Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession

Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual Confession

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?"


"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.


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... 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

"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."

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}




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".


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

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"

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?


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 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 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:

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.


See 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.


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.

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.'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 and John Farmer from or 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.

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:

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:

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:

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

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.

The "south side witnesses" link

For all to see:

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.


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
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

Arabesque on CIT

Flight path misinfo

Eyewitness testimony

What Eyewitnesses described

Is the 9/11 ‘Pentagon Hole’ a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?“pentagon-hole”-a-psyop-to-distract-from-real-questions/


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?

"Why does it matter?"

Well shit, of course it matters... Michael Ruppert and others have said that CD doesn't matter and is a waste of time or distraction away from the "real" evidence of complicity in the form of wargames....

....Chomsky and even Zinn have said "Why does it matter" and "Isn't this a distraction?" with regard to 9/11 truth as a whole... even Michael Ruppert would be disappointed with that, I gather!

Some STILL INSIST, despite the overwhelming evidence, that CD is "too debatable," and that Richard Gage and the 640 a's and e's are just a small number of people compared to all the OTHER a's and e's in the country who still don't question the official story. In other words, they believe CD is a "distraction" from the "real" evidence.

We may just simply have to agree to disagree about what matters versus what's a "distraction."

Why does it matter? Knowledge is power, isn't it? Multiple eyewitnesses say the plane approached from the north side of the station. That indicates that the lightpoles were staged to provide evidence to support the official story. Even DRG concedes this in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking."

Not an answer

That's not an answer to my question. Agreeing to disagree is a total dodge.

Ruppert is right although in an overly dismissive way. We could avoid the physical evidence altogether and still have a strong movement. I'd say stronger.

And Chomsky and Zinn are right to the extent that the things they are concerned with actually are a lot more important that 9/11 truth. This isn't the most important cause on earth. I really do hope that people have other political concerns that come before this but, in contrast to Chomsky and Zinn, hope they have room in their head for 9/11 truth as well.

And I think that the movement is too focused on CD. I'm a big fan of some of it's primary researchers and advocates. So don't start poking me with the debunker stick. I very much hope that the research leads to further evidence of complicity. But that's a far cry from thinking that a banner sign that says, "9/11 = Controlled Demolition" is a good idea. I don't think it's healthy or helpful for people to be all about one area of the evidence. Without the big picture, people turn this into a hobby. And that can get pretty ugly and damaging to the movement.

Finally, I'm just not convinced by the lame, hand held testimony of a few people, some of whom contradict one another, and most of whom suggest that the plane hit the building. And CIT's junk conclusions can't just be ignored, as though the testimony stands on it's own.

So, anyone want to give me some reasons why this is at all beneficial to the movement. And by that I don't mean yelling at me that the evidence speaks for itself, or telling me how cool CIT is. What is the exact strategic benefit of this concern. And while you are at it, why not list the strategic disadvantages. That's what someone who had the capacity for logical evaluation would be able to do. Something I generally hope people in this movement would care about.

No, it's not a total dodge.

Agreeing to disagree is what we shall have to do. You do indeed sound burned out from 9/11 truth activism. I suggest you take a true hiatus and come back with a new, invigorated approach. As a orchestra musician, I can say that you sound like someone who took a few dozen auditions to win an orchestra position, never won one, and instead got a job being the lead "music critic" in the city newspaper, whereby you'd take a certain wry revenge in your own lack of success by being as much of a Simon Cowell as possible when writing your review columns of the city's orchestra.

You are absolutely correct that there are other causes other than 9/11 truth. I have devoted activist time to ending the war on drugs (freeing every nonviolent offender from jail) waking people up about the stolen '04 election, the Iraq war lies (which is now mainstream acknowledged), and I've dabbled a little bit into animal rights. Waking people up to the TRUE causes of the financial crisis has been important lately.

For me, however, 9/11 truth is no. 1, and needs to stay in sharp focus if to continue to gain as thorough a knowledge and understanding as possible. And I personally applaud CIT's efforts. I do not believe their conclusions are junk. I may not always be right, but that's how I see things.


Your analogy is amusing but hardly applies to me. I don't feel any lack of success in my promotion of 9/11 truth. I am very concerned however about the movement's lack of success. And I attribute that lack of success to such things as the BS coming out of CIT.

I could turn the snottiness around on you and say that you are just a fan boy. You don't actually know enough about the CIT evidence to stand up for it. You just FEEL like it makes sense and so you think that defending they work is akin to defending the movement. I think that's silly and counter-productive. And acting like someone who thinks CIT's "work" is crap is a debunker or unsupportive of the movement doesn't improve my opinion of your judgment.

The rest of this message is fairly agreeable to me. I'm glad you care about other things. We'd likely agree about many things. And I'm glad that some people consider 9/11 truth to be their number 1 priority. But not if those people can't tell the difference between strong and weak evidence.

No, the movement, contrary to your perception,

is actually quite successful. I point to existence of all the "(fill in the blank) for 9/11 truth" organizations that exist now.

