CIT presents: "The First Known Accomplice?"

Citizen Investigation Team presents our interview with taxicab driver Lloyd England in regards to the 9/11 Pentagon attack. Lloyd's account of a jet airliner clipping light pole #1 causing it to spear his windshield has been thrown into serious question as a result of testimony from the witnesses at the CITGO station who all place the plane on the north side far from the light pole that allegedly hit his cab. At this point the debate about what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd. CIT asks you to make up your own mind but suggests you watch Lloyd's first-hand testimony in this presentation after viewing the testimony from the CITGO witnesses presented in The PentaCon for free on our website: www.ThePentaCon.com

"The First Known Accomplice?"

The first known Accomplice?

"At this point the debate about what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd."

You mean, in your opinion, it boils down to trusting their memories.  Here is what the PentaCon witnesses said about what happened at the Pentagon (watch the PentaCon if you don’t believe me):

·        Robert Turcios: “It went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided.”

·        William Lagasse: It “flew into the building,” and “when the plane hit, it kind of disappeared.

·        Chad Brooks: The Plane flew in a “straight line towards the Pentagon,” went “directly in front of the building,” until the “impact”.

So no, it does not mean we can trust the PentaCon witnesses over the testimony of the taxi driver because the PentaCon witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon, and the only way it could have hit the Pentagon would have been if it had hit the light poles as the taxi driver (and many others) claim.  It is a matter of opinion to say we can trust only small parts of testimony from a few witnesses given over others when the statements are self-contradictory and in fact—impossible.  If the witnesses above claim the plane hit the Pentagon, it would contradict the claim it flew north of the CITGO. 

This is because the physical damage inside of the Pentagon lines up with the light pole damage and generator damage to form a straight line, and it could only have been caused by an object approaching south of the CITGO.

The very definition of a “smoking gun” is inconvertible proof—proof that can not be debated on its own merit.  If witnesses give self-contradictory testimony, then it is not a smoking gun—it’s really that simple and a matter of opinion to debate otherwise.

Unproven assertions of “accomplice” (without showing “how” he was an accomplice) against someone who just happened to drive his car past the Pentagon (along with many others in typical early morning traffic in a highway about 500 feet away) when it was attacked makes the 9/11 truth movement look bad—even spiteful. 

Although your interview is interesting and informative, I disagree with your unproven speculations in the interview.

Thankfully, 9/11 has already long been proven to be an inside job, and we don't need to rely on speculations, maybes, or could have beens about a gas station, a taxi driver, and the light pole damage to his car:

No Speculation Required: 9/11 Was an Inside Job

You are not being objective.

9/11 was an operation of deception.

Real planes were used as psychological tools when the actual destruction was carried out covertly with pre-planted explosives.

This is just as true in Arlington as it is in Manhattan.

The fact that people were deceived into believing the planes caused the buildings to collapse does not disprove controlled demolition in Manhattan.

The fact that people were deceived by the military sleight of hand illusion in Arlington does not prove the official version of the events as physically true.

Robert Turcios ADMITTED that he did NOT see the impact because it was obscured by the "fireball" and he saw the plane "pull up" proving it can not be what hit the building.

Yes we know that the physical damage lines up but unfortunately this is not where the plane flew.

We have MORE witnesses who saw the plane on the north side of the gas station because that is where the plane flew.

Lloyd's story is already physically questionable on many levels and the fact that ALL the witnesses saw the plane on the north side of the gas station shows why.

Turcios: "It collided"

"Robert Turcios ADMITTED that he did NOT see the impact because it was obscured by the "fireball" and he saw the plane "pull up" proving it can not be what hit the building."

You are distorting his words to fit your conclusion. In answer to your question "did it fly over the Pentagon" he looked confused like it was an "oddball" question and said "NO".

In fact he said it "collided" as I quoted above.

"Real planes were used as psychological tools."

"We have MORE witnesses who saw the plane on the north side of the gas station because that is where the plane flew."

And out of curiosity, of all of the people you have talked to, how many people have claimed that the plane did NOT hit the Pentagon who were close enough to see it. So far you haven't found any.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

It's nice to know

You (ostensibly) know the definition of the word "opinion" and understand the concept.

Now all you have to do is take the leap of understanding when you are stating fact or opinion, and not mixing the two and treating them as equal in proof, evidence, and/or argument for your conclusions.

And, how dare you use the phrase "unproven speculations" in reference to others!

The noive of some people!

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

http://www.chico911truth.org/

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Well said

"Now all you have to do is take the leap of understanding when you are stating fact or opinion, and not mixing the two and treating them as equal in proof, evidence, and/or argument for your conclusions."

