too much effort, such as the one I did here, with a guy who felt that he knew how insurance works, and applied his 'knowledge' to a discussion on the insurance policy of the Twin Towers:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=21...p;postcount=682

Edited August 10, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

I decided to go look for your posts Q, and I found them. For anyone interested, his thread is here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=677

Their last post looks persuasive to me anyway. And as to your claim that you look like you're in trouble over there already, I would tend to agree, from this statement from Aldo Marquis:

Yes, looks like I’m doomed! laugh.gif

Laugh :-).

The north side flight path overrides anyone who claims to have seen the official flight path.

I asked Aldo to explain this statement of his because as I said over there it seems completely void of logic or reason to me Could be the nail in my CIT forum coffin but heck I just can’t keep quiet about these things

I definitely think that that statement could use some elaboration. Since they have yet to do so, I will offer my own:

Given the fact that all of the witnesses at the citgo gas station have corroborated the north side flight path, the only thing that could over-ride their testimony would be evidence that they were all lying. I ask you, what on earth would motiviate them to lie in such a way? Honestly, if you were going to lie, don't you think it'd make far more sense to lie in a way that -supported- the official story?

[merril]

All of these "internet stars" who want their 15 minutes of attention, regarding some attempt to use the weakest of arguments in the case of American Airlines Flight 77, are really losers, in my estimate.

They are on a path of delusion.

Or, possibly just huxters panning for some quick bucks off the ignorant and uninformed.

Get a real life!

The official interpretation uses science.

Others use "internet coniving".

What a scam.

Edited August 10, 2009 by merril

[Scott G]

All of these "internet stars" who want their 15 minutes of attention, regarding some attempt to use the weakest of arguments in the case of American Airlines Flight 77, are really losers, in my estimate.

They are on a path of delusion.

Or, possibly just huxters panning for some quick bucks off the ignorant and uninformed.

Get a real life!

The official interpretation uses science.

Others use "internet coniving".

What a scam.

I think you know that I see things the other way around; that is, that the official story is the scam and bypassed the scientific method for the political method on a regular basis. Furthermore, in regards to your allegation of scamming, there's no mistaking the fact that people within the Bush Administration made a killing off of 9/11; when one combines this with the evidence that they themselves implemented it, we have perhaps the biggest scam in history, along with what the banks are doing these days. Now, to be fair, republicans weren't alone in the bank scams, and I don't believe they were alone concerning 9/11 either. However, I do believe they were definitely more of a force then the democrats; while I have heard from an alleged insider that 9/11 was going to come to pass whether or not Bush one in 2000, I think it would have been harder to keep the lid on things if a democrat had presided over the event and its coverup.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

Glad to see you remembered your username Scott!

A couple of points from ‘over there’ – you asked: -

As I think you know, I believe your version of events. However, I don't understand the logic here. Assuming that there are in fact witnesses who claim to have seen the official flight path, why should the north side flight path witnesses over-ride the south path ones?

A very pertinent question to which Aldo (CIT) replied: -

First of all, there are none.

To say “there are none” is a complete lie and CIT know it. You see, they are well aware that eyewitness Mike Walter has corroborated the official flight path. They also stood and watched another eyewitness, Keith Wheelhouse, sketch the flight path he saw which happens to be a near perfect match to the official approach. Both of these examples are contained in the thread.

Why were you lied to?

Because quite simply they have a dishonest agenda.

Then look how they talk to you: -

No, "Scott75", what I said if he continues to disregard our criteria then I will ask him to leave. You can do the same if you don't like it.

We don't have time for it Scott, and frankly, I don't feel the need to explain anything to you.

Why do they feel the need to talk to you like that?

Because they know their theories are shaky when questioned and they are scared of losing control of their forum, ie their theories would quickly be overwhelmed and exposed if they did not keep constant control like this.

I‘m actually surprised I haven‘t been banned yet - 12 posts is more than I ever thought I‘d get in.