I point to the fiasco at In case you've forgotten:

I point to the fact that if you go to facebook, the group "9/11 truth movement" has almost 27,000 members. The group "I support the architects and engineers for 911 truth" has almost 3,000 members. The LARGEST "anti-truth" group there had a little over 1,000 members, called "There is no 911 conspiracy you morons." A few other anti-truth groups had no more than a couple dozen members.

Groups like CIT are not why the truth about 9/11 hasn't been "blown wide open." The reason 9/11 truth is still under the lid is that money talks and bullshit walks. The MSM in this country have hundreds and hundreds of credible experts it could have on prime time. Just a small dose of that could help tip public perception past the 50-50 point. It's the cowardice of the corporate media which can influence the masses that's the problem, not the bravery of 2 independents like Craig and Marquis.

Finally, to support the idea that it *hasn't* been a successful movement: it hasn't been successful for the same reason that we're still in Iraq even though the "Downing Street Memo" was 2006. Where's the mass revolt there?

Face it, people's cities in America haven't been bombed, we've still got our roofs over our heads, and there's still food in the stores. So there's no reason to "revolt" even peacefully. Hopefully this financial meltdown will hit peoples' pocketbooks and cause them to start opening their eyes and thinking critically.

CIT: Cherry Picking, Special Pleading, and Ad Hominem attacks

CIT has discredited themselves numerous times with outrageous slander and attacks against anyone who even dares to disagree with their theories. The moderator of this site was accused of promoting disinformation for providing links to my blog. That's the first obvious tip-off that they aren't about having a fair or reasoned discussion when they attack everyone who disagrees with their point of view.

When I pointed out that Craig Ranke made personal attacks against me, his absurd and bewildering response was to call it a "personal attack". Quoting personal attacks itself is a personal attack? This kind of reasoning and argumentation far from being an anomaly, is common for CIT.

It is called cherry picking when you promote the claim that there was a "flyover" when ALL of the witnesses in a position to witness the event you cite as "evidence" say it hit the building.

CIT regularly contradict themselves and promote contradictory and flawed claims. Here is an example:

"For all of them to hallucinate the same exact thing is simply not a viable consideration.”

Elsewhere Ranke says the plane approaching the Pentagon was “used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion.”

Double standards of evidence. Having it both ways. It's called "special pleading" and it is a logical fallacy.

See also:

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

"For all of them to hallucinate....

....the same exact thing is simply not a viable consideration".

Arabesque, do you even understand what Craig is saying in that quote?

It seems as though you don't, but it could also be that you do and you took it out of context to confuse people. Please explain your motive for citing that quote because it's unclear from your response. But just to be clear, I understand Craig is saying that it's not a viable consideration for the witnesses to all simultaneously hallucinate the plane on the north side.

Since the north side approach and an impact are mutually exclusive, everyone must choose one to accept when looking at this evidence.

So what's more likely--mass hallucination or mass deception?

CIT says mass deception is much more likely, and apparently you say mass hallucination. Yet you've always used that quote out of context to suggest that CIT was supporting hallucination. Right?

If you believe the plane impacted the building, you're forced to explain away the unanimous north side witnesses as simultaneously hallucinating the same flight path.

If you understand that they're accurately remembering where they all saw the plane, you only have to accept that they were deliberately deceived into believing an impact, just like the people in New York and throughout the world were deceived into believing the towers fell due to plane impacts and fire.

Why does scientifically validated evidence of a mass deception compel you to dismiss it as mass hallucination while attacking the people who uncovered the information?

And why did you respond to this thread while completely failing to reference the video in the OP where Lloyde England virtually admits involvement in the operation?

Attacking the messenger

In your posts AND from what I've seen on your blog, there seems to be a desperate attempt to discredit the messenger - and the eyewitness.

"Anyone who dares question their theories" - Sounds almost right out of popular mechanics.

CIT has now produced THIRTEEN WITNESSES who say the north side approach happened, unequivocally. They have also interviewed one witness who attests to a flyover. Your uber-lengthy blog posts can not cloud this simple truth.

Don't focus on Craig and Aldo. Focus on the 13 north side witnesses and the one flyover witness.

You're right that such

You're right that such Chomsky-esque "It doesn't matter" comments are not very convincing. If there indeed had been a fly-over (which I don't believe at all), it would also matter. Only the evidence has to decide and not personal feelings.

But that's exactly the problem: the "evidence" that the CIT guys put forward simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There's not one single witness who claims to have seen this extraordinary maneuver. On the other hand there are dozens who specifically say they saw the plane hit the building. Even some of their own witnesses say that! According to CIT, they must all have hallucinated. Do you think this kind of mass-hallucination is even remotely probable? It's easy for me to believe that people could be mistaken about the direction from which the plane was coming years after the fact. But could they also be mistaken about having seen the plane hit the building? I don't think so at all. The testimonial evidence alone is so damning for the CIT guys that they would need the strongest physical evidence to come up against that. But the physical evidence is not convincing either, as far as I'm concerned.

