Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses


Q24

Recommended Posts

There have been more insults dropped in this thread than can be easily edited. Please keep posts civil, as per UM posting guidelines.

Karlis -- mod team member

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish that the "topic of Flight 77", was actually the "topic" of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish that the "topic of Flight 77", was actually the "topic" of this thread.

It started off that way. :)

But as all 9/11 threads seem to trend, everything 9/11 seeps in. The good, the bad, and they ugly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It started off that way. :)

But as all 9/11 threads seem to trend, everything 9/11 seeps in. The good, the bad, and they ugly.

Well, let's start over again.

\

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=219063

I don't think that Frank Probst's testimony should be discounted.

Oh Q24, your link in post #2 is broken.

Edited by Likely Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's start over again.

\

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=219063

I don't think that Frank Probst's testimony should be discounted.

Oh Q24, your link in post #2 is broken.

It looks like the link is down because NIST/ASCE have made the document available on purchase only. Suggest everyone save this free version now in case anyone gets funny about the copyright (even though it’s been freely available for years): -

The Pentagon Building Performance Report

This thread was really finished when the only active Pentagon 'flyover' theorist around disappeared. Analysis of the full eyewitness testimony alone, not to mention the physical evidence and radar data, makes their theory completely untenable. There was certainly no flyover at the Pentagon but a very definite aircraft approach and impact... though evidence to the specific identity of that aircraft is less well founded...

Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zero editing actually. Not that you'll ever understand that.

I don't suppose you did any fact checking to determine whether or not this person doing the analysis made any errors did you? I found some. See if you can spot any when you compare his analysis with the actual transcript.

Here's the actual transcript.

... *Snip* ...

No, if you compare the actual transcript above with his analysis you should be able to find his errors. As for the pauses that he makes such a big deal about, I would think that in a scenario like she and the others were facing that pauses would be expected. Besides, she does finally clarify that she is having a hard time hearing them, which also accounts for why she may not have answered the seat question correctly.

Look at it this way Boo. I could happily and easily, for the sake of argument, support your point and agree with your point that the lists released were ACTUALLY victim lists, and specifically NOT intended to be any sort of passenger manifest.

No problem.

But, there are so many OTHER amended and retracted and otherwise modified statements relating to this incident that the list we discuss is a very minor, almost trivial, point. That is, in the proverbial Big Picture, the entire story is riddled with inconsistentcies and errors. Sometimes efforts were made to correct glaring errors, sometimes they were let stand.

The cumulative effect of these things is to render the OCT not just improbable, but impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could happily and easily, for the sake of argument, support your point and agree with your point that the lists released were ACTUALLY victim lists, and specifically NOT intended to be any sort of passenger manifest.

No problem.

That is what people have been telling you for months!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q

Then your position is that those witnesses placing a Boeing inbound towards the Pentagon north of Citgo are unreliable or lying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q

Then your position is that those witnesses placing a Boeing inbound towards the Pentagon north of Citgo are unreliable or lying?

They are either lying, or, were mistaken because the path of destruction leading to, and inside the Pentagon disproves the theory that American 77 passed north of the gas station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at it this way Boo. I could happily and easily, for the sake of argument, support your point and agree with your point that the lists released were ACTUALLY victim lists, and specifically NOT intended to be any sort of passenger manifest.

No problem.

Then I expect you'll never raise this falsehood again in the future, right?

But, there are so many OTHER amended and retracted and otherwise modified statements relating to this incident that the list we discuss is a very minor, almost trivial, point. That is, in the proverbial Big Picture, the entire story is riddled with inconsistentcies and errors. Sometimes efforts were made to correct glaring errors, sometimes they were let stand.

The cumulative effect of these things is to render the OCT not just improbable, but impossible.

Every time you have seemingly conceded a point you've made a similar statement. Just how many of these supposed inconsistencies have we whittled away now? Are you still counting your prior concessions in the cumulative effect of your proverbial Big Picture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q

Then your position is that those witnesses placing a Boeing inbound towards the Pentagon north of Citgo are unreliable or lying?