Edit: I no longer need be surprised as I have been suspended. Still, it was a good run

Anyhow, thanks for explaining the post tree. It makes sense in that separate lines of discussion can clearly be followed through and as you say it makes apparent if anything has been left behind. I would think about doing something similar for future threads as unfortunately my memory is not always infallible but then it looks like a lot of work!

Edited August 11, 2009 by Q24

[Scott G]

Glad to see you remembered your username Scott!

Actually I didn't- I told Craig Ranke I'd forgotten it over at P4T, so he went and looked it up; it was a decidedly unoroginal user name as you can see ;-).

A couple of points from ‘over there’ – you asked: -

As I think you know, I believe your version of events. However, I don't understand the logic here. Assuming that there are in fact witnesses who claim to have seen the official flight path, why should the north side flight path witnesses over-ride the south path ones?

A very pertinent question to which Aldo (CIT) replied: -

QUOTE

First of all, there are none.

To say “there are none” is a complete lie and CIT know it. You see, they are well aware that eyewitness Mike Walter has corroborated the official flight path.

Aldo explained in detail why Walter couldn't have been a witness to the North of Citgo flight path. I'll quote the relevant excerpt:

[*]Walter: CIT had dinner with Walter and discussed 9/11 including the Pentagon impact though he refused to provide a formal interview. You don’t say, but it is hard to imagine there was not opportunity whatsoever to request a sketch of the flight path.

Again, [we had spoken] with him PRIOR to any knowledge of the north side witnesses. Why would we ask for a drawing when CIT detractor Russell Pickering already interviewed him and he approved of a flight path, his location, and the trees that blocked his view?

http://web.archive.org/web/20051217214925/...h.com/mike.html

Russell Pickering attempted to remove this drawing as it is not available on the archive. But luckily, I saved it in my photobucket:

They also stood and watched another eyewitness, Keith Wheelhouse, sketch the flight path he saw which happens to be a near perfect match to the official approach. Both of these examples are contained in the thread.

Why were you lied to?

I haven't seen any evidence that they've ever lied to me, or to you for that matter. As mentioned, I believe they dealt with your issues concerning Walters. However, I haven't seen that they addressed all your points on Wheelhouse. They may have simply missed them, but if so, I'll bring it up with them. I think I'm going to make a post tree for that thread.

Update: They don't number their posts. Trying to make a post tree with un-numbered posts is.. aggrivating, laugh :-p. Not sure if I'll continue with that...

Edited August 11, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Q24, I have now done a post tree for the CIT thread you created. It can be found here:

http://scott3x.tripod.com/post_trees/CIT/s...e_witnesses.htm

I got around the thorny issue of not having post numbers by using the first few words in a post as markers that helped me identify what the poster number was. In doing the post tree, I found that they did, in fact, address all the points of yours that I have seen regarding Wheelhouse.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

They also stood and watched another eyewitness, Keith Wheelhouse, sketch the flight path he saw which happens to be a near perfect match to the official approach.

You mentioned the same thing over at CIT in your post 13 there (identifying terms: To sum). Craig responded in a little over an hour. I wish I could link to his post, but I can't. The best I can do is link to the page:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...ic=677&st=0

With the (expanded) identifying terms being "Wheelhouse admitted".

In the first part of it, he states:

Wheelhouse admitted that he did not remember the citgo at all and if he was telling the truth about his location we know for a fact that he would not have been able to see the citgo at all so he was not in a position to refute the north side approach.

This is a fact.

In post 18 (page 2, identifying terms "I am aware"), you rebutted:

I am aware that Wheelhouse admitted himself he could not see the Citgo. This is irrelevant to the fact that you have an eyewitness who unambiguously recollects, and even sketched for you, the flight on the official South approach path.

Aldo, in post 38 (page 3, identifying terms "Actually no, it is quite relevant"), in turn countered:

Actually no it is quite relevant, especially considering he can't see the official flight path. Go ahead. Look again. It's ok to admit you were wrong.