And I just can't believe that the perpetrators could have been so dumb. They could have simply flown the plane into the building, so why did they risk everything with this crazy maneuver which could easily have blown the whole operation? The demolitions were necessary, because they needed the pictures of the Twin Towers coming down for shock & awe and Building 7 probably had to be brought down because of the SEC files, but the fly-over would have been completely unnecessary, so why should they have taken a tremendous risk when they had absolutely nothing to gain from it but everything to lose? That doesn't make any sense to me. If they did stage a fly-over maneuver, they would have been the dumbest conspirators in world history and I don't think they were.
Spuren von Sprengstoff im Staub des World Trade Centers gefunden

To clarify

"You're right that such Chomsky-esque "It doesn't matter" comments are not very convincing. If there indeed had been a fly-over (which I don't believe at all), it would also matter. Only the evidence has to decide and not personal feelings."

That would be a misinterpretation of the intent of my statement. To put it another way, in light of the concerns that you express about how problematic is the evidence, and in light of the fact that CIT is irresponsible in their conclusions as stated by the poster I was responding to, how could this be an important area of concern for this movement.

Granted, if we actually could prove any of this, it would be important. But I think that kind of goes without saying.

What part of

"If the plane approached from the north side of the gas station then the light poles had to have been staged" do you not get?

Contrary to your assertion that not one person believes there was a flyover other than the 2 CIT guys, there is a flyover witness, Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. I'm watching "The North Side Flyover" and will comment more when I've heard the whole thing. I'm still *relatively* new to this avenue of 911 research but I certainly find it fascinating. It's like with all other areas of 9/11 research: Only an independent investigation with subpoena powers would answer these questions. "Immunity in exchange for testimony" might cause people like England to really talk.

Oh, you're sold. Never mind.

I see that you are convinced. I've done enough debating with people who think the CIT "evidence" is compelling or significant to know when to just walk away. I know it's most likely that you can't be reasoned with on this issue. But you are wrong.

Hate to do this...

You told me not to point the "debunker" stick at you but I can't help it.

You sound not too different than the angry firefighters over at this mainstream fireman's discussion thread:

Where the "few" firefighters for 9/11 truth are accused of taking firefighters' quotes on 9/11 out of context, spinning them to serve an agenda... oh yes, firefightersfor911truth are "sold." They "want" to believe the buildings were bombed. Oh, and NIST etc. refuted the "junk conclusions" of these CD idiots.

Of course, it's easy to dismiss evidence if you simply put "evidence" in "scare" "quotes."

It's clear you have not viewed the totality of the evidence


I have never heard CIT ever ask people to wonder or speculate about what happened to "Flight 77after the moment of supposed moment of impact".  In fact they say the opposite.  They beg for people to stop speculating about what happened to "Flight 77" and very vocally discourage everyone from speculation at all.  Even about "what hit the Pentagon".  Sure they suggest pre-planted explosives would be the most logical hypothesis given the evidence and given this clearly established M.O. at the WTC.

But what they are are asking you to focus on is the "independent verifiable evidence" they present proving the plane flew on the north side of the citgo gas station.  All confirmed witnesses in this critical area have unanimously corroborate this single detail.  13 of them so far!  Some are aviation professionals and federal police officers and are therefore expert witnesses, while others are regular working class folk working at Arlington National Cemetery.  They are all unanimous in this simple detail that proves MIHOP on 9/11 every bit as much as controlled demolition at the WTC.

So CIT isn't asking you to listen to them or what you might choose to label their "junk conclusions".  They are asking you to listen to where the witnesses all place the plane.

That is evidence, not theory.

The fact that the witnesses were fooled into believing the plane hit does not disprove the evidence for a north side approach any more than the fact that people were fooled into believing the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fires does not disprove evidence for controlled demo.
Bottom line, the plane CAN NOT hit the light poles or cause the damage to the buiding from the north side approach yet this is where ALL the witnesses place the plane.
Now add that to the fact that the cab driver's story is physically impossible, and he basically ADMITTED involvement in the operationm, and what more could any rational intelligent person need?

Hard evidence proving MIHOP is not a "distraction".  People distracting us from this evidence and discouraging people to pay attention to it are a distraction.
Oh and by the way, CIT most certainly HAS interviewed an eyewitness who saw the plane at about 50 feet altitude flying away from the building immediately after the explosion.  He is a Pentagon police officer named Roosevelt Roberts Jr and you can hear him talk about this plane to the Library of Congress in 2001 and to CIT again in 2008. 
See that at the end of Part 2 of their presentation, "The North Side Flyover".

It's clear you have not viewed the totality of the evidence they present even though you have an obvious emotional attachment to discouraging others from doing so.

Been over this before

Thanks for your respectful response. But you also go too far in defending CIT to the point of simply assuming that it's "clear" that I haven't looked at the evidence thus also implying that if I have, I didn't understand it.