I fully understand the difference.

It is "opinion" to claim that the "plane flew over the Pentagon" when the witnesses you cite as "evidence" said it "hit the Pentagon".

I have a much more detailed argument for why the theory is false, and I have supplied this elsewhere. That is where my "opinion" is backed up by my analysis.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

There is no opinion in the north side claim...

....which proves the plane did not hit the light poles.

The north side claim is not refuted by ANYONE and we continue to get validation from additional witnesses.

It is where the plane flew and we know this because this is what all the witnesses report.

You can not move the plane Arabasque.

So if you want to claim that it hit the building after it flew past the light poles go right ahead but the physical damage does not line up or add-up .

For those who vote down

Take a step back. and think about it.

Haven't

Haven't pilotsfor911truth.org already shown that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon? As far as I am aware, they have. How do you dispute indisputable evidence from them?

Pilots for 9/11 Truth and the FDR

JohndoeX, Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum, New Study From Pilots For 9/11 Truth, PRWeb- June 21, 2007.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7372&st=...

“Pilotsfor911truth.org does not make the claim that "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". We have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder data provided by the NTSB and have shown factual analysis of that data. We do not offer theory. While we do not make this claim in these words, the analysis we present on the basis of the NTSB's own data factually contradicts the official account that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon--if trends are continued beyond end of data records--and therefore supports the inference that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the building based upon that data.”

If Pilots for 9/11 truth believed that no plane hit the Pentagon, and that a simulation was enough evidence to prove this claim, why do they say that they do "not make the claim that 'no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon"?

They don't say that because the data could simply be wrong. And there is a good reason why they aren't screaming smoking gun here:

"Ten Degrees From true: THE "NTSB Animation" is Flat Wrong Demonstrating that the north of the Citgo flight path shown is in fact at least 20 degrees off from the Black Box data it's supposed to be based on." Caustic Logic http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/05/ntsb-animation-is-flat-wron...

In simple terms, there is a FDR SIMULATION, and FDR BLACK BOX data and they have contradictory data. We need to find out WHY that is, not assume it means that no plane hit the Pentagon.

Unfortunately the NSTB has been unwilling to answer these questions.

The obvious problem here is that even though P911T dosen't make the claim that "no 757 hit the Pentagon" based on this data, it doesn't stop others from (jumping to) this conclusion. See Fetzer's press release mentioning this as "proof".

I agree that there needs to be questions answered here, but more research, answers, civility, and open minds--not premature conclusions based on self-contradictory data (i.e. see Pentagon witnesses) are required here.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

PFT presents evidence, not theory.

That is the only reason they don't take an official position but one thing for sure is that they do not support the official story.

The FDR is purely government controlled and supplied evidence so there is zero reason to accept it as valid in anyway.

But PFT's thorough analysis of this data has turned up fatal anomalies that in essence proves it was a badly done forgery.

The fact that there are discrepancies between the NTSB released animation and the FDR itself underscores this.

However the actual FDR does not line up with the physical evidence OR the eyewitness flight path.

This means it can not be legitimate. This is not surprising since the plane was actually on the north side of the citgo station and therefore can not be what caused the physical damage at all.

PFT has released their own animation that depicts the ACTUAL data from the FDR and it's true that it does not have the plane on the north side of the gas station as shown in the NTSB animation but you can see that it's quite clear that it does not match up with the physical evidence (including the light poles) either. Descent and bank angles are key.

Watch PFT excellent new animation here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520&hl=en

Does Lloyd's story add up?

Can anyone who watches this testimony really accept it as reality?

His account is beyond physically implausible.

Read this blog for a glimpse into how the Feds surrounded Lloyd, blocked traffic, and planted light pole #1 minutes AFTER the attack via photographic evidence direct from Jason Ingersoll's incredible photo collection:

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

Your photo analysis is incorrect

(and by "your" I mean "their" — whomever)

I suppose this is merely a statement of opinion, but it is based on good analysis and interpretation of observational fact.

The angle of the images where you claim the "pole is not yet there"

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/ingersoll/in%20sequence/...
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/ingersoll/in%20sequence/...

and then "it is there"

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/ingersoll/in%20sequence/...
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/ingersoll/in%20sequence/...
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/ingersoll/in%20sequence/...

is such that the pole is probably behind the electrical box. (or maybe even the bush) I would think that would be obvious. Just look at the angles. The photos where you can see the pole are taken to the far right of the photos where you claim the pole is not yet there. It's actually a pretty big angle. As well as closer.