It's relevant, because clearly he could not see the flight path AT ALL, and yet was able to draw the official path. That would qualify as someone as either coached on the official path or someone who researched it before our interview.

By the way, Craig Ranke has mentioned that you have now been unsuspended (page 4, post 51, identifying terms "I know there are"). However, you may wish to post here instead of there, atleast for now. Any points that I can't counter I can bring up over there myself; since I agree with their beliefs, I think it's less risky if I bring the points up, especially considering the fact that you've upset them so recently...

Edited August 11, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

Aldo explained in detail why Walter couldn't have been a witness to the North of Citgo flight path. I'll quote the relevant excerpt:

Oh Scott, just because ‘Aldo says’ there were trees in the way, this does not mean Walter was lying. You see the aircraft did actually come from an area before and above the trees so the flight path could certainly still be witnessed. Neither do trees necessarily block all view in any case. The same excuse is rolled out by CIT for all of the eyewitnesses on that stretch of the highway.

I haven't seen any evidence that they've ever lied to me, or to you for that matter.

You were just told “there are none [south approach eyewitnesses]” when clearly there are. If CIT were objective they would treat all eyewitness accounts to the same standards. Why do you allow CIT to decide for you who is a reliable eyewitness and who is not?

I found that they did, in fact, address all the points of yours that I have seen regarding Wheelhouse.

Responding to and actually addressing are two different things.

With the (expanded) identifying terms being "Wheelhouse admitted".

In the first part of it, he states:

In post 18 (page 2, identifying terms "I am aware"), you rebutted:

Aldo, in post 38 (page 3, identifying terms "Actually no, it is quite relevant"), in turn countered:

What this comes down to is the claim that yet again trees are in the way of a South approach eyewitness. As I said above, trees do not necessarily block all view of the sky and official flight path. This is just the poor but easy excuse CIT roll out to ignore eyewitnesses to the official flight path.

Please realise these two facts Scott: -

• They will attack any eyewitness who describes the official South approach.
  
• They will ignore problems of any eyewitness who describes a North approach.
  

By the way, Craig Ranke has mentioned that you have now been unsuspended (page 4, post 51, identifying terms "I know there are"). However, you may wish to post here instead of there, atleast for now. Any points that I can't counter I can bring up over there myself; since I agree with their beliefs, I think it's less risky if I bring the points up, especially considering the fact that you've upset them so recently...

Thanks for the offer but I don’t see it as any loss if I’m banned over there – it just proves my point that they will silence dissenters rather than face a debate of their evidence. I’m going to keep on the question they still have not answered regarding how many South approach eyewitnesses they are aware of, though I will rephrase it for them so maybe Aldo will lighten up.

[Q24]

I hope you don’t get dizzy jumping back and forth like this, Scott.

I'm guessing Q's original post was either sent to someone via PM or deleted, because it's clearly not here. Anyway, I'm glad that it's atleast here in quote form. I'll just quote it again...

Aldo deleted my post. The thread has been locked. Craig has informed me that the CIT forums are in fact not a place for discussion. They are obviously terrified of free speech and losing control of opinion. When are you going to start getting the hint about the agenda of these people Scott?

Aldo already answered this question. Here is his answer:

No, read my question word for word: -

• How many eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the aircraft on the official South flight path, such as Wheelhouse and Walter, are CIT aware of?
  

Whether Aldo wants to believes the eyewitnesses were mistaken or lying, or trees were in the way, or all those working for the media are suspect, or that there are irregularities in the account does not come into it whatsoever.

CIT refuse to answer a relevant question and when you do that in an honest debate, you lose.

I hope you understand why they would not answer that question. If they had supplied all of the eyewitnesses who support the official flight path, it would destroy CIT’s theory. If they acted like they were unaware of these eyewitnesses who support the official flight path, I would have been rolling them out thus showing that CIT are being selective. The only other option is to refuse the question, which they opted for. It’s a no win situation for CIT and it has to be that way because their evidence is weak and their theory is false.