I've seen most of the contents of the CIT website. I've had long drawn out arguments with Craig Ranke. I am very familiar with his "evidence" and methodology. I don't find the "evidence" remotely compelling. I don't trust Ranke one iota. And I also think it's totally inaccurate to suggest that CIT makes no conclusions or that these few eyewitnesses really make any kind of significant point.

I'm 35, fairly well educated, and specifically focused on logic and strategy. Feel free to maintain the opinion expressed by others above that I'm have some kind of chip on my shoulder or that I'm here to undermine the movement because I think CIT does so. That's on you. Feel free to repeat the same tired arguments about CIT not advancing a theory and just presenting evidence. Feel free to ignore every time they act shady or argue in bad faith, or ignore relevant questions. Sure CIT is just rosy.

But you might want to consider the fact that there aren't many prominent people in this movement that would get anywhere near CIT or their "evidence." Most of them know that CIT is a poison pill. Most of them know not to get too close. Many of them agree with me that the "Pentagon flyover theory" is totally junk science. And some of them agree with me that CIT does more harm than good.

But, hey, maybe it's easier for you and others to simply turn that all around on me. It must be me who is a poison pill and to be avoided and promoting junk science, and doing more harm than good.

But that's not the truth.

Appeal to authority and sweeping generalizations

You keep calling the evidence provided by CIT "junk science" without stating how. You have misrepresented the claims of CIT and suggested there are no flyover witnesses when this is simply not true.

I concluded that you hadn't viewed or understood the evidence because of this behavior. The fact that you've "argued at length" with Craig in the past doesn't prove you have viewed/undertsood the evidence. Especially if your arguing was anything like it's been in this thread--more opinion, rhetoric, and emotion than substance.

Your sweeping generalized appeal to authority is not only a logical fallacy but it's false. You said, "there aren't many prominent people in this movement that would get anywhere near CIT." Well, David Ray Griffin is arguably THE most prominent and prolific scholar in the movement and he has referenced the work of CIT in two of his books. Are you accusing him of being a junk scientist or swallowing a poison pill? 

I don't mean to be so hard on you, but you're not posting substance, or evidence, or logic. You're posting ego-defensive, emotionally charged opinion, without a real understanding of the information in question, and claiming it's the truth. That doesn't help anyone.

All first-hand witness accounts in this critical area unanimously confirm a north side approach proving MIHOP and proving the cab driver's account false. The cab driver's account is physically impossible and virtually admitted involvement.

Why does that upset you so much that you're willing to refuse to believe the 13 first-hand witness accounts and accept that they all simultaneously hallucinated the north side approach (from multiple different and opposing vantage points) as opposed to being deliberately deceived about the impact as intended by the planners? Do you really think that individual hallucinations are more logical and likely during a crime of this nature than mass deception? Apparently Arabesque does, but I know CIT doesn't, and neither do I.

Sorry, I can't accept this logic.

"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?"

This is the same logical fallacy as: "Why would the perpetrators go to the trouble of wiring the buildings, [etc.] when two planes crashing into two buildings by hijackers would have angered the public enough, and would have itself been sufficient excuse to invade afghanistan?" Many people instantly dismiss the CD hypothesis on that logic.

Watch the video again. loose nuke. His account is different when he thinks he's not being recorded. Specifically, WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATION OF THE CAR.

I read the sources you cite prior to writing my article on this

But found nothing of value in them, other than the realization that Arabesque is for some reason highly motivated to discredit CIT. It takes hours to watch all of the CIT DVDs, and it seems that both Loose Nuke and Arab want to pass judgement without taking the time to view the research. It does not, however, take hours to read my article for the April Rock Creek Free Press, which is here and includes seven full color photos to help people understand the research.

Here's what I wrote about Lloyde England:

"The most riveting segment in the CIT footage is of the interview with Lloyde England, a taxi cab driver who was photographed numerous times just after the attack. In all the photos, England and his cab are on Route 27, on the bridge going over Columbia Pike. The front windshield of his cab has a big hole in it and the cab is at a stop and straddling the lanes. A broken light pole lies nearby.

"England’s story is that he was going 40 mph when he felt the jet go over head, and then the light pole came smashing through his front windshield. He says he then skidded sideways to a stop, and that a stranger stopped and helped him remove the light pole from the windshield, and then left without ever giving his name, or even speaking a word.

"England’s story is suspect because photos show the hood of his sedan untouched and gleaming like a mirror, although his front windshield was destroyed. England is quite clear that it was not the smaller section at the top of the light pole that impaled his windshield, but the big, 40 foot, 247 pound pole. He contends that after it pierced his windshield, with perhaps five feet of the top end of the pole inside the cab, that the other 35 feet stuck straight out into the air, not touching the hood of the cab.

