Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated.
Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members
of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if
you notice a post which violates our general rules.
Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession
Submitted by greenback on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 3:46pm
Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession
»
- greenback's blog
- Login to post comments
9/11 Truth Movement, A Serious Lesson To Be Learned Here:
I'm pleasantly surprised to see that this got posted. Promotion of the research of CIT has proven to be taboo, perhaps even banned, at some sites including this one. Why? Because the members of CIT, their critics say, accuse innocent people of fabricating testimony, people who gained nothing from 9/11, and that this in turn discredits the truth movement in general. Critics of CIT might also make unverifiable assertions such as: CIT's 4 eyewitnesses for the north side version are nullified by the hundreds (???) of people who saw it approach from the traditional south side.
Then consider what our anti-truth opposition uses as a talking point: "Why in all these years has no one come forward?"
and
"You saying lots of people, eyewitnesses, are in on it? Part of the coverup? Take your meds and have a rest!"
Sometimes, the most painfully investigative detective work is not easy or fun. CIT has had to absorb the criticism that they "hassle" innocent eyewitnesses like England, and oh so blasphemously accuse him of fabricating testimony or "being in on it."
Just as the perps knew they could get away with CD of the towers in front of the whole world and know the world would buy a false story, they knew they could use a few Joe Schmoes, Lloyd Englands, people who above all else want to live, and live in peace. In this video, England's words are very revealing when he doesn't think he's being recorded. While not revealing his full role in the lie, he admits he knows the official story is a lie and that he is a part of it, a dupe.
Just as it's at first not easy to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, it's really unpleasant to believe that England is "in on it." But he's not "in on it" in the malicious, active sense of the word, as if he were right up there with the people who masterminded the event. He's just an ordinary person who wants to live, perhaps he figures the truth will be known someday with or without his testimony, etc.
It finally goes to show how perhaps sometimes hidden camera is the only way.
CIT's work is brilliant
Thanks Adam, good comment. I would go further in commending the CIT guys. I think they deserve medals for the work they've done. Craig Ranke is absolutely tireless.
Of course Lloyde England is in on it, but only in the sense you cite, ie, he wants to live. I'm sure there are many people like that.
My blog post from last month about CIT's work is the all-time most visited page on my blog, with 39,000 page views. That post is here.
Sheila, I see the pro-CIT
Sheila, I see our pro-CIT comments are getting voted down by those who desperately want to stifle discussion of this important topic.
There's no reconciling the fact that England's account is different when he thinks he's not being recorded.
EDIT 6:33 pm est: Ah, yes, they're out in full force. I know for a fact my OP comment has had at least 8 positive votes. I've been watching this thread like a hawk all day.
Yep
This is why I recommended thepentacon in the first place. The witness statements. How can you not consider them? Lloyd's words are just .. bizarre.
The most priceless words out of his mouth...
...when he thinks he's not being recorded:
"I'm in it...
...it was planned."
yes, if the N side approach is true, it matters
And if it's not true, that matters, too.
CIT are not credible as researchers, and Lagasse, for one, is not credible as a witness:
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy by Arabesque
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...
"Of these eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT, William Lagasse falsely indicated where light poles were knocked down, while denying that others were knocked down. Amazingly, CIT implies that this does not affect the reliability of his flight path account—in fact, Ranke brazenly and disingenuously claims that it makes his testimony about the flight path even more credible:
“Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.”
"How could Lagasse “not see the light poles” as Ranke suggests if he claimed that “there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”—a false statement? If Lagasse didn’t see or remember seeing these light poles on the ground on 9/11, he presumably would have replied “I don’t know”, instead of “none of these light poles… were knocked down”. Lagasse also misplaced the location of the taxi cab to the location where he thought the light poles were knocked down. This factual error strongly suggests that Lagasse witnessed the plane where the actual light poles were knocked down—not where he mistakenly thought they were knocked down. Along with incorrectly placing the location of the damaged Taxi Cab and light poles, at the very least this puts the accuracy of his “smoking gun” testimony in doubt."
http://911reports.com
What about the other 12 interviewed witnesses?
Are they mistaken when they declare unequivocally on camera that the plane took the north side approach?