In the case of Wheelhouse, Craig didn't say that he 'thought' the trees would be blocking his view if he were in the location that he said he was in; he stated it as fact.

I don’t care what Craig says in this instance – I’m not some automaton that can be programmed what to believe. I have my own two eyes and a brain, so do you. Look at the image: -

The top of the Navy Annex and approach to it is visible, you can see over the trees, there are gaps between the trees, the Pentagon is visible also. I’m not saying that gives a perfect view but it is absolutely plausible that Wheelhouse could witness a large portion of the flight path. He could also see if there was a flyover – there wasn’t. Please stop letting Craig brainwash you and start thinking for yourself.

Whether it's one fraudulent account or 10, how would it make a difference?

In my opinion there is nothing fraudulent about the great number of eyewitness accounts to the official flight path and impact. What my question is designed to uncover is exactly how many of these eyewitnesses CIT have attacked and ignored for one reason or another. When all’s said and done I am willing to bet, no – I know, that there are more eyewitnesses to the official account than there are for the North of Citgo claim.

Anyhow, I’ve had the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT experience… Loose Change forum next?

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 217, Part 1

Aldo explained in detail why Walter couldn't have been a witness to the North of Citgo flight path. I'll quote the relevant excerpt:

Again, [we had spoken] with him PRIOR to any knowledge of the north side witnesses. Why would we ask for a drawing when CIT detractor Russell Pickering already interviewed him and he approved of a flight path, his location, and the trees that blocked his view?

http://web.archive.org/web/20051217214925/...h.com/mike.html

Russell Pickering attempted to remove this drawing as it is not available on the archive. But luckily, I saved it in my photobucket:

Oh Scott, just because ‘Aldo says’ there were trees in the way, this does not mean Walter was lying.

I agree. To quote what you said in a post over at CIT:

It does not make an eyewitness “suspect” just because their mind may falsely elaborate on, confuse or forget some details. This is all natural and to be expected in eyewitness testimony. Again, see the example of Lagasse – do his irregularities automatically make him “suspect”?

So I'm amenable to the idea that Walter may have been confused as to what he saw. But there seems little doubt in my mind that, so long as he was where he says he was, he couldn't have whether the plane took a path north or south of the citgo gas station. Honestly, I think that you really are grasping at straws when you need to rely on "potential" witnesses that may not even exist in an effort to counter all 3 of the verified eyewitnesses at the citgo gas station, who all strongly corroborate the north of the citgo gas station flight path. Furthermore, why do you think it is that all the videotapes were confiscated shortly after the pentagon explosion? Don't you think that Lloyd England's account is immensely suspicious? Recall that he is the only person who was apparently in the vicinity of the downed light poles, a crucial part of the alleged south of citgo gas station flight path evidence, when they allegedly came down (one of which allegedly fell onto his car, breaking the windshield). You claim to have seen CIT's documentary, Lloyd England and his Taxi Cab: The Eye of the Storm, but you were mute when I pointed out some immensely suspicious excerpts from CIT's conversation with him, which I mentioned in post 73 in this thread. Here it is again:

Lloyd: No I wasn't supposed to be involved in this. This is too big for me man this is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening, I'm a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff.

CIT: But you said. Lloyd, what do you mean?

Lloyd: Well I'm not supposed to be involved in this, I don't have nothing.

CIT: So your point that these people that have all the money..

Lloyd: This is their thing.

CIT: This is their thang.

LLoyd: This is for them.

CIT: Meaning they're doing it for their own reasons.

Lloyd: That's right. I'm not supposed to be in it.

CIT: But they used you, right?

Lloyd: I'm in it.

CIT: You're in it.

Lloyd: Yeah, we came across, across the highway together.

CIT: You and their event.