"The question is, with the windshield destroyed, what held the pole up the in air? CIT drove with England to his property in the country to inspect the cab. They hypothesized that perhaps the narrow end of the pole had pierced the back seat or floorboards of the cab, holding it in place and not allowing it to touch the hood of the cab. But their inspection showed that there was only an insignificant rip in the rear seat, and no damage to the floorboards. Although the dashboard was damaged, no part of the hood, including the edge near the windshield, showed any damage.

"What makes the story even more incredible is that England claims that as he was removing the pole from the windshield, he fell down, but managed, even as he was on the ground, to keep holding the pole in the air. Remember that the pole is 40 feet long and weighs 247 pounds, while England appears to be about 65 years old.

"Pressed to explain how it can be that the pole never touched the hood of the sedan, England said only “The car speaks for itself.” Unfortunately for England, the car seems to be saying that his account can not possibly be true.

"In addition, with 13 witnesses saying that the plane went no where near those light poles, it seems clear that something else caused the damage to England’s windshield."

I am posting this at 3:10 pm EDT -- but it could be hours before this goes up. My last comment took 12 hours.

am worried for cab driver's lifeWill he end uplike BarryJenning?

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

thanks for the important video. We need to do this with others who were "in on it". I am expecially thinking about the guy who passed on television just after one of the towers falls down and planted the idea that the towers fell down because the planes and fire had weekened the structure. He seemed to me "in on it".

Then there are the guys who were collecting plane pieces in a non professionnal FBI manner.

Another is the guy who took the pentagon fire photos.

Also be the military man who had changed the interception procedure a couple of months before the 11th of September

The guys who found the motors from the WTC

You have done a great work. Keep it up.

But I am worried for the cab drivers' life. Will he have the same end as Barry Jenning?

Yours John

Thanks so much for this post.

This was a great post.
Many people "just want to live their lives". Many people in "just wanting to live their lives" could use an extra 5 or 10 grand (or more). Many people would view an action of minor deceit as having no major impact one way or another...and that regardless of any participation the agenda would still occur.

The man

...........i am sure, is not as dumb as he appears. I think anyone that pursues the truth should be thanked.
I still have a very hard time believing that a jets wing could rip out one light pole, let alone multiple

I have no axe to grind here

but isn't it plausible that the aircraft engines, which were supposedly running full-tilt, could have blown some of the light poles over with their exhaust. I even remember seeing a film of a car being blown off of a runway with the take-off exhaust of a large plane. So the poles may not have been hit by the wing, and still uprooted.

Some light poles which

Some light poles which *should* have been knocked down by the north side flight path were *not*.

Also, to support flyover: the data gathered by from the flight data recorder shows that when the plane should have been at the altitude to hit any light pole, it was still about 240 feet in the air, if I recall correctly.

No way

........... Light poles have a small surface area. It's not like holding up a sheet of plywood. Besides the J bolt anchors go down at least three feet, and are at least 1 1/4 inches in diameter. Someone posted pictures of the downed light poles awhile back.. Unfortunately there were no pictures of the light poles cement mounting bases.
Maybe if an engine hit one.........A wing... No way in hell

"A wing... No way in hell"

A wing... easily. Unless you believe something else happened with the WTC crashes, you believe that airliners sliced thru all the thick steel columns on the exterior, at the same time. The wings are the strongest part of an aircraft. Doesn't seem like it would be any problem for wings to knock down the light poles, if they were in its path- 100 some tons of mass, traveling well over 400 mph and accelerating- how could they possibly resist it? The wings probably did get dented/damaged at the same time, but doesn't seem like a light pole would've had any significant effect.

A wing: possibly.

IF the plane took the flight path of the official story.

Clearly it didn't though.

"Clearly it didn't though"

according to how?

See the Citgo video shadow article, 13 S side witnesses (Larson stopped looking for more when he got to that number) and other problems w/ the N side witnesses- links in this comment on the first page:

real plane, real people, real debris

What's fascinating to me is how -- based on a couple of controlled interviews with less than a handful of people years after the events, often contradictory -- that people can support:

a fake plane impact
the involvement of multiple planes that no one else saw
numerous fake witnesses
several different types of fake debris that no one saw planted
fake toppling of lampposts

Yet, what's amazing is that most of these same people immediately dismiss the dozens and dozens of real reports by people ON THE SCENE and AT THE TIME of the event, the vast majority of whom reported that:

a real commercial jet flew toward and hit the building
no flyover occurred, no other jets were involved, etc
real debris was at the scene, even raining down after impact
real lampposts fell after the plane hit them
and that these accounts are massively redundant

Unfortunately, I can only conclude that most people who get excited abut CIT videos have never read the witness statements of the many real people who witnessed the events. Instead, they watch the videos created by filmmakers who are so aggressive and rude that they are banned from all moderated forums, and who have been used to easily ridicule the work of activists trying to expose the important problems with the Pentagon attack (that it was hit at all, etc) --

Do You Believe a Passenger Jet Hit the Pentagon on 9/11? These Men Say You've Been 'PentaConned!'
Published on August 13, 2008 at 11:28am
"They showed up with a couple of other people Walter had never spoken with: Craig Ranke, a fast talker with wild eyes, and Aldo Marquis, a heavyset guy who didn't talk much. The two said they were helping Avery and Pickering with research for their film. Walter chatted casually with the pair, and at one point, he realized that Ranke was surreptitiously tape-recording the conversation.