I don't think any individual eyewitness, or even group of eyewitnesses are reliable (though not necessarily because they are lying). I think this type of evidence is even more unreliable when those reporting on it, like CIT who you know of, are themselves shown unreliable in providing a complete and objective account. Ideally with this type of evidence, to draw a conclusion, I believe we need one set of eyewitness accounts much larger than another and preferably supported by other evidence... which is exactly what an aircraft impact at the Pentagon has in its favour. Please see the OP for further explanation.

PS I'm still planning to get back to you in PM.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...
On 10/20/2012 at 4:29 AM, Q24 said:

I don't think any individual eyewitness, or even group of eyewitnesses are reliable (though not necessarily because they are lying). I think this type of evidence is even more unreliable when those reporting on it, like CIT who you know of, are themselves shown unreliable in providing a complete and objective account. Ideally with this type of evidence, to draw a conclusion, I believe we need one set of eyewitness accounts much larger than another and preferably supported by other evidence... which is exactly what an aircraft impact at the Pentagon has in its favour. Please see the OP for further explanation.

PS I'm still planning to get back to you in PM.

Is there any chance of resurrecting this thread?

New member here, with some fresh clues.

I have not yet digested all 73 pages, but I see what was a promising avenue of investigation was derailed quite early on.

There has been very little, if any, new material discussed on the Pentagon 9/11 for many years. That has all changed now, with the recent discovery of details on numerous FOIA-released videos which show us exactly what was happening at the Pentagon within the first few minutes post impact, proving conclusively that the highest levels of U.S. government and military were responsible for the atrocities of that day against its own people, and for the ongoing slaughter offshore.

This new evidence both builds on, and corrects CIT's work. Had they followed the trail of crumbs to its conclusion, rather than demonising a humble, honest hard-working cab driver, and tragically relinquishing their grip on civility on public forums, they would have been the ones to discover this abundant information, ten years ago. Now the passion has all but died, with a whole generation having grown up since 9/11.

Scott G. had some insightful things to say at the beginning of this thread, but didn't quite manage to put the puzzle together.

Anybody still out there who cares?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RubyGray said:

*snip*

There has been very little, if any, new material discussed on the Pentagon 9/11 for many years.

*snip*

That’s because the CT’s were too wild and had no logic/evidence which stood up to sceptical scrutiny. Hence still being CT’s. 

Many CT’s were offensive too. 

Terrorists hijacked and crashed planes. Many people lost their lives. Those who survived and were involved shouldn’t have had to be reminded of this over and over by disrespectful CT’s dragging innocent and heroic people through the dirt multiple times. 

Can you give your best ‘fresh clues’ and ‘new evidence’ in a succinct and respectful way to give an idea of what you’re talking about?

Welcome to UM. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Is there any chance of resurrecting this thread?

New member here, with some fresh clues.

I have not yet digested all 73 pages, but I see what was a promising avenue of investigation was derailed quite early on.

There has been very little, if any, new material discussed on the Pentagon 9/11 for many years. That has all changed now, with the recent discovery of details on numerous FOIA-released videos which show us exactly what was happening at the Pentagon within the first few minutes post impact, proving conclusively that the highest levels of U.S. government and military were responsible for the atrocities of that day against its own people, and for the ongoing slaughter offshore.

This new evidence both builds on, and corrects CIT's work. Had they followed the trail of crumbs to its conclusion, rather than demonising a humble, honest hard-working cab driver, and tragically relinquishing their grip on civility on public forums, they would have been the ones to discover this abundant information, ten years ago. Now the passion has all but died, with a whole generation having grown up since 9/11.

Scott G. had some insightful things to say at the beginning of this thread, but didn't quite manage to put the puzzle together.

Anybody still out there who cares?

Can you please post links and/or provide some examples of this? Weird claim to just leave laying around.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the speedy welcome! I note you live just across the water from me here in Tasmania.

Yes, I can be very respectful, unlike many OCTers that I have encountered. I am motivated in this project by my great respect for those victims of 9/11, and also victims of the resultant "war on terror".