Lloyd: That's right.

CIT: But they must have planned that.

Lloyd: It was planned.

CIT: They meant for you to be there didn't they?

Lloyd: No. They didn't mean for me to be there. You know what history is? Just what I said you gotta understand what you are saying. History is his story.

CIT: Absolutely.

Lloyd:

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

[emphasis mine]

There is then a cut to Craig Ranke preparing us for a further segment of the interview:

Another notable detail that we found out in our first interview with Lloyd is that he was reading a book by David Icke called children of the matrix on 9/11 and that this book was sitting on the front seat of his cab on that day. We know because they brought up photos showing the cab, showing the inside of the cab and showing how that book was sitting there on the seat. So, we initially asked Lloyd, as soon as he saw the images, 'so you read David Icke?' and he said "Well yeah, I read a little bit of everything" was his response at the time. So now that we have Lloyd in the car, figured it'd be important to have him elaborate a bit on this and sure enough he admitted that he read David Icke, but what's very curious is that he also said, prior to 9/11, he learned about David Icke and other factors from a class that he would take in the area, so, I'm not sure if it was a conspiracy class or what it was exactly, but he suggested that they talked about conspiracies regarding the [death of] Princess Diana and other things, so the real details behind what this class was and whether or not this has anything to do with Lloyd's involvement in this operation we'll never know, but it was certainly a curious point that I think deserves to atleast be mentioned.

[Lloyd England elaborating on David Icke]:

Lloyd: He has experiences and interviews with people that have more knowledge about different things.

CIT: Like what?

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

At around 43:50 in the video:

Lloyd: All this stuff is big game. All this hush hush stuff.

You see the aircraft did actually come from an area before and above the trees so the flight path could certainly still be witnessed.

Part of the flight path perhaps. CIT didn't say that he couldn't see the plane at all, however, only that he wouldn't be able to determine if the flight path was one that went north or south of the citgo gas station, or one that would be able to see if the plane hit the pentagon or not. The fact that one can see the pentagon isn't enough; it had to have afforded a view that would allow one to see whether or not the plane -hit- the pentagon, and CIT determined that this was not the case.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Scott G

[merril]

Wow. They point fingers at some innocent, older, uneducated southern black gentleman, who drives a cab. He probably listens to local radio stations, while he works.

Considering that A.M. radio has been known for an occasional foray into the world of the sensational (conspiracy topics, etc.), it's of little wonder what Mr. England was exposed to.

So, what now? They use round about, indirect questions to infer something that did not happen. You think those questions are subtle enough to suggest a crime, right from his response?

That is so low-life! Trying to implicate that old man.

What a bunch of losers!

Edited August 12, 2009 by merril

[merril]

It has been suggested Hanjour could not fly, or crash the way he did. He evidently had enough instruction and help, both from flight schools and within his terror cell, to do what he did. One other thing, bin Laden did not care where or how they crashed. It was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed that insisted on hard targets. Hani Hanjour managed to do what happened.

It has been suggested that Hanjour did not manage a 270 degree turn, or hit the Pentagon with all the obstacles or terrain in the way.

They also suggest it was unusual that he struck the side where ongoing renovations had been occuring, in a location of fewer persons. And, that this happened to be opposite the side that Rumsfeld's office was located on.

CTs try to lump these together in such as way as to make them seem suspicious, which they are not. The renovation was longstanding, with employees relocating, accordingly.

The videos linked below dispel the notions of impossibility regarding what Hanjour and his islamic co-conspirators did with the plane.

As for crashing the plane on the west facade, it just so happens they hijacked it, did a 180° turn, and flew straight for their target, from 250 miles away. They arrived, and did not play "eeny, meeny, miney, mo". They had it planned long in advance- avoid the parking lot, avoid the nearby airport, avoid D.C. Arrive from the west, and strike the building. It's obviously and completely a pre-conceived crime. And, in truth, it can all be traced back to Abdul Basit Mahmoud Abdul Karim, AKA Ramzi Yousef, with intel help from the insider Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed.

