Response to Q24's post 238, Part 2



I strongly disagree.



He never specifies whether he feels the event is national or international. From what I understand, the event was indeed organized by elites in various nations, amoung them the U.S. I think his mention of people who have money is quite educational. You ever wonder who it was who he introduced CIT to? You know, the guy who gave CIT that crummy picture of the event that he probably just downloaded from the internet?

In many crimes, it's good to analyze who benefits; honestly, Osama Bin Laden certainly didn't benefit from all of this. And at first it was made clear that he flatly denied being involved. Then we get a tape, with a man with a darker complexion and different facial features, purporting to be Bin Laden and "admitting" to the crime. The FBI certainly didn't buy it; to this day, they have never charged Bin Laden with the events of 9/11, simply because they never felt they had enough evidence to do so. Even the Bush administration back pedalled on acusing Bin Laden of the crime, preferring to switch the accusation to a man who, if he wasn't mentally disturbed before he was imprisoned and tortured a horrendous amount, certainly appears to be now. I can't even remember his name right now; the Bush administration seemed to simply use him as a prop.

It's no secret that the 9/11 comission wasn't all that interested in following the money trail, whether it had to do with Pakistan's military financing the Mohammed Atta, or with a company with CIA connections profitting from 9/11 by shorting shares in the 2 airlines involved. Nor is it a secret that Silverstein acquired a hundred year lease on the Twin Towers a few weeks before 9/11, and stipulated in the lease that if the towers were demolished (something that couldn't be legally done due to New York City law), he would have the right to rebuild. And, ofcourse, he bought some hefty terrorist insurance on his buildings. And then there's a bunch of companies within the twin towers that had some shady pasts.




I disagree. He himself mentions a conspiracy, involving what he believes to be the government; what happened to Princess Diana. And it's well known that the author of the book that he was allegedly reading in his car, and that he agrees he was reading, David Icke, is heavy with conspiracy theories. And then there is the 'class' he took that he states he was going to when he was reading this book. I'm puzzled by all of it; it leaves me wanting to know much more; what was this class he went to? Why does his story have so many flaws to it? Who was this man who he split a dollar bill with as he left home? Did the splitting of the dollar bill represent something? What does his wife know? I'm sure there are many more, but this gives a good sampling of how many things have yet to be answered concerning Lloyd's account. And, ofcourse, there are many things we -do- know that I'll get to later.

This post has been edited by Scott G: Aug 15 2009, 10:14 PM

Response to Q24's post 238, Part 3



It seems to me that it's arranged that way to better present the points they'd like to make.




I have seen no evidence of this. I think they are simply trying to explain the significance of what we are about to see at certain parts. One is free to draw one's own conclusions, and those conclusions clearly don't have to agree with theirs; yours certainly don't.

Response to Q24's post 238, Part 4 (final part)



I question how well you remember CIT's video, Lloyde England & His Taxi Cab - The Eye Of The Storm. In an effort to refresh your memory, I have transcribed what Craig Ranke said from 44:55 to 47:05:

So we reached the cab.
You can see now the footage of us examining the cab, taking a look at it inside and out. Ofcourse the hood didn't have scratches on it as you can see on 9/11, it was still preserved that way today.

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.

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.

Which brings up another point. I've always wondered if, in fact, you were in his situation and a pole did spear his windshield. And he ended up on the side of the road, with a pole still sticking out over the hood, what are the chances that you or anyone would attempt to remove that pole, under any circumstances, let alone under a situation where the pentagon was burning right behind you and it was a major attack going on at the time.

This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyd's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyd's account. And after visiting the cab, and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible, in fact now we're even more certain that this light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyd's cab.

This post has been edited by Scott G: Aug 15 2009, 11:25 PM

I've linked to your list over at CIT. We'll see what happens.

Why is there never any outrage against what actually happened, by these outfits who pursue "truth".

People murdered on such a scale and in such a way as to be simply primative, animal, psychotic and brainwashed, showing no principles or internal self-restraint.

All I see are the most disgusting tangents, from people who weren't there, who don;t have all the data, and who only seem to want to further attack the U.S., like a bunch of leftist propagandists.

I would not doubt if there were, at least in the beginning, some islamic sugar-daddies involved in the online smear campaigns.

The Iranians are accused by As-Sahab of initiating much of the propaganda.

Then, there are the junkyard dogs at those "truth" outfits.

Why do they defend their lies (people did not die on an airliner that was hijacked)? They have their little minions. But, who is really behind those "truth" scams?

Truth is fine. But, scams are for shady groups who are suspect in their outrageous accusations. Oh, they say "we make no determination..."

Bull. They are propagandists from the start. They never denounce the hijackers or their philosophy. And, they never denounce the lax airline security in 2001.

They just aim to drive an arrow in one place. It's just anti-american for the sake of being anti-american. They never talk up american principles, or denounce islamic extremists.

That's a scam.

The observation that the official explanation doesn't account for the actual facts is plenty enough reason to go looking for the truth. If your happy to live with cover ups why not go and live in Iraq.