"Succinct" might be a little harder, as although the action shown in the various videos I mentioned covers only about 15 minutes, much dirty water has flowed under the bridge (or should that be, OVER the Columbia Pike Overpass Bridge??) during the past 18 years, and it takes some heavy-duty explaining to counteract this with actual evidence.

My access to internet via PC is limited, and this tablet I use at home is not suited to posting my images, so they will be forthcoming sporadically.

Basically, my interest was piqued in the Pentagon saga by Citizen Investigation Team's interviews, most of which I find compelling. However, I strongly object to their treatment of, and conclusions about, cab driver Lloyde England, so I did some research of my own, from the perspective that he sounded genuine to me, and that if he was telling the truth as he claimed, then there could possibly be some hitherto unrecognised video and/or photo evidence which would support his claims.

It is easy enough already to find other eyewitness testimony which, although most of it does not identify him by name, does collaborate Lloyde's story of his location when a pole speared his cab, and confirms the many details of his story which have been almost universally and cynically dismissed as lies.

I am unsure of the protocols on this site so far, as to what other sites and material can be referenced here without bringing down the wrath of the moderators. I have found some moderators to be very immoderate in their wrath over imagined flouting of obscure regulations, but from what I have read here so far, sanity and politeness prevail. I am writing a thread at another site, where this research is being laid out, which can be found by googling "Lloyde England Vindicated with New Evidence".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Can you please post links and/or provide some examples of this? Weird claim to just leave laying around.

Hello! Not so weird a claim, but certainly a thought-provoking one.

See above for helpful hint.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RubyGray, you have to post links to reference material here. 

We are real people and we respect copyright laws also. 

So please post links.

You seem to have a good grasp on human interaction, your threads will get locked here only if you revert to bizarre discussion or other things against forum rules etc. advertisement, spamming, trolling etc. 

So, please post relevant links!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RubyGray, the longer you take to post a reasonable response is always telling. 

You’ve been online, do you have nothing that will live up to scrutiny?  

Especially when you reply to people but offer nothing. 

What’s your best argument against the current public explanation of American Airlines flight 77? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Timothy said:

@RubyGray, the longer you take to post a reasonable response is always telling. 

You’ve been online, do you have nothing that will live up to scrutiny?  

Especially when you reply to people but offer nothing. 

What’s your best argument against the current public explanation of American Airlines flight 77? 

I was sceptical when the original post had no links. Then when I received the response I got I gave up all hope.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RubyGray said:

Basically, my interest was piqued in the Pentagon saga by Citizen Investigation Team's interviews, most of which I find compelling.

Well, there's yer problem!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Timothy said:

@RubyGray, you have to post links to reference material here. 

We are real people and we respect copyright laws also. 

So please post links.

You seem to have a good grasp on human interaction, your threads will get locked here only if you revert to bizarre discussion or other things against forum rules etc. advertisement, spamming, trolling etc. 

So, please post relevant links!

Thanks for the info! Apologies for needing to sleep. Still, this thread has been dormant now for 7 years, so a few more hours should not matter too much. I was not expecting a response at all, after such a gap since the last activity here. I will post more when I get onto a real computer again.

My research began with Lloyde England the cab driver who got such a bad rap from CIT, but his story also overlaps with those of many other witnesses.

Despite concerted haranguing from Craig Ranke as seen in CIT's videos "Lloyde England and his Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm" etc on his Lytetrip YouTube channel, Lloyde always maintained that, when the pole hit his cab windscreen, he was not on top of the Columbia Pike overpass bridge where the iconic photos were taken. He pointed out his location on an overhead map, which is something that CIT in every other instance, submits as proof of the witnesses locations, and confirmation of the North-of-Citgo flight path.

Lloyde specifically pointed to his position on Route 27, opposite and slightly north of the heliport, beside the cemetery retaining wall. This is 350 yards north of the bridge. He had been driving about 50 yards north of that, north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, before he skidded to a halt.