And, As-Sahab identified Hani Hanjour as the hijacker who took control of the plane. So did bin Laden. If that's not the horse's mouth, then what more can anybody say...

Video Link (9 min clip)

Lecture, Delft University of Technology (1 hour)

[Q24]

That is so low-life! Trying to implicate that old man.

I’m going to agree here – the treatment of the taxi cab driver who had a lucky escape on 9/11, Lloyd England, by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) is disgusting. He is a man kind enough to invite these amateur investigators into his home and spend considerable time telling his story. In return he received a smear campaign accusing him of being a liar and an insider to the 9/11 plot because his experience completely debunks the theory that CIT promote. It is apparent that England and his wife are upset by this portrayal but still it goes on.

They also suggest it was unusual that he struck the side where ongoing renovations had been occuring, in a location of fewer persons. And, that this happened to be opposite the side that Rumsfeld's office was located on.

The ongoing renovation meant the area of the Pentagon impacted was bomb/blast resistant. Had the impact occurred to any other side of the Pentagon then increased damage would have been caused. This must be viewed as coincidental at the very least.

The videos linked below dispel the notions of impossibility regarding what Hanjour and his islamic co-conspirators did with the plane.

Simulators are far from real-life and it is noted that neither of the pilots in the video had experience of flying a real Boeing 757. It appears that not all of the topographical features were programmed into the simulation – importantly the Sheraton hotel, Navy Annex, VDOT camera and light poles which were all on the flight path of the aircraft which impacted the Pentagon. The approach in the simulation was also different than on 9/11 where the aircraft skimmed extremely low and level across the Pentagon lawn prior to impact.

I took driving lessons in a simulator which did certainly give a fantastic basis for when I got out on the road. When no one was looking I thought I’d go for a quick joyride. I went off-road without bumping up the kerb, over a low wall without deflection in my course, through a garden with no effect on handling and crashed into a house before the screen juddered to a halt. I’m betting in real life I would have skewed sideways in the air right after hitting the kerb and come to rest against the low wall.

There is no doubt that it would be exceedingly more difficult to perform the manoeuvre in real-life than in a simulator.

And, in truth, it can all be traced back to Abdul Basit Mahmoud Abdul Karim, AKA Ramzi Yousef, with intel help from the insider Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed.

Insider Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed - well identified. This is the man in the employment of the CIA and US special forces at various times. In the same period, he assisted Al Qaeda and is described as bin Laden’s first trainer. He is a form of double-agent. Now all we have to decide is if it’s more likely that Al Qaeda could infiltrate intelligence and special forces units or... more likely that intelligence and special forces could infiltrate Al Qaeda.

Response to Q24's post 217, Part 1

Thanks for that. I’m just waiting for your response to post #218 also before I reply, Scott.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 217, Part 2

I haven't seen any evidence that they've ever lied to me, or to you for that matter.

You were just told “there are none [south approach eyewitnesses]” when clearly there are.

I have seen no evidence of that. Rather, I have only seen evidence that there were some who allegedly claimed that they saw the plane approach the pentagon from the south side of the Citgo gas station. Perhaps most importantly, I have seen none of those claims withstand scrutiny.

If CIT were objective they would treat all eyewitness accounts to the same standards.

I contend that they did. More specifically, I believe that CIT analyzed all the claims they could concerning alleged south of the Citgo gas station approach claims, and found that the few claims that claimed a south path couldn't have been true. Most importantly, all of the eye witnesses who were actually -at- the gas station all concur that the plane approached from the North side. You apparently contend that this is indeed damning to the official story and yet you somehow think that there are witnesses 'out there' that balance this out. In other words, at present, you have no solid evidence that supports the official story. This is grasping at straws.

Why do you allow CIT to decide for you who is a reliable eyewitness and who is not?