Br Cornelius

Sean Boger places the plane north of the citgo gas station, so disagrees with the official flight path.
http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm

can you explain what made you believe Sean Boger is a witness to the official flight path?

CIT still hasn't said anything, but dMole from P4T has:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775204

I suppose now is the time to tell you that your temporary ban on P4T expired August 8th. Anyway, as I've mentioned to you before, you may want to simply write here; if they want to respond to what you have to say, they can simply come here themselves or respond over there and I'll bring it up. I just don't want to have you permanently banned from there as well.

This post has been edited by Scott G: Yesterday, 08:23 AM

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



There is no reason to ‘wonder’ who Lloyd England introduced CIT to. He is a guy named Mike who lived down the street, happened to be passing the Pentagon on 9/11 and says he took some pictures. There is nothing notable about this… unless we bring in imagination and speculation again.

To explain, when I said “international event” I could equally have specified “large scale event” or as Lloyd describes, “world thing”. Lloyd states that he “wasn’t supposed to be involved”, that it is “too big” for him and that it is for people “who have money”. All he is trying to convey is that he is a regular guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught up in the 9/11 event. To infer Lloyd is talking about being an accomplice to a conspiracy is absolutely unfounded.



A class teaching about conspiracy theories such as that of Princess Diana and a book by David Icke – I just cannot see how you are jumping from this to the idea that Lloyd England was an accomplice to the 9/11 attack. I have also read sections of David Icke’s books and looked in some detail at a number of conspiracy theories – obviously it doesn’t mean I’m going to be an accomplice to an event. I found a conspiracy theories course for you Scott, though if you attended I’m sure it won’t mean you will be an accomplice to any future event either.



Lloyd England’s wife certainly knows that CIT are bad news. There are a couple of points where it seems she is trying to be ‘smart’ with CIT (I don’t blame her) and it comes across like she knows more than she is letting on. For instance, there is an exchange between her and Craig Ranke where it appears she is agreeing to a flyover – “what you said” – but once again, viewed objectively and applying critical thinking, this is apparently sarcasm as in the statement, “yeah, whatever you say”. If Lloyd or his wife knew any ‘inside’ details of the 9/11 plot then CIT would have been booted into touch right at the doorstep.



In my view you are being naïve if you don’t believe that presentations with an agenda will try every trick in the book to sway you. Trust me, the cut scenes from CIT are edited that way specifically to implant their opinion in your mind prior to viewing the evidence; it is a way of restricting viewers from thinking for themselves. The cut scenes could easily have been placed after the viewer has had chance to independently form their own opinion but this would not serve the above purpose for which they were designed. I know you are aware of how the mainstream media works, in which case you should know these techniques.



Perhaps Lloyd England removed the pole because he didn’t want to drive around with it sticking out of his taxi cab. You are making these crazy jumps again – Lloyd removed the light pole from his taxi cab therefore he must be a part of the 9/11 conspiracy? Even if the pole did touch the hood at some point there is absolutely no reason to assume this must cause damage – vehicle paintwork is not going to flake off as soon as it’s touched and neither is a light pole going to corrode wherever it touches like acid or some such.

Really, this whole Lloyd England thing is being hyped and warped into something it is not, and with the assertive nature of CIT and their dirty tricks such as the cut scenes and false premises, people are unfortunately falling for it.



I am aware of the eyewitness list mentioned and it does not account for or excuse the many eyewitnesses that I described to the official flight path and impact – dMole is desperately handwaving but failing to address the point.

We have a contradiction in Sean Boger’s account in that he places the aircraft North of the Citgo station and also witnesses it impact the Pentagon (necessarily as the official South flight path). Due to the physical damage of the Pentagon we know that these claims cannot simultaneously be true – either he was mistaken in the precise flight path of the aircraft or mistaken in that it impacted the Pentagon. Due to perspective error and/or fallibility of the memory, I find it far more likely the exact location of the aircraft was misremembered rather than the fact that he “watched it hit the building” was misremembered. What I do know is that if CIT can somehow find this account satisfactory enough to support their flyover theory then I sure as hell can use it to even better support the official impact event.

This post has been edited by Q24: Yesterday, 06:51 PM

Response to Q24's post 249, Part 1




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




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




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

This post has been edited by Scott G: Yesterday, 08:01 PM

Response to Q24's post 249, Part 2



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




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

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

CIT: Absolutely.

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

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

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



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

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

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

But then, don't we all have personal motivations and viewpoints? And I have yet to meet a person who has no bias at all. I find that the most useful thing is to simply try to put yourself in the shoes of others. Why do they believe or atleast claim to believe this or that? I have found that by attempting to keep to this way of seeing things, that the world becomes an incredibly complex place. On the plus side, however, I find that I get frustrated with people less. When attempting to persuade someone, to me it becomes something like a very complicated puzzle; if I could just find which pieces of evidence that they'd believe and that I could provide, I could persuade them...

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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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

This post has been edited by Scott G: Yesterday, 08:53 PM

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



What points?



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

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

Forgive me Scott but…



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

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

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

They rip into honest people with stupid accusations and innuendo.

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by merril: Today, 01:46 AM