Click on the links provided-
Click on the links provided- Arabesque also examined the other 3 initial witnesses
And Adam Larson (no relation) has done research on some of the newer ones- scroll down to eyewitnesses:
CIT/PENTACON {Masterlist}
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/03/video-review-pentacon.html
CLOUT FLYOVER WITNESS
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/05/clout-flyover-witness-first...
HOW THE CITGO VIDEO CONTRADICTS THE NORTH SIDE CLAIM
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-citgo-video-contradicts...
THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...
As I noted in my first comment, England's comments aren't necessarily- or even likely- an admission he's part of "the conspiracy"; he was there and saw the AA 757, got a light pole thru his windshield; now he's "in it".
http://911reports.com
Ok,
Please remember that I consider myself neutral on this issue, but who was Lloyd referring to when he said the "people with the money"?
i advocate for full disclosure
of course, like everyone else, i speculate, but i try to stick to facts and evidence and solid arguments, and i'm interested in finding out when I'm wrong. When I first discovered 9/11's a lie, I thought the Pentagon hole was the clearest evidence, til I looked into it and found the hole's actually a 90' gash.
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.com/essays/pentagontrap.html
who was Lloyd referring to when he said the "people with the money"?
Only 16% of Americans think the Bush Administration is telling the truth about "what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States"
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469
And 1/3 think 9/11 was done on purpose to justify war. Less than 20% believe "all" or "most" media reporting, according to a Sacred Heart U. study. And over half of Americans know the 2 parties are both beholden to the same corporate/financial/elite interests. I assume, that when Lloyd made reference to the "people with the money" as being behind 9/11 and the cover up, that he was referring to what most people realize- the reason we don't know the whole truth about 9/11, why so many things could go wrong in conjunction to permit the attacks with no one being held accountable, is cuz really powerful people wanted it to happen. Lloyd's statement, imho, doesn't implicate him with having actual inside knowledge before or after the fact- I watched/listened to the tape once, it sounds like speculation on his part, after spending an evening being hounded on these things by CIT. I'm surprised he even talks to them anymore- maybe he's lonely or wants attention?
http://911reports.com
Yeah
For all we know Lloyd's ramblings are just a case of 'leveling' in a conversation. I tend to stay away from Pentagon speculation, but I really do want to know what is going on with Lloyd the cab driver there..and why the FDR data and p911truth interpretation suggest flight path anomalies also. Will have to invest some major time in it at some point. (Just out of curiosity)
And yes...it does look like a booby trap.
Here's another question which I can't get out of my head though: the heavily reinforced facade of the Pentagon caused the plane to disintegrate. It was shredded, blown to smithereens. (Akin to Hoffman's confetti plane). Clearly these plane pieces are seen close to the facade, contrary to what early 9/11 documentaries claimed. Yet the plane also disappeared into the building, and managed to puncture an exit hole three rings deep. We are expected to believe the plane's nose accomplished this, but the engines didn't. (Or did they?) This seems instinctively wrong, unless the properties of the Pentagon building are such that exactly these unique circumstances occur.
Because I lack the data and the technical interpretation skills w.r.t. the collision physics, which is undoubtedly extremely complex, I can't have a definitive answer to this riddle.
Perhaps the Pentagon Building Performance report deserves the same scrutiny as the FEMA & NIST reports for the WTC complex. The interest for the Pentagon issue has waned, I guess.
what's "leveling"?
wikipedia doesn't have the "conversation" definition, and urbandictionary.com definition is sexual...
the first 2 floors of that section of the Pentagon were actually empty office space, continuing to the C ring. There's other photos, but this link'll get you started:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html
I don't think it's been established what made the hole, but the plane by that point was likely only a pile of wreckage and Pentagon debris traveling at 100 mph or so. According to some reports, the front wheel assembly was in that area. Others have suggested it could've been made by a wall breaching kit.
"The interest for the Pentagon issue has waned, I guess."
Not sure what you mean by that; CIT and PF911T have been keeping the controversy going. Loose Change Final Cut presents some of both sides, although it still implies the facade damage is inconsistent with a 757 hit. The govt. has never provided conclusive evidence it was 77, and they won't release the info- Scott Bingham, Aidan Monaghan and John Farmer have all sued to get stuff released, suits are still in progress. Very funny stuff going on with the black boxes- check Monaghan's blog here at 911blogger.
http://911reports.com
Leveling
See http://www.dict.org/ for definitions. Definitely did not mean 'sexual'. ;-)
Don't forget explosives in the Pentagon...