However, in Lloyde's case, Aldo Marquis and Craig had already made up their minds about Lloyde's location, because of the Jason Ingersoll time-stamped photo series, which show the cab on top of the bridge at 9:45 a.m., 8 minutes post impact, although Lloyde does not appear in the photos until several minutes later, notably until after the big black guy arrives in the brown Jeep.

So Craig ridiculed Lloyde's honest attempt to set the record straight. He lost his normally urbane manner in his frustration at trying to get Lloyde to "confess" that he had been on the bridge at impact, and that he was a willing or coerced participant in the plot to damage the cab as a means of "proving" that AA77 flew across the bridge, knocking down that corridor of 5 light poles.

But Lloyde stoically maintained his extraordinary calm insistence that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN ON THE BRIDGE. He was unable to offer any clues as to how he and the cab could have been photographed on the bridge if the cab was elsewhere when the pole hit, which was yet another black mark against him in CIT's estimation.

However his wife Shirley, who was obviously Lloyde's confidante, with total confidence in Lloyde's testimony, made the simple but sage observation, 

"THEY COULD HAVE MOVED YOUR CAB."

Lloyde denied this, confirming that he truly did not know how the cab had been moved from one place to the other. He was mystified about the process, but as he repeatedly stated on two drive-bys of the cemetery wall location with Craig and camera operator Christopher Taylor, 

" I GOT NO PROBLEM WITH THAT."

Lloyde had no apparent curiosity as to how his cab could have been damaged in one place yet photographed and filmed in another, therefore general consensus thanks to Craig's hatchet job is that Lloyde is a lying complicit fraud who somehow benefited from his participation in this scam.

But I believed Lloyde's testimony, and working from his final words to Craig on this video -

"IT'S NOT MY JOB TO TELL YOU ALL THAT. MY JOB IS TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH,"

I went searching for any possible evidence that would explain what CIT perceived as insurmountable anomalies.

Seek and ye shall find. Nobody ever found this evidence before, because, thanks to the high-resolution Ingersoll photo collection, everybody already "knew" that Lloyde's cab was hit by a huge light pole knocked down by hijacked flight AA77 as it flew diagonally across the bridge. Therefore nobody ever needed to look for any other explanation as to how Lloyde and the cab happened to be there.

Lloyde England was the very first witness that Aldo and Craig ever interviewed. This footage is seen in their earlier video, "THE FIRST KNOWN ACCOMPLICE_ FEATURING LLOYDE ENGLAND". CIT maintained that after this 2006 interview, after they had found and published testimony from several North-of-Citgo eyewitnesses, Lloyde had "changed his story" to align his location with those witnesses after the fact.

However, this was a specious claim. From the very first, Lloyde had testified to being at the cemetery wall location. This is obvious from his body language in the segment where he tells his story to camera, indicating with his eyes and arms, where the Pentagon impact site was in relation to him. He points south and to his left, showing that he was far north of the hole in the Pentagon.

Later, when Aldo says to him,

"And when this happened, you were up on the bridge, right?"

Lloyde is clearly astonished that Aldo could have been so mistaken, and three times denied it.

"NO! I wasn't up on no bridge. I was on flat ground."

From the start of their investigation, Lloyde England was CIT's very first North-of-Citgo witness. He never changed his story one iota. He consistently told the awkward truth, but he was viciously maligned by CIT and almost everyone influenced by their work.

The fact is that, if Lloyde England's cab was indeed hit by a pole where he always claimed, when he was driving south on Route 27, north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, then IT MUST HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THE BRIDGE WITHIN 8 MINUTES OF IMPACT, where a military photographer took the definitive photo series

And if that is the case, then this is tangible proof of premeditation and execution of the 9/11 event by the Pentagon itself. 

And if the Pentagon was a self-inflicted wound, then likewise for all the other co-ordinated events of that fateful day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

Well, there's yer problem!

Nope, it's not I who has the problem! It is possible to have a keen interest in a subject with which one strongly disagrees, right? That is what drives discussion on sites such as this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you believe that the so-called "Citizens Investigation Team" have any credibility then you really have to re-examine your own standards of evidence.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.