I suppose you'll reply to this and try to convince me that I'm wrong, but I would be surprised if you could offer a real argument to my above analysis. (much less arguments that would persuade me otherwise)

You are wrong about this.

I also don't think your evidence about the cab driver is strong enough to make the claim you do. You have most probably committed an act of slander and libel against the man that you would probably lose in a lawsuit tried in a court of law.

It's an "honest mistake" otherwise.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

http://www.chico911truth.org/

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

It could go either way.

I will agree that the photo evidence is not 100% definitive.

But neither is your rebuttal to it.

You definitely haven't proven that the pole WAS there.

Watching the Feds roll up and surround the scene and block traffic is very compelling.

You can see how they would easily have control of the situation and be ABLE to stage the scene without people being suspicious.

If nothing else the images give a peak into the unfolding of events on that hwy 10 minutes after the attack.

The cab driver is an entirely different story.

His account is beyond implausible and the citgo witnesses prove why.

He will not sue us.

Sounds like mind control to me

The way he talks sounds odd. I would believe some sort of "mind control" before complicity.

And having a David Icke book in his car? Very strange.

Here's the title and the first paragraph of Chapter I:

Children of the Matrix: How an Interdimensional Race has Controlled the World for Thousands of Years-and Still Does

"When a few people wish to control and direct a mass of humanity, there are certain key structures that have to be in place. These are the same whether you are seeking to manipulate an individual, family, tribe, town, country, continent, or planet."

You have now entered.... The Twilight Zone.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

http://www.chico911truth.org/

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

could very well be.

The David Icke book could have been his "A Catcher In the Rye"!

Whether willing, coerced, or manipulated the implications are clear.

We don't hold Lloyd responsible for 9/11 but it's clear he is a direct link to the perps and this is VERY important.

Obviously we can never know if he has been manipulated or is a willing participant but clearly you recognize that there is something seriously wrong with his account.

The citgo witnesses are evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did NOT hit light pole one.

This evidence is critical to 9/11 truth.

Unless

Like me, you believe that there was a second smaller plane that took the other route and that is what knocked over the light poles.

I think a true 757 (or whatever) would probably have done much more damage. So some form of a more controlled scenario was enacted. With the big plane being a fly-over. And it all happened so fast that they were able to pull it off and get the eyewitnesses and results they did, including the conflicting reports. Maybe. My theory is just as good as anyone else's.

But you're wrong about poor Lloyd.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

http://www.chico911truth.org/

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

We are not working off mere theory.

This is the result of an exhaustive on site investigation within which we have personally talked with dozens of witnesses, canvassed the neighborhoods, and closely analyzed every previously published account that exists.

We have found no evidence whatsoever for 2 planes.

We will present quite a few more interviews in the Researcher's Edition of The PentaCon. Not even the C-130 was seen by any of the witnesses until well after the explosion. Robert Turcios was on the south side of the CITGO and surely he would have seen or heard a plane from that approach. Furthermore....there are ZERO previously published reports that specifically place a plane as on the south side of the CITGO.

Plus there is not a logical reason for the perpetrators to use two planes. A plane with a wing span large enough to knock the light poles down would have been quite noticeable and surely hitting the light poles would have very likely caused it to lose control and crash on the lawn before reaching the building.

We have two ADDITIONAL confirmed witness reports that we have not released yet specifically placing the plane on the north side. Both of these witnesses were just outside of the Pentagon and saw the plane approach (and bank) over the Navy Annex. Neither saw two planes. Our investigation has been quite extensive and we have found no evidence for this at all yet the north side claim continues to get validated.

I understand how it's difficult to accept that an unassuming man like Lloyd could actually have been directly involved but 9/11 was a very complex operation and there is not a face on earth evil enough for us to automatically associate it with this event; (other than perhaps Cheney's!).

The movement accepts and screams loud about this incredible black operation being an obvious fact which is easy to do when the blame is placed solely on "the government" and the notion that specific every day people were involved as working operatives is kept far from the front of our collective consciousness.

But you are clearly able to recognize all of the dubious details in Lloyd's account since you were even able to consider the notion that he was under mind control. I am surprised how you are able to reconcile his undamaged hood though. Clearly this is quite impossible in regards to the size and weight of the pole. It doesn't matter what type of plane it was but if that pole actually speared Lloyd's windshield and he fell down when removing it after the fact as he described there is no question there would be at least some damage to the hood.

Lloyd's account is extremely questionable, quite unbelievable, and physically impossible and the citgo witnesses explain why.