That was weird, he thought. And increasingly, so was the conversation itself. Although Pickering and Avery seemed relatively normal, Ranke and Marquis appeared to be on a mission to prove that the Pentagon plane crash never happened. They wouldn't listen to anything that contradicted this notion.

Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. "They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios."

Real scientific stuff . . .

Read the witness statements for yourself. Don't just ingest whatever the latest slick video is telling you to.

Some of the statements are here.

  real evidence, real proof, real deception


You can read the out-of-context media witness quotes over and over, but until you pick up a phone, call them, confirm their actual location, and then go to Arlington to document/anaylyze their true point of view in relation to the topography and landscape, you're not providing evidence, and you're not applying the same scientific rigor to this situation that CIT has.

Nothing in your reply addresses the scientifically validated independent evidence provided by CIT proving a deception. You're merely dismissing the information out of hand and ending it with a hit-piece from mainstream media attacking CIT. Of course the reporter in that piece, much like your response here, pretty much ignored the body of evidence they present and focused on them personally. That's such a blatant ad hominem attack, I'm surprised you stoop to citing it. Please read a point-by-point rebuttal to that article here: 

Funny how mainstream media approval becomes a litmus test for evidence exposing 9/11 only when it comes to CIT. Sorry, but to me the fact that they were attacked by the media at all can only be a sign they're on the right track. If you're a real 9/11 truther, you celebrate that!

The reality is that CIT provides hard evidence--on-camera first-hand independent eyewitness accounts--for all of their claims, and the only claim that matters here is whether or not the plane was on the north or south side of the gas station. Put yourself at the Citgo gas station that morning and think if you'd remember on which side you saw a low-flying plane come in.

It's unanimous. All the eyewitnesses agree. It proves a deception.

None of the unconfirmed second-hand media quotes (hearsay) from people who were NOT at the Citgo station can change this. Why do you resist and deny this? Why is the official Pentagon attack narrative so important to you that you'd actually argue against hard evidence proving it false?

Don't we all want the truth, wherever it may lead?

Trade ya

I'd trade a 7 page spread on CIT truth killers for just a 1 page Jim Hoffman interview.

The bodies

And what about the charred bodies that can be seen in some Pentagon photographs?

Internet search on Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

This is the second return from the top on Yahoo! ;

User "beachnut" is a JREFer, so ignore the posts by "beachnut". I don't know about the other users.

It's not like Roberts saw a plane diving toward the Pentagon, then pulled up and away. His observation of a commercial jet begins up to possibly 10 seconds after the impact/explosion, (in Roberts' own words), and he sees a plane flying away to the southwest. If the interpretation given by "biscuit cough" of what Roberts says is correct, the jet would have had to make what seems to be an impossible turn to be witnessed flying in the direction that Roberts says, considering the speed at which the aircraft was traveling.

Is "biscuit cough" correct?

Also, many, many people must have seen this jet, if Roberts is correct, traveling southwest, away from the Pentagon.

I'm not defending the government's version here. I'm merely questioning the validity of what seems to be very ambiguous data. We should proceed with our best evidence way out front, and material that is so easy to attack just can't be that solid.

So we should also ignore JREFer Caustic Logic?

In a comment on his most recent post at Frustrating Fraud (from 3 months ago), Caustic Logic wrote "See ya at JREF!" Given Reprehensor's admonition to ignore posts by JREFer "beachnut," I assume Rep would say we should also ignore JREFer Caustic Logic?

Yet Loose Nuke references Caustic Logic at the Frustrating Fraud over and over again in this thread. He posted a comment with four links to Frustrating Fraud on Saturday (comment 207891), then posted two more comments with a link back to comment 207891. With one more additional comment linking to frustrating fraud, Loose Nuke has given us 13 opportunities in this thread to read the blog of this JREFer.

Later in those comments from Frustrating Fraud's most recent blog post, someone asks: "Explain more, how and why are P4T done, and their time is up? Any links to pilots that disagree with them?"

Caustic Logic declines to answer, suggesting only to "google them."

And this is the source that Loose Nuke thinks provides a refutation of CIT's research?

note: use this comment instead of one posted ten min ago please.

"and material that is so easy to attack just can't be that solid


If you ever lurk at places like JREF, you will notice that dedicated opposition finds it easy to attack absolutely everything. Here they are attacking the recent peer-reviewed work of Jones and company:

The title of the thread is: "New Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper."

And even without reading it, I'm supposed to be impressed by the thread's length. 266 posts! Seven page thread, at 40 posts a page! Wow! That must be some pretty industrial-strength debunking going on! Just like how the 10,000 page NIST report must have covered everything thoroughly by real scientists, and found no evidence of explosives. And remember how Popular Mechanics contacted "hundreds of experts?" See the psychological operation going on here?

Haven't people in the past, such as Gold, been wary of the CD at the WTC claim, because our opposition can "so easily use it against us?"

You must remember that many if not all of the witnesses whom CIT has interviewed merged their own real-life accounts with what they were told to believe by the media. Hence most of the anomalies at which the CIT 'debunkers' like to nitpick.

Let's consider two competing scenarios here, and forget about "flyover" or "impact" for a minute:

(a) The bad guys staged the light pole / south side scene, including buying off and/or threatening Lloyd England to go on the record, including major news stations, to support a false account which bolstered the official fairy tale (just as the bad guys did with Ted Olson and his wife's non-existent phone call). Later on, two diligent and persistent young investigators do some data assimilating and dot-connecting, and realize that England's account can't be true. When the bad guys come to know of this chink in the armor, they do what they have to do: launch a disinfo campaign against CIT.

(b) England's account is true. The bad guys decide, in 2006-2007, to damage the movement's credibility by mounting a massive disinfo campaign with 13 fake witnesses for the north side approach, and Craig and Aldo are part of the disinformation conspiracy, pretending to be legit investigators.

I personally gravitate towards (a). Especially when actually watching the interviews, on location, with the witnesses.

Edited to add: You mention "beachnut," who is one of the most super-prolific attackers of the movement on jref. Caustic Logic (the author of Frustrating Fraud) is also a jrefer and he believes wtc7 wasn't a demo. Keep these things in mind.

Rep, with all due respect...

Roosevelt said he saw a "commercial airliner" at about 50 feet altitude immediately after the fireball. He said "10 seconds tops,” which means immediately. Not 3 minutes later at about 1,000 feet altitude like the C-130, but just above the light poles immediately after the explosion. He didn't come out years later to make this claim to gain attention or fame. There's an official recording from the Library of Congress of him describing this plane back in 2001 only weeks after the event. CIT merely independently confirmed his account years later in a recorded phone interview and confirmed the timing in regard to when he saw the plane in relation to the explosion, which was immediate.

What’s your contention? That he completely fabricated this plane in 2001 and now? He has no motive for that and even backed out of doing an on camera interview after he agreed because he finally realized the implications and got scared out of his wits and clammed up. Who are you to say the flight path is "impossible?” How do you know EXACTLY where the plane flew after the explosion or even before it? Obviously you don't and "biscuit cough" doesn't either. Nor is he a legitimate researcher, so for you to listen to this anonymous poster on a UFO forum as a means to dismiss real evidence and real findings from real researchers with real names simply makes no sense at all.

"Biscuit cough's" drawing of Roosevelt's path is not what Roosevelt described. Sure he was confused about cardinal directions a bit when trying to describe it over the phone--which is normal for most humans--but when he used landmarks, he basically described it banking around to the north to the "mall entrance side" of the Pentagon, which is the way that departures out of Reagan Airport go.

CIT has not claimed that Roosvelt's account is perfectly clear, or perfect for that matter. No eyewitness account is perfect. This is why CIT only relies on them for very general details that can be corroborated. Details like the general placement of the plane on the north side and the general notion that a plane kept going at all. The fact that Roosevelt saw the plane at all is extremely strong corroboration of the north side witnesses who prove a plane did not hit.

But the entire point here is that Roosevelt is merely icing on the cake and the ultimate validation of what has already been proven by the unanimous corroboration from 13 north side witnesses. Yet here you are searching for ways to dismiss and discredit these people who were there and prove a deception. Even to the point of resorting to UFO sites and JREF bloggers. Please.

But Roosevelt is not the only person who saw the plane flying away. Are you familiar with Erik Dihle yet? I bet you're not. But I bet you would be if CIT wasn't banned. Erik Dihle was at Arlington Cemetery in his office right across from the Citgo station. Although he didn't see the plane himself, he told the Center for Military History only weeks after the event that just after the explosion, he ran outside and the first thing he heard people say was that, "...a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going!”

That's right. You can download this 2001 official interview with him here:

So THIS is direct evidence of what people REALLY first reported before the propaganda set in, the liars got on camera, and all the 911 transcripts and security video was confiscated.

How much validation will it take? How many corroborating witnesses are necessary to convince you that the official Pentagon narrative is false and that CIT are true diligent researches working their tails off to expose this deception?

Makes you wonder...who's really behind all this resistance--and why?

Hence the MSM propaganda about a "shadowing plane"

Rep, perhaps you haven't a had a chance to read this entire thread. You write: "many, many people must have seen this jet, if Roberts is correct, traveling southwest, away from the Pentagon."

But I addressed this a couple days ago, at:

"Several of CIT’s witnesses mentioned a second plane that came along three minutes 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."