...Barbara Honneger has been a long-time whistleblower on this fact. And MSNBC reporter Don Parkal said that he believed a bomb had gone of because he smelled cordite. He's not the only witness to smelling cordite. I find it hard to believe that the perfectly shaped "exit hole" in the C ring was caused by the plane. Don't forget that Rumsfeld's "official explanation" in the beginning was that the nose of the plane caused the exit hole, but when early researchers pointed to the ludicrousness of that explanation, the later explanation (espoused by Popular Mechanics) attributed the hole to the landing gear.
With regard to all the witnesses who say that the plane hit the building, including CIT's witnesses, we have to remember one thing. All these witnesses were (with few exceptions I presume) aware of planes hitting buildings in NYC. They see a large plane fly right towards the pentagon, then they see the fireball, then all of a sudden the plane is gone. Then they are informed on the news that a plane hit the Pentagon. What will everyone's natural conclusion be? This is standard psychology 101. But I've noticed that those who attempt to debunk CIT's work resort to discussing how 100+ witnesses say the plane hit the building. This is a red herring to divert attention away from the fact that there are ZERO witnesses who have declared, without reservation, that the plane approached the building from the south side (official story) of the gas station versus THIRTEEN who are positive about the north side approach.
Cordite
As far as I understand it, cordite is an obsolete replacement for gunpowder, and I'm not aware of any explosives that use it.. So I don't understand what this cordite smell should be attributed to.
I might not be able to
I might not be able to thoroughly check out the links you just provided for a few hours, or until tomorrow, but just curious: Is your entire debunk premise, in debunking every one of CIT's witnesses, that each and every single one is wrong or lying? I have watched CIT's videos where they state, on camera, that they're beyond positive that the plane flew north of the station.
What about the flight data recorder information from flight 77 which also confirms this north side approach?
my point is
if the plane flew N of Citgo, obviously it didn't knock down the poles, or cause the damage path inside the Pentagon, which matches the poles, etc. damage path.
If it flew the path the way the official story says, and caused all that damage, then it didn't fly N of Citgo.
So, either the N of Citgo witnesses are mistaken- or lying. Lagasse, who's one of the people who say they saw the plane hit, may well be mistaken, confused, or just can't remember the situation clearly years later- same with the others- unless they're lying. Witnesses are often wrong, the mind plays tricks- but they're not always wrong- and 100+, on the public record witnesses to impact, from the time of 9/11 is pretty compelling. In addition to the damage path, gash in the Pentagon, plane and body parts, etc.
The flyover witness could not have seen what they claimed- what's the explanation for that?
Pilotsfor911Truth data; last I heard, they say it says the plane was too high to hit- and that it stops short of the Pentagon- so where did the plane go, if the data's accurate?
I advocate for a full honest investigation. The Pentagon/FBI should put an end to the speculation and release the vids and photos, and the evidence/documentation proving it was Flight 77. If they have the plane parts as they claim, the numbers can be matched and disclosed in a way that the public can have confidence that nothing's being hidden/rigged.
http://911reports.com
other 12 witnesses
"Are they mistaken when they declare unequivocally on camera that the plane took the north side approach?"
Great point, Kameelyun. It should be noted that none of the links provided by Loose Nuke address any of the witnesses at Arlington Cemetery, Terry Morin at the Navy Annex, heliport tower air traffic controller Sean Boger, or the first known flyover witness, Roosevelt Roberts Jr.
So while they might nitpick over irrelevant mistakes about minor details made by one witness, Sgt. Lagasse....it's clear that MOST of the corroborating evidence proving that Lagasse was quite correct and safe in his "100% bet" on his life that the plane was on the north side has not been addressed at all!
CIT fully understands and admits that witness testimony can be unreliable and that no witness is always 100% right about everything. That's why they worked so hard to validate or refute this information with the scientific method of independent corroboration. Now it HAS been validated unanimously by over a dozen witnesses, which would fairly be considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt in virtually any other circumstance.
Imagine a court case regarding a car accident where 13 witnesses all testify that it was on the north side of the intersection and no other witness challenged this notion. What's the chance that the jury would refuse to believe the witnesses about the location of the crash?
Zero, of course. It's an extremely simple and general right or left claim that would be very difficult for any of them to get wrong, let alone all of them to get so wildly and drastically wrong in the exact same way.
Yet it makes perfect sense that they would be fooled into believing the impact given what had just happened in New York and given the fact that many of these wintsses admitted to running for cover, hitting the deck, jumping into their cars, and basically not paying attention to the plane after it passed them but paying attention to protecting their own behinds, as anyone would. In fact, many of the witnesses could not see the alleged impact point or the Pentagon at all due to obstacles, topography, and landscape.
Sheila Casey put it best in her article about CIT's work:
"Less than an hour earlier, America had been treated to the sight of the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball. Most people were aware that an attack was underway. If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball. To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives pre-planted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre 9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now."
So while it makes sense they would be easily deceived about the impact and they did not all have such a good view of the alleged impact point or even a flyover, they all had a perfect view of the plane as it passed right by them at tree-top level north of the gas station.
There's a reason why CIT detractors former "prominent researchers" Russell Pickering from pentagonresearch.com and John Farmer from 911files.info or AAL77.com have completely quit the movement and taken down their sites. It isn't because they were right.
Caustic Logic gave up attempting to refute this information as well and has not blogged about it since November last year despite many new developments. And again...even the links to Arabesque's articles on CIT that are so often sourced around here are extremely outdated and don't address the bulk of the independent verifiable evidence provided by CIT.
Great post, patriot.
I agree Sheila Casey's blog on this topic is the best "package" out there for newbies to CIT's work, to be quoted and disseminated widely.
I definitely consider myself to have an open mind and not adopt any sort of "pet theory." I was not initially this way, and I have matured as a critical thinker over the years. At this time 4 years go, I was an uncritical champion of Theirry Meyssan's missile hypothesis. Since then I had to acknowledge that it was not an airtight hypothesis and that there could be other explanations. For one thing, as CIT points out, there is not one eyewitness to a missile. I have looked at all sides of the argument about whether the damage to the building is consistent with a 757. I think that Jim Hoffmann is a fine researcher and I think he's correct about many things. I am still not convinced that the amount of wreckage outside the building is consistent with a 757 crash, regardless of whether the "gash" is 16 ft. or 90 ft. That of course is my own personal perception and I realize good people disagree.
At this point, though, we really have to point to the cowardice of the corporate media, more so than any "poison pills" (which I don't think CIT is) within the movement. 60 Minutes or Larry King could risk their lives by having Richard Gage on for an hour, or even 15 minutes! As I said in another post, there are more than plenty of sane, sober, credentialed experts in relevant fields, including ex-military, including Barbara Honneger. We do already have a strong enough case, which is why I procrastinated delving into CIT's work until more recently. I was busy handing out DVDs of stuff that's been established for a good long while now, such as the CD at the WTC, stand down, war games and other facts. So anyway, yeah, the cowardice of the status-quo (including the status quo of the pop-culture "sheeple") is what's holding us back at this point, more than any speculative theory.
Citgo vid shadow, 13 S side witnesses, problems w/ N side witnes
Linked in this comment above.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20035#comment-207891
http://911reports.com
Re: Shadow etc.
loose nuke,
Well, I've checked out the Frustrating Fraud blogspot, and I'm sorry to say I'm not too impressed.
The "shadow" you are talking about is not a shadow at all and it comes from proven manipulated govt controlled data. Details here: http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm
No official story skeptic can fairly accept ANY govt controlled data as evidence to support the official narrative. PARTICULARLY when the independent evidence proves otherwise.
All of the witnesses at the station prove a deception but you accept some blip in a grainy manipulated video provided by the suspect as a means to dismiss them all and accept the official narrative? How is that remotely logical?
Caustic Logic asserts that it's impossible for the citgo station witnesses to be mistaken and that they are all planted undercover operatives who are a part of a vast disinfo conspiracy to push the north side approach.
Is that what you believe? If not you have no business citing his blog to counter this important evidence. Hell Caustic Logic doesn't even believe building 7 was controlled demo! He is not a truther. He is a jrefer. Heck, his blog even displays a blurb of praise from the Screw Loose Change blog.
Notice how you are unable to verbalize any of his claims and are forced to post links without any discussion . Listen to this recorded phone debate between Ranke and Larson where Larson flounders and fully admits that he is forced to assert the north side witnesses are disinfo agents: http://www.thepentacon.com/craigvsadam.htm
There is a reason he completely stopped blogging about this info as have all CIT detractors and it isn't because they are right or because CIT stopped coming strong with new info.
"Is that what you believe?"
I agree that video tape in the possession of the govt by itself is not reliable; but contrary to your claim, that link is about a video camera being removed- it's not proof the tape was manipulated. It's interesting, though, that it shows what appears to be the shadow of a large plane passing overhead, and it's consistent with the testimony of the 13 S path witnesses FF dug up out of the witness statements on record from the time of 9/11- none of which you debunked. Also, I notice that you didn't debunk any of the issues pointed out with the N path witnesses. Instead, you began claiming that just because FF posts at JREF and cites stuff from JREF, has speculated that some of the N path witnesses may be lying and hasn't updated his blog in awhile- he's stated he's done with the issue- that his research is unreliable.
Links to info on S path and issues with N path witnesses, etc:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20035#comment-207891
Also, numerous issues with CIT's research, interpretations and behavior have already been documented- and their abusive treatment of people who point these things out has gotten them banned from 911blogger and other forums- I posted links in this comment:
Links to info on CIT and the eyewitnesses to impact by jetliner
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20035#comment-207804
In the England video this thread started, they insinuate that the only possible and reasonable interpretation is that England's lying about where his car was and that he admitted he's part of the conspiracy. I remain wholly unconvinced. The preponderance of evidence- the damage path inside and outside the Pentagon, the plane parts, the 100+ eyewitnesses to impact are compelling evidence an AA 757 hit the Pentagon. And it makes more sense; you really believe the lamp poles were downed, tree branches shaved off, and the generator and concrete barrier were smashed by operatives, and they arranged a flyover in conjunction with an explosion- and somehow planted all the aircraft wreckage, and created a 757 wreck-size damage path inside the Pentagon- all to make it appear a 757 hit- when they risk being seen, even video taped staging the scene- and when they could just fly a 757 into the Pentagon instead?
In addition, there are already numerous problems with the OCT about the Pentagon, that aren't in dispute, and are documented in the official narrative by witnesses, official statements, evidence and documents, even though they contradict it; no air cover over DC, almost an hour after the WTC was hit and with knowledge that other planes were hijacked and possibly headed to DC, and this after a summer of threat, and after knowing that al Qaeda had ambition to attack the Pentagon with a plane (which the govt tried to suppress), and after having planned exercises for just such a scenario, which the DOD dissembled about; Mineta's testimony to Cheney's order, and Cheney's own contradictory testimony about when he entered the PEOC, with the Commission unquestioningly accepting his later testimony and ignoring Mineta; Hanjour flight instructors said he couldn't fly; the nearly empty, recently reinforced section was hit; opposite the top brass.
I'm done here.
http://911reports.com
The "south side witnesses" link
For all to see:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...
This has not been updated since October 11, 2008.
Listen to how the page begins:
NOTE: The full post isn’t done – I’ll be adding some details and graphics for a couple days. I've opted to simplify the process by not citing and linking to all my sources. Dig around if you have any doubts. Props to Mangoose at JREF for a couple of these leads.
After just those 3 sentences my BS meter is already going sky high. For one thing, why give credence to an anonymous poster at a forum well known for attacking any and all things 9/11 truth, where it is in vogue to call anyone who questions the official story a "twoofer?"
It then proceeds to attack CIT's flyover documentary as a "mockumentary" - characteristic of "debunkers" with an agenda.
The business of calling documentaries "mockumentaries" is something which took off when the right wingers launched a huge smear campaign to discredit Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Michael Moore
But you don't have to run a right wing smear campaign to discredit Michael Moore's documentaries. I think he's funny and entertaining and all, but I've seen a few documentaries about him and his work. Michael Moore's credo is: "the end justifies the means", which means he will gladly lie and distort in order to get his point across more effectively.
This is not speculation, Moore acknowledges it himself. It grew out of the left getting sick and tired of being bullied around with spin and lies, so he decided that he would wage an all-out propaganda war to push back. That's not my idea of doing what's right, when I watch a documentary I expect sincerity from the director.
This is a kind of 'contract' between the viewer and the documentary maker. By breaching this contract, Moore let me down. Everybody makes mistakes, but anything beyond that is deception, and being infuriated about that is why I am a 9/11 researcher in the first place. Of course, Moore's nemeses are just as bad or worse, but two wrongs doesn't make right.
Oh, and by the way, close up that bold tag, kameelyun ;-) ( use </b> ;-)
We all try to make sense of reality as we believe it exists
The interesting thing about the 13 witnesses is that none of them are 9/11 researchers and none of them knew, as they gave their accounts, that what they saw was in contradiction to the official story. So they are doing a very understandable thing: merging the events they saw with the story they heard on TV.
As I wrote in my article for the Creek:
"Several of CIT’s witnesses mentioned a second plane that came along about 30 seconds later, but media reports immediately after 9/11 talked about a second plane “shadowing” the attack plane. The belief that there were two planes in very close proximity serves as a useful fiction to confuse anyone who saw the plane fly over the Pentagon as the fireball exploded. Rather than concluding that the plane never actually hit the building, observers would almost certainly conclude that they had seen the “shadowing” second plane.
"All of CIT’s witnesses also believe that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon, although this cannot be possible. This fact has been used to dismiss CIT’s work as irrelevant, but it’s not a compelling argument.
"Less than an hour earlier, America had been treated to the sight of the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball. Most people were aware that an attack was underway. If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball. To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives pre-planted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre 9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now."
However I can well believe that the witnesses will NOT forget where they saw the plane. I saw a tornado once that was quite near to me. I stood outside my house and watched it in the sky, still white because it hadn't touched down yet. I will never forget where I saw it, cause I was in danger, and its location was important in determining what I would do next. These witnesses were also (many of them) afraid they might be hit and killed. That's not something you forget, and indeed several of them affirm that there is no chance that they are wrong about where they saw the plane.
Eh?
It is fairly obvious.
Lagasse had previously said that the plane had hit light poles.
CIT questioned him if he actually saw which ones were knocked down.
He said he didn't actually see the lightpoles get knocked down himself, he'd heard they were knocked down and was just mentioning it.
CIT comment that the lightpoles that were knocked down were the ones over there (South of Citgo).
Lagasse disputes this saying it couldn't have been those ones, because the plane was over here (North of Citgo).
How does this show Lagasse to be an unreliable witness? For that to be the case he would have had to have said he HAD seen the lightpoles knocked down with his own eyes AND that they were those ones "over there".
Because in fact he admitted before that he had not actually seen the lightpoles knocked over, his insistence that they were the lightpoles on the CIT proposed flight path speaks to two things:
1) That Lagasse believes the official story, therefore believes the light poles were knocked down by the plane. To him it is fact enough that the plane hit the lightpoles for him to include it in his testimony despite not actually seeing it happen himself.
2) That Lagasse is absolutely certain the plane was on the North of Citgo flightpath.
Simple right?
"How does this show Lagasse to be an unreliable witness?"
Stefan says: "How does this show Lagasse to be an unreliable witness? For that to be the case he would have had to have said he HAD seen the lightpoles knocked down with his own eyes AND that they were those ones "over there"."
Lagasse misplaced the location of the light poles saying in fact, the ones knocked down on 9/11 were not knocked down. THAT is what makes his testimony unreliable.
Legasse “there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”
Instead of directly responding or addressing this point, CIT and their supporters spin the issue about whether or not he saw the plane hit the poles, which is completely irrelevant to the fact that he gave MISTAKEN TESTIMONY. For example:
Ranke: "Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down... when he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES."
As I quoted Lagasse's words above, you can see quite clearly that he did "see" the light poles. No, he didn't see the plane hit them, but he got their location on the ground wrong. And that's what makes his testimony unreliable. He also got the location of the taxi cab wrong. Not to mention of course, this witness is adamant the plane hit the Pentagon.
That hasn't stopped CIT and their supporters from endorsing this witness as "smoking gun" evidence of some kind of mass hallucination event.
A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-misleading-claims-a...
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
a different interpretation
CIT is saying England's cab was in a different location from where he's always said it was? It really was not clear to me from the shots of computer screens and a quick pass by on the freeway.
"it was planned" Sure- 1/3 of Americans have realized 9/11 was "planned" by people bigger than Bin Laden, people with lots of money- no surprise that he's figured it out too.
"I'm in it" and it's "too big for me" - if he simply happened to be there when the plane flew over, he's in it.
Why would the perps go to all the trouble of staging a fake damage path- light poles, a generator, even part of a tree top was sheared off- along with fake witnesses- and fly something else into the Pentagon, or just a bomb- and claim it was AA 77- when they could just fly a 757 into it?
Seems more likely CIT is leading and selectively editing, which would be consistent for them. Some of their own witnesses they say support the N path say they saw the plane hit. 100+ eyewitnesses to an airliner impact, a 90' gash in the Pentagon with space for the engines and a fuselage-sized hole in the center, photos of plane parts including engine parts, and a 757-size damage path. But it sure has made for a great controversy- it's had way more impact that mini-nukes, holograms, space beams and the like. NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon- after years of intel and warnings about al qaeda planes as missiles plots, a summer of threat, an hour and a half after the first sign of hijacking, a half hour after the 2nd tower was hit- and there's no air cover over the nation's capital? The FAA violates standard procedures for notifying the military about off-course flights, and when fighters are scrambled it's from the furthest bases and they're sent in wrong directions? And all CIT is interested in is "proving" a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, despite the preponderance of evidence? Why would the Pentagon release the photos and vids- they've got such a great distraction from solid evidence of treason.
Frustrating Fraud on CIT
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/search/label/Citizen%20Investigatio...
Arabesque on CIT
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-flyover-theory-rip.html
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-citgo-video-contradicts-nor...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/03/citizen-investigation-team-arab...
Flight path misinfo
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/pentagon-flight-path-map-perfec...
Eyewitness testimony
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html
What Eyewitnesses described
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html
Is the 9/11 ‘Pentagon Hole’ a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/is-the-911-“pentagon-hole”-a-psyop-to-distract-from-real-questions/
http://911reports.com
Sure
and I disagree with CIT that a plane absolutely did not hit the Pentagon. But...this is about just considering the witness statements. Why on earth is Lloyd acting like this? Looking at the things his wife said, who works/worked for the FBI, it gets even weirder. The point is, I have no particular 'wish' for a plane to have hit the Pentagon, nor do I 'wish' for a plane not to have hit the pentagon. What matters to me, is the witness statement(s), that reveal profound contradictions. That's what the Pentagon story is...full of contradictions. CIT is just jumping the gun on the conclusions. In my opinion, if there was north side approach, there was north side approach. I don't fill anything in beyond that. Time will tell what the actual approach path was. But these witness statements matter. Very much, imo.
Why does it matter anyway?
"That's what the Pentagon story is...full of contradictions. CIT is just jumping the gun on the conclusions."
First of all this whole topic is far too debatable to be of any benefit to the movement. A big question that neither Craig nor his fans have been able to adequately answer for me is why any of this matters. What benefit is there from wondering about what happened to Flight 77 after the "supposed" moment of impact? What do we gain from speculating about things with no likely answer? Why should we spend any more time debating what happened at the Pentagon when we have so many other solid facts that we can use to promote this movement?
I don't think it matters. And for that reason I consider CIT and all their "research" to be a big distraction at best. People like to go on about how significant the witness testimony is, but to be frank, anyone with investigative education quickly sees how inadequate the testimony is for drawing any solid conclusions. And yet, as you say, CIT draws many conclusions and states them with little hesitation. They aren't journalists or historians. And they have a long well recorded history of not addressing their own contradictions and irresponsible reporting. Oh, and witness testimony is not totally independent of the manner in which it is collected. We can't separate the testimony from CIT and act like it has independent relevance. CIT very obviously has an impact on the data they gather.
So not only is the subject kind of pointless, in my view, but the source can't be trusted. And that all adds up to one big waste of time. If you disagree, try answering my first question. Why does it matter?
http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com