I don't. I've analyzed their claims myself. However, thanks to your efforts, I found that there were some points that I was still unclear on, which is why I brought them up over at P4T. Also, thanks to your posts over at both P4T and CIT, I found other things I was previously unware of were dealt with as well.

I found that they did, in fact, address all the points of yours that I have seen regarding Wheelhouse.

Responding to and actually addressing are two different things.

Granted. However, I believe they have also addressed all your points regarding Wheelhouse as well. Apparently, however, you don't feel this way, which is why we are still discussing these issues, laugh ;-).

Edited August 13, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post 217, Part 3

In the first part of it, he states:

Wheelhouse admitted that he did not remember the citgo at all and if he was telling the truth about his location we know for a fact that he would not have been able to see the citgo at all so he was not in a position to refute the north side approach.

This is a fact.

In post 18 (page 2, identifying terms "I am aware"), you rebutted:

I am aware that Wheelhouse admitted himself he could not see the Citgo. This is irrelevant to the fact that you have an eyewitness who unambiguously recollects, and even sketched for you, the flight on the official South approach path.

Aldo, in post 38 (page 3, identifying terms "Actually no, it is quite relevant"), in turn countered:

Actually no it is quite relevant, especially considering he can't see the official flight path. Go ahead. Look again. It's ok to admit you were wrong.

It's relevant, because clearly he could not see the flight path AT ALL, and yet was able to draw the official path. That would qualify as someone as either coached on the official path or someone who researched it before our interview.

What this comes down to is the claim that yet again trees are in the way of a South approach eyewitness. As I said above, trees do not necessarily block all view of the sky and official flight path.

Again, you have presented absolutely no evidence that Wheelhouse could see if the plane was on a flight path that was north or south of the Citgo gas station. The fact that he may have seen the flight path -before- that point is irrelevant.

[*]They will ignore problems of any eyewitness who describes a North approach.

You have never demonstrated this to be the case.

Thanks for the offer but I don’t see it as any loss if I’m banned over there – it just proves my point that they will silence dissenters rather than face a debate of their evidence.

I'd say it's more that you haven't understood all their points and they've gotten frustrated with you. However, I think I'm fairly patient when it comes to explaining things so perhaps I can get through to you...

Edited August 14, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to post 218, Part 1

I hope you don’t get dizzy jumping back and forth like this, Scott.

So long as I have post trees and accompanying flow charts of the threads in question (and I do), it's no problem ;-).

I'm guessing Q's original post was either sent to someone via PM or deleted, because it's clearly not here. Anyway, I'm glad that it's atleast here in quote form. I'll just quote it again...

Aldo deleted my post.

Ok...

The thread has been locked.

Yep, noticed that.

Craig has informed me that the CIT forums are in fact not a place for discussion.

Actually, that's not exactly what he said. He spoke of debate, not discussion. Quoting the exchange between you and Craig Ranke:

I let you back here because there is no longer a debate forum.

Just so we are clear, the CIT forum is not for open debate?

I guess that would explain why my last post was deleted.

That is correct it is not open for debate since we provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes that would explain why your last post was deleted.

Honestly, I think that his words in some ways don't get to the heart of the matter. I personally think that a previous exchange I had with Craig Ranke on the subject was much more on the mark. Here it is:

These types of attacks are expected due to the content and serious world historical implications of what we have uncovered.

We've been dealing with this for 3 years now and since NSA was released the attacks on us have seriously escalated which is why we may be a bit jumpy and intolerant so I apologize for that.

Yes, I suspected as much. I can imagine what it's like to have done so much work, only to have every Tom, Dick and Harry questioning things you've gone over many times and making accusations of your work based on evidence you know to be flimsy at best or completely wrong at worst. I can easily imagine that you might be frustrated with 'armchair warriors' that ask that you do more to bolster your case when you've already done so much, while they themselves seem content with the official story and see no need to corroborate its findings themselves.