I know it is time consuming to view all the CIT interviews, but if you do so, you will see how utterly believable and trustworthy the 13 eye-witnesses are. I studied acting and directing in film school at UCLA, and have a good eye for what is acting and what is not. Unless these police officers and cemetery workers are all graduates of Julliard, they are simply telling the truth.

Sheila-credibility gone

You will realize, because truth wins over time-that you have blown any credibility you may have had with rational real truth reseachers.
Time will tell on you.
CIT is a poisen pill and you took it.
This just makes truthers look insane.
This cab driver is an innocent man who was nearly killed on 9/11,
and told his story to us. CIT and pilots for truth have the same goal.
To convince you a plane didn't impact the pentagon. If the plane did, then they are obsolete at best and dishonest at worse.
I could provide links to PROVE, that they have tried to paint the cab driver as "in on it", and tried several approaches, for years now. The new approach is...:He's just a nice guy who was used", before he was "The Devil himself." I wont waste my time provideing the links for you because you should have done the research yourself. You've been duped and can't be taken seriously anymore. He never confessed to anything. Did you actually watch the full movie? If you did and still believe he made some sort of confession you deluded yourself into hearing what you wanted. You've been duped by BS artists. On 9/11 planes flew into buildings and that includes the pentagon. You are not helping.

I stand by Sheila's and CIT's work.

Not only am I a rational researcher, I am someone who is regarded by people who know me in person as unusually smart.

Do the CIT boys perhaps have a 'tude and get angry with those who don't accept their findings? Probably so. I bet I would too. They're young. They'll mature. I used to have a juvenile attitude in my early truthing days 4 years ago, sometimes making comments online like "If you can't see WTC7 was a CD, you're a fuckin' idiot!" Then I learned that such an approach can only serve to alienate and so I toned it down and learned how to be civil, all the time.

But the interviews documented by CIT do speak for themselves. Give me even one on-camera interview with a person who unequivocally confirms the south-side approach, and also states that the 13 north side witnesses are wrong. Then the south side defenders might have a shred of credibility.

Do I suspect Pilots for Truth and CIT to be one massive disinfo campaign? Hardly. Do I suspect a disinformation campaign against CIT because their research is damning, and only lots of spin and half-truths can muddy the issue for newbies (as it did for me at first)? Absolutely.

If you want to talk about double standards and special pleading, you, Jim, seem to take such offense at the thought of Lloyd England being part of a disinformation program of false witnesses. How dare we insinuate that this nice old man is part of a disinfo campaign? Yet the "frustrating fraud" blog cited over and over in this thread in "refutation" to CIT's research is written by a man who insinuates that all 13 north side witnesses, plus the CIT boys, plus the findings of Pilots for Truth, are a huge disinfo campaign.

We now have witness to a "commercial airliner" flying just above light poles, "ten seconds tops" after the explosion at the Pentagon. His claim was first documented at the Center for Military History just weeks after the event, and confirmed independently by CIT in 2008.

We even have ANOTHER flyover witness. Erik Dihle was at Arlington Cemetery in his office right across from the Citgo station. he told the Center for Military History only weeks after the event that just after the explosion, he ran outside and the first thing he heard people say was that, "...a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going!” You can hear the 2001 interview here:

While "Frustrating Fraud" and "Arabesque" have spent countless hours trying to nitpick away at CIT's eyewitnesses, coming up with some incredible red herrings in the process, the CIT boys have been diligently investigating and finding more and more witnesses who mutually corroborate the flight path, to the point of redundancy.

And I hear desperation in the tone of those who insist on defending the official flight path.

As an afterthought...

Especially to Jim, who rather mean-spiritedly said to Sheila that she has blown her credibility by supporting CIT's work, you clearly need to be reminded that David Ray Griffin is considered possibly the most respected and credible 9/11 researcher out there, and he has positively referenced CIT's work in TWO books: Debunking 9/11 Debunking and New Pearl Harbor Revisited.

The way people tend to "debunk" CIT follows the same MO as that of the "debunkers" of 9/11 truth in general including CD at the WTC. Back in 2006, when Amy Goodman moderated the Loose Change - Popular Mechanics debate, she challenged Dylan and Jason: "Name just one structural engineer who believes the planes didn't bring the buildings down!" So back then, before ae911truth came on the scene, she would have been satisfied with "just one."

In other words, the general message was "CD can't be true because no experts have gone on the record to support it."

However, ae911truth was a death blow to this argument.

So when ae911truth blossoms, the "debunkers" spend inordinate amounts of time trying to nitpick at the credibility of the petition signers, how prestigious the college was where they got their degree, the fact that Richard Gage has never designed a skyscraper like the WTC, and other nonsensical red herrings.

...And they also now use the "numbers defense" argument like this: "The 640 people who have signed Gage's petition are 0.00001% of the hundreds of thousands of a's and e's in the country who haven't signed it." Of course, that doesn't mean that every a and e who hasn't signed it has looked at the claims and disagreed with them.

This the same modus operandi that south side defenders at the Pentagon use. It doesn't matter how many