Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession of Involvement In the 9/11 Black Op

reply to post by Grimstad


You aren't even making sense.

Both paths cross route 27 therefore his comment about route 27 has nothing to do with his definitive placement of the plane banking right on the north side like everyone else.

Why would you not want the witness to describe the event EXACTLY as he had witnessed it?

We do not not want that.

Meaning of course we want them to describe the event exactly as they witnessed it which is why we seek them out and record their interviews and provide them for you to view for free.

If you think we lied or coerced them into reporting the opposite that should be easy to prove.

Call the witnesses.

There is a lot you can’t fathom. Like exactly how important the extensive damage to the inside of Lloyds car is. And you totally dismiss it, because it doesn’t fit YOUR story.

Umm no.

We have no story, we merely report what the witnesses told us.

It is THEIR story.

They all place the plane far from the poles proving Lloyde's scene staged and explaining why his account is physically impossible and of course why he admitted he was involved with a "planned" operation by the people with "all the money".


The interior damage is too extensive to have been from a small piece of the pole yet the exterior damage is non-existent proving it was not from the long piece as Lloyde emphatically claims in his detailed proven fraudulent story.

It's not our fault that all the witnesses place the plane on the north side. If it was you could prove that we lied or misrepresented their accounts by talking to the witnesses yourself.

Why are you afraid to contact them to support your accusations?










[edit on 4-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Wow, what a total thread derailment by some people. Is Lloyde's story that impossible to defend, that some people have to start attacking Boger - again?

Originally posted by Grimstad
There is a lot you can’t fathom. Like exactly how important the extensive damage to the inside of Lloyds car is. And you totally dismiss it, because it doesn’t fit YOUR story.

What caused the damage in Lloyde's car? I'm stuffed if I know what did it!

Was Lloyde's car impounded for some forensic testing to see what damaged it?

Grimstad, you have NOTHING but your own faith in Lloyde England telling the truth to prove that any light pole caused the damage to the taxi. NOTHING.

Think about that and ask yourself why you're defending something that you can't prove.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by tezzajw]

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Grimstad

 

It's not our fault that all the witnesses place the plane on the north side. If it was you could prove that we lied or misrepresented their accounts by talking to the witnesses yourself.

Why are you afraid to contact them to support your accusations?

Mr Grimstad. Have you ever talked with Lloyde or any other witness? Why is it a self-proclaimed expert on Lloyde England cannot even be bothered with contacting him and interviewing him properly and proving beyond any doubt that the main piece of light pole was sticking through his windshield just like he claimed? Maybe if you cozy up real close; Lloyde's friend will give you a cd with pictures of the light pole sticking out through the taxi windshield. Wow; you could single-handedly destroy the CIT Investigative Team and become an instant hero to millions of cowering government worshippers. They might even erect a marble statue of you;

Here Stands Grimstad - Savior of the New World Order.

Something like this.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84729d1b253f.jpg[/atsimg]

If you do real good; maybe you will end up with a cushy government job with the Military Industrial Complex. Or maybe just a pay raise. And Lloyde England could be your friend for life. You could salvage the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY from its inevitable self-destructing doom.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Both paths do cross 27 but immediately in front of the Pentagon. No where near where his account begins, which is when he mentions it.
And when you finally do get him to contradict himself and say it was on the right, you don’t pursue it any further. You don’t point out to them that they just contradicted themselves because the last answer matches your theory. The only time you press the witnesses is when it doesn’t match your theory. Even if they contradict themselves to support it. And if you can’t get them to change their story to match yours, you try and cast doubt on their motives. Lloyde being the single biggest example of this. You completely discount the extensive damage to the inside of his car and instead try and portray him as an accomplice. And when Sean is adamant that the plane was low but not level, YOU argue with him and try and portray HIM as being argumentative. And even LIE about what the video shows. I don’t THINK you lied, I KNOW you lied. Discounting the interior damage to Lloydes car was a great big fat lie. Your entire presentation is FULL of lies and half thruths.

Why would you not want the witness to describe the event EXACTLY as he had witnessed it?

We do not not want that.

Meaning of course we want them to describe the event exactly as they witnessed it which is why we seek them out and record their interviews and provide them for you to view for free.

Now who’s not making sense? How does placing Sean in a totally opposite location and orientation from where he was, allow him to describe it exactly as he witnessed it?

They all place the plane far from the poles proving Lloyde's scene staged and explaining why his account is physically impossible and of course why he admitted he was involved with a "planned" operation by the people with "all the money".

The interior damage is too extensive to have been from a small piece of the pole yet the exterior damage is non-existent proving it was not from the long piece as Lloyde emphatically claims in his detailed proven fraudulent story.

THAT is a lie






The pole was OBVIOUSLY wedged into the back seat between the back and cushion. But you can’t fathom that. It doesn’t match your story.
YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE BUT CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MATCH YOUR STORY.
How much more evidence are you hiding?

They all place the plane far from the poles

Which plane?
The airliner or the C 130?

You have been persistent but you have been very far from thorough.
At least in your presentation of the truth.
You have however been thoroughly selective.

You drop little hints of conspiracy here and there like emphatically pointing out that Lloydes wife works for the FBI but did you ever ask her what she did there?
I never heard it. Judging from their house and the fact they are working 2 jobs, I’d say she works in housekeeping.
And you take a confused old man that pumps his head full of David Icke and try and paint him as a coconspirator while deliberately leaving out crucial evidence that corroborates his story.
That is FRAUD. Pure and simple.

I don’t need to go harassing witnesses.

posted by Grimstad
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

. . . . . . . .

Mr Grimstad rewriting the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY

. . . . . . . . . . .

I don’t need to go harassing witnesses.

Of course not. Why question the eyewitnesses when you can just rewrite their testimonies? What they say is not important; but what they can be twisted into saying. The Spinmeister's Motto. If the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is falling to pieces; just rewrite the script. Simple. Most Americans would never catch on would they? Government disinformation specialists do it all the time, don't they?

reply to post by Grimstad


lol where did you get that last image? Nigeria?

Please..the more you go on the sillier it looks.

posted by Grimstad
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

The pole was OBVIOUSLY wedged into the back seat between the back and cushion. But you can’t fathom that. It doesn’t match your story.
YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE BUT CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MATCH YOUR STORY.

I don’t need to go harassing witnesses.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f1b9ca89658.jpg[/atsimg]

Looks like a big heavy foot broke that seat back; not a sharp tipped imaginary pole traveling at 45+ mph like a physics defying javelin. That Lincoln seat leather should have been ripped to shreds by the alleged broken off sharp end of that 200+ pound light pole. But it wasn't was it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c16e64a89be.jpg[/atsimg]

And that windshield glass allegedly shattering right in his face should have cut poor Lloyde up some; but no sign of a bandaide anywhere. And even his wife said he wasn't injured. The Federal agents guarding the taxi obviously thought Lloyde was never injured. There is no evidence that they even said one word to Lloyde.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e151507e888.jpg[/atsimg]

There is not one single person who saw the light pole knocked into the taxi, not one single person who saw the light pole sticking out of the windshield, and not one single person who saw the light pole being removed from the windshield. Not one single photo or video of the light pole in the windshield in existence. No Federal agents guarding the taxi came forward as eyewitnesses. I wonder why?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/343e15fcd8de.jpg[/atsimg]

It is blatantly obvious that this windshield received multiple blows from a blunt object such as a baseball bat, most likely before the taxicab was placed out on Hwy 27 for photo ops. I wonder why somebody bludgeoned the windshield?

Zoomed image of windshield

Of course we do have the word of the elderly Lloyde England, who never could have lifted half of a 200+ pound light pole out of his windshield and over the hood, and he proved he was lying by changing his story. How many healthy more youthful men can lift a heavy unwieldy object and pull it backwards out of a too small hole. Not many.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84729d1b253f.jpg[/atsimg]

If Lloyde was standing at the bumper as he indicated, he would have had half of the heavy curved pole to manuever up out of the hole. Not bloody likely. If he were standing at the side of the fender, he would have needed to manuever the heavy curved pole at arms length. No way.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/baaa7a925e56.jpg[/atsimg]

And of course the Federal agents guarding the taxi, the light pole, and Lloyde England have refused to come forward and get trapped in a lie.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95a27a112554.jpg[/atsimg]

And there is no evidence whatsoever that Lloyde England was injured by shrapnel from the broken windshield; not even bandaids. I wonder why there is not one photo of the Federal agents speaking to Lloyde or offering him aid? Not one photo of Lloyde sitting down.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0362c8dfd392.jpg[/atsimg]

And Lloyde definitely lied in the 2nd interview; trying to pretend he was up the road near the area the real decoy aircraft flew over Hyw 27. But Mr Grimstad desperately feels the need to rewrite the script for the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY in order to make it fit. Why is that?

Almost 3000 innocent people died on 9-11, and Mr Grimstad feels the need to desperately defend the 9-11 inside job perps? Why is that?

And why do you need to attack the messenger Grimstad; along with your disinfo buddy Reheat? Craig and Aldo are only acting as responsible citizens. The evidence and testimony belongs to the eyewitnesses; nobody else. You have no inherent right to rewrite their testimony; which appears on videotape and in written form from 2001.

I have to get to work so I don’t have much time now.
You guys go ahead and dig a little deeper.
I’ll have a nice long reply after work.
Though not as long as that ridiculous picture of the car and pole.

Lincoln towncar is approximately 18 feet long.

Roadway lighting clearance is from 18 feet to around 25 feet depending on location.

That makes the car over half the length of the pole.

Try again

Originally posted by Grimstad
I have to get to work so I don’t have much time now.
You guys go ahead and dig a little deeper.
I’ll have a nice long reply after work.
Though not as long as that ridiculous picture of the car and pole.

Lincoln towncar is approximately 18 feet long.

Roadway lighting clearance is from 18 feet to around 25 feet depending on location.

That makes the car over half the length of the pole.

Try again

More evidence that you have not bothered to do any research, nor review ALL of CIT's releases? If you had bothered, you would know that Craig and Aldo and Domenick and several others had visited the VDOT yard and measured and lifted the poles and even made a video of it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/77ef734d0f9e.jpg[/atsimg]

The Pentagon area VDOT light pole light heads sit 40 feet above ground level and the pole weighs 247 pounds plus 70 pounds for the light head and 20 pounds for the truss arm. The main pole is 1/8 inch wall thickness extruded aluminum tapering from 10 inches to 6 inches.

"It is folly to answer a matter before hearing it" Proverbs 18:13

"It’s better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

posted by Grimstad

Lincoln towncar is approximately 18 feet long.

Roadway lighting clearance is from 18 feet to around 25 feet depending on location.

That makes the car over half the length of the pole.

However I will agree that the pole-in-cab graphic is a bit off-scale. That is not my graphic.

Using your dimension of 18 feet for the Lincoln taxi as a standard, and my estimate that 32 feet of the main pole which allegedly pierced the windshield is remaining, I will redraw the graphic.

Note that in the far lane is apparently the 4-5 foot piece of the main pole which was allegedly sheared off by the leading edge of the alleged 535 mph aircraft wing. Out of the photo to the left is one of the truss arms which dutifully lined up real pretty with the light head and broken glass and main pole for another official photo op.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c16e64a89be.jpg[/atsimg]

Since no forensic examination was done on any of the #1 light pole crime scene evidence, we can only guesstimate on the remaining lengths. The taxi and light pole pieces were left in the roadway blocking several lanes all day long. But there is no evidence that an official investigative team bothered to view the pieces.

This official trial photo proves that later in the day Hwy 27 is still blocked by the taxi and pole pieces. Multiple cranes are in position at the Pentagon crime scene.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/21d42279baac.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is the revised pole-in-cab graphic. Of the estimated 32 foot overall length, approximately 6 feet is inside the cab embedded in the rear seat with a tiny tear, 6 feet overhanging the pristine hood, and 20 feet hanging out past the bumper in mid-air, precariously tempting fate as the taxi allegedly skidded to a stop sideways from 45 mph.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f3cf1808a39.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is light pole #4 being removed from the crime scene several weeks after 9-11. Light pole #4 was allegedly cut nearly in two by the gentle 535 mph aircraft wing; but mysteriously ended up right next to its own pole base. Even a little over half of it is still longer than the truck bed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/40671251ddbf.jpg[/atsimg]

Remember that besides Lloyde England, there is not one living soul anywhere on earth who saw the light pole piercing the windshield, the light pole sticking out of the windshield, the light pole being removed from the windshield, nor the light pole being placed on the pavement. Not one solitary person nor photo nor video.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e151507e888.jpg[/atsimg]

Metcalf photo showing gouge across pavement

For some strange reason there is a gouge in the pavement, running across the traffic lanes from the heavy base end toward the far wall, hinting that the light pole was dragged across the road. Why Lloyde and his secret friend would carry the heavy pole across the road and then drag it back is a mystery.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2332fb7f46e.jpg[/atsimg]

Of course all of this evidence shows that Lloyde England was indeed lying when he attempted to move his location north up Hwy 27 where the real decoy aircraft flew over the highway. Perhaps Lloyde neglected to memorize the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY or perhaps Lloyde observed that it was self-destructing faster than he could keep up.



[edit on 5/4/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Grimstad
I don’t THINK you lied, I KNOW you lied. Discounting the interior damage to Lloydes car was a great big fat lie. Your entire presentation is FULL of lies and half thruths.
How does placing Sean in a totally opposite location and orientation from where he was, allow him to describe it exactly as he witnessed it?

I haven't seen this level of denial and accusations in quite sometime.
I don't think even the regular OCT loyalists here have gone to this extreme or have even supported all the details of Grims absurd contentions.

Even more bizarre and comical than Grim saying there's nothing unusual or inconsistent about the damage from that monsterous pole or that Lloyds behaviour isn't suspect or that CIT was somehow not allowing Boger to give his testimony as he saw it, is Grims unwaivering cult-like assertion that Boger was not describing the NOC path.

Is there anyone here that really believes Boger describes anything but a NOC path? I thought it was pretty clear and basic what he was saying. Didn't even think the most hardcore OCT defenders would have the guts to twist Bogers quotes as much as grim has.

LEFT OF THE GAS STATION FACING THE PENTAGON = NOC
RIGHT OF THE GAS STATION FACING THE GAS STATION = NOC

what isn't clear about bogers testimony? He was describing what the flight path from BOTH points of view.

View 1 = Bogers view with his back to the pentagon facing the citgo
View 2 = The view Boger had if someone was looking at Boger from the CITGO.

Whats so difficult to understand?

The interior damage is too extensive to have been from a small piece of the pole yet the exterior damage is non-existent proving it was not from the long piece as Lloyde emphatically claims in his detailed proven fraudulent story.

THAT is a lie
The pole was OBVIOUSLY wedged into the back seat between the back and cushion. But you can’t fathom that. It doesn’t match your story.
YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE BUT CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MATCH YOUR STORY.
How much more evidence are you hiding?

That is FRAUD. Pure and simple.



I don’t need to go harassing witnesses.

translation: If I attempted to verify CIT's witnesses and testimony, I'd probably have to admit I'm wrong and never be able to make such unsubstantiated claims.




[edit on 4-5-2009 by Orion7911]

Oh so now Grimstad wants to get into the nitty gritty of the physical evidence without bothering to get accurate specs from the VDOT?

Of course.

That's because if he did proper research he would not like the outcome so naturally he will refuse to contact the VDOT just as he refuses to contact the north side witnesses whose accounts he is recklessly attacking.

SPreston is quite correct, we have been to the Virginia Dept Of Transportation to find out the exact specs and physically examine the same style poles and they are definitely 40 feet long.



But even if we just look at the images from that day of the pole next to the cab it's quite clear that the length of the pole is many times the length of the distance from the back seat to the dash.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07cfba55f264.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/afecb600f48c.jpg[/atsimg]

Replacement pole:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8f655ec7ae11.jpg[/atsimg]

Remember, Lloyde claims that the top lighter bent end of the pole was inside the cab stopped at the back seat and that the much heavier and much longer base end was suspended over the hood of the car.

Although as pointed out by Grimstad earlier, when we physically examined the taxi with Lloyde in 2008, almost 7 years after the event, we did find that there was a VERY minor rip in the back seat....but the notion that the jagged cut off bent top of this pole caused this minor rip and wedged deep enough in to suspend the rest of the over 200lb 40 foot pole over the hood is plain old silly.

Minor back seat rip:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a6e820da0a4.jpg[/atsimg]

Jagged top of the pole:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e111cf5b29e8.jpg[/atsimg]

Lloyde actually said that it did NOT puncture or even rip the back seat so perhaps the small rip was already there, or else somehow caused during the salvage of the cab years later, or certainly staged by the planners with a crow bar or something in advance.

Bottom line it's clear that it did NOT wedge itself into the back seat let alone completely puncture the car and if it had, it would have been extremely difficult of not impossible for 2 men to remove by hand.

Since we're only talking about 5 or 6 feet from the back seat to the dash that leaves at least 30 feet of the HEAVY end of the pole to be suspended over the hood.

That is impossible by the laws of gravity if we consider this situation out of context....but let's put it IN context to REALLY demonstrate the ridiculousness of this story.

The official story requires a 90 ton boeing traveling at 460 knots or 530 mph to have hit this pole:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/508bbf792e1a.gif[/atsimg]

But don't forget to factor in all the kinetic energy of the cab traveling about 40 mph in the opposite direction:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6275b27e29fd.gif[/atsimg]

Assuming the pole could possibly have speared the windshield under these conditions without damaging the hood, what do you think would happen as the car came to a sliding sideways stop on the road?

(imagine 30 feet of pole still sticking out of the hood)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d67184ed6bb.gif[/atsimg]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the pole would have gone flying out of the car or in the very least severely shifted destroying the windshield frame.

But the hood AND the windshield frame remained completely unscathed.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff6af3c4b3a8.jpg[/atsimg]

And Lloyde has an elaborate story about a silent stranger helping him remove the pole immediately after he came to a stop on the road complete with him falling down on the ground with the pole on top of him as he removed it and the top bent part supposedly flipped over.

What's clear is that the internal damage to the cab is too extensive to be from a small piece of the pole, indicating it was likely staged in advance to deliberately look like it was caused by the large pole. But since the cab and pole had to be staged immediately after the attack (probably after they blocked traffic) they must have decided to leave the exterior undamaged to stay as inconspicuous as possible.

Bottom line NONE of it make sense with physical reality and NONE of it is supported by independent evidence while ALL of it has been proven to be a complete fabrication by the witnesses who unanimously place the plane on the north side far from the light poles.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d3cec210ff2.jpg[/atsimg]

The casual reader should read up on what I posted before, some pages back in this thread.
You should read all my posts in that Terry Morin "Over the Navy Annex" thread, and then contemplate if it looks to you as the logical conclusions of the earliest interviews of some very important Pentagon witnesses.
Conclusions by me where they really stood and watched the plane coming in and over/pass them.
And that was not where the news media reported them to be.

Penny Elgas had the most vivid recollection of ALL of what happened.
And she definitely was not where the media would like to see here, she was in front of the Pentagon helipad, and not on the overpass over the last end of Columbia Pike, which ends up a few hundreds meters further in the South parking lot.
I proved her to be an undeniable North of Citgo witness.
And that is a very important change of view of her full witness account, which is in fact very intriguing.


Start reading my posts at page 13 of the Terry Morin thread, started btw by Craig Ranke from CIT :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The longer I contemplate about it, and the more I re-read my own posts, the more I am convinced that the scenario I laid out in these posts of mine at page 14 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
is seemingly covering most, if not all of the Pentagon events reported about by so many witnesses as best as can be.
Those witnesses recorded on video and audio by CIT and most of those earliest witnesses interviewed by various news networks.

One thing has always made me wonder: why there were so little video interviews collected by the news networks of eyewitnesses of the plane's impact at the west wall of the Pentagon. Most of the remaining evidence we have is based on written reports of those interviews on websites or in news papers.
And we all know what a reporters mind-set can do to his printed interpretation of a witness story.

This conclusion of mine in this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
does seem to be the best fit for what in general is reported by the bulk of the witnesses (those of them who have not been proved liars in the past years).
If that will turn out to be the only right conclusion, it has to be discussed, and all contra expertise must be laid out in front of us.


I know that it will infuriate Craig, and it is getting time that he takes a step back, look again calmly at his own carefully collected immense important NoC evidence, and realize where the inevitable problem lays with his last assertion, the fly-over theory :
He doesn't open up for a healthy discussion of ALL possibilities, and their INEVITABLE repercussions if contemplated upon each of them, to the very end. When you theorize every sane possibility, you have to realize that all the evidence has to cover all the details of the theory.

I mean, when you let people explain exactly what they think could have happened, IN COMBINATION with the assumption of a North of Citgo flightpath, which is pretty sure proved by now, then you have to get rid of a few very nasty problems with nearly all possibilities AFTER the moment that the plane crossed Washington Boulevard and reached the Pentagon lawn.

And Craig, you will be surprised who all will be on your site of the fence when we will come to that discussion's inevitable conclusion.

I'll start:

1. When a plane coming from a NoC direction towards the Pentagon West wall was blown up just in front of that wall, why:
a. are there no burn marks on that wall, beside the known ones
b. are there no impact marks on that wall, beside the known ones
c. are there no internal 90° damage paths seen on the damage drawings, beside the known ones
d. are there no bigger plane parts found on the lawn than the known ones


Possible answer 1.1 which covers all the above :
The NoC plane did explode in front of the west wall, exactly where we see all the impact damage in all the Immerson and Riskus pictures taken just after impact. Only the main spars and the engines proceeded further into the building, caused by the momentum of their mass, and their material strength.
The planted explosions went off a few milliseconds before the plane was blown up, thus the plane's explosion force bended all loose pieces back in again.

New question:
2. Why to blow up that plane, when they could have just let it impact?

Possible answer 2.1: Because the approx. 53° damage path was already planned and projected, by means of pre-planted explosives or a bunker buster attack, to take out the ONI offices and their main frames which held all the information on the past black operations which could not be accounted for, worth a few TRILLION of dollars of tax payers money.
Thus, plan B came into play, they blew up the NoC plane which had drifted too far away from the SoC planned approach path.
And they blew up a planned hole in the C-ring wall at the end of the approx. 53° damage path, to be able to quickly finish the job's eventual loose ends, inside the ONI offices.

That doesn't sound so alienated anymore, now you all found out what scoundrels in fact did run the USA after the Kennedy assassination. And caused all this economic turmoil which at last surfaced recently.
You are in effect being ruled by a small mob, a political one and a military one. And most of the politicians and military brass even doesn't realize that. And that mob does own the agencies. Which regulate and sanitize eventual problems.

New question :
3. Why not let it fly-over the Pentagon while the explosives were set off?

Possible answer 3.1: Because too many side and back ways oriented spectators would have seen it proceed over the roof of the Pentagon, and too many of the security cameras would record such an event.
You do not really believe yourself, that the Pentagon would not have "eyes" aimed at its whole roof area, do you? They were all over the place, you can clearly see those 360° ones f.ex. in the photos of Killtown of the damaged roof areas.

Possible counter-argument 3.2: If it was all planned, they will have thought to sabotage the computer room near the main entrance, where the Colonel ran into after the sound of impact died down, and there he tried to look at footage of the event. We never heard if he saw a recorded event.

Great posts Preston and Craig. Lots of great data and facts most will continue to ignore and evade.

Ever thought about re-creating the damage a pole would do to a taxi cab or any car for that matter? This is something that isn't too out of the realm of being able to do.

How telling would it be to see JUST what would happen if a 40 foot pole was set into or sticking out of a cars window like that and not cause any damage as it rests on the dashboard.

Would be great to re-create a boeing jet hitting a skyscraper, but obviously that probably won't happen.

But in this case pertaining to the pole into taxi, anyone out there who could gather a crew to do this experiment?

I'd also like to add that EVEN IF you hypothetically stretch reality to suggest that Lloyde innocently embellished his account about the pole remaining in the cab, and EVEN IF you imagine that the pole speared the windshield all the way to the back seat but went flying out of the car as it came to a sideways stop on the road while miraculously never touching the hood or windshield frame.......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d67184ed6bb.gif[/atsimg]

....how does it make sense that the pole, severed lamp and lamp arm, complete with sprinkled glass from the lamp all happened to land on the ground laid out all nicely like this right next to the cab?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/adc20edc010a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70948a895881.jpg[/atsimg]

The notion is ridiculous and the more you look at this the more angry you should get that the planners took us for such fools assuming we would believe this nonsense.

They were banking on the hysteria, the subsequent propaganda and immediate push for war, and the unassuming nature of Lloyde's friendly and likable demeanor to get us to simply accept the story without examining the details closely.

Unfortunately for us it turned out to be a safe bet for the first few years while they continued to slaughter 10's of thousands more innocents abroad based on this deception.




[edit on 4-5-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by LaBTop

I'll start:

The rules of this forum require you to stay on topic.

If you don't have anything to add regarding Lloyde England, his proven false account, and his virtual confession, I respectfully request that you save your comments for an appropriate thread.

Thanks.

I'm very well aware that there are certain rules.

Craig, regarding most of us here, and many of them the local rules enforcers, you don't have to convince us anymore that the plane flew NoC, and that Lloyde is clearly evading the photographic evidence laid in front of him and starts conning his way back to another 9/11 position where he would have seen the plane.
Learn to just ignore notorious thread killers, and concentrate on the last remaining piece of the puzzle.

There is just one piece of the puzzle to be cleared, and you know which one.
And that is only possible by discussing all possible explanations, and then dissect them one by one by bringing in definite arguments to shoot them down one by one, until we arrive together at the inevitable conclusion, which is a fly-over.

But you don't want to touch that most important piece of the puzzle anymore.
Why?

You want to break up the whole chain of reasoning here, let me open a whole new thread again, type all this damn text and links again and then start all over again?
Why?
Lloyde's account is clear, it's pure crap. Let's move on to the pinnacle of truth, what happened after the plane crossed Washington Boulevard?


I want, same as you, to dissect every possible counter argument and at last come to a solid conclusion, based on a solid discussion, why it is inevitable impossible for a NORTH of CITGO flying plane, crossing Washington Boulevard near the helipad, with all of its huge road signs, to cause the exact very strange first floor demolition scars as we can see in those first photos. And why there was no first floor damage inside at floor level from a cartwheeling plane.
And why so many witnesses reported a much slower flying plane as was reported in first instance. And why no plane parts were bouncing back from the West wall.

How did they manage to camouflage that fly-over of a huge plane for the spectators?
That's the last important discussion, the rest is lost energy on debaters, only interested in nitpicking.

Learn to neglect that species, concentrate on the real opponents who come up with seemingly solid counter arguments.
And be able to play the role of devils advocate yourself, that's real research, to try to attack your own conclusions, and then prove that it's all wrong, and your conclusion still stands strong.

EDIT: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Read my conclusion! And pay a bit more attention who's on your side and who are not. ENDEDIT.

[edit on 4/5/09 by LaBTop]

posted by LaBTop

Learn to just ignore notorious thread killers, and concentrate on the last remaining piece of the puzzle.

There is just one piece of the puzzle to be cleared, and you know which one.
And that is only possible by discussing all possible explanations, and then dissect them one by one by bringing in definite arguments to shoot them down one by one, until we arrive together at the inevitable conclusion, which is a fly-over.

But you don't want to touch that most important piece of the puzzle anymore.
Why?

You want to break up the whole chain of reasoning here, let me open a whole new thread again, type all this damn text and links again and then start all over again?
Why?
Lloyde's account is clear, it's pure crap. Let's move on to the pinnacle of truth, what happened after the plane crossed Washington Boulevard?

Craig is stuck in this thread with an disinfo artist who absolutely refuses to consider any actual evidence. The mods want the threads to stay on-topic for good reason. So just start a new thread (copy over your pertinent posts) and we will assist you when needed. You know we will. Many people would skip over this thread topic anyway, because they are already convinced that the flight path was NOC and the light poles were staged and Lloyde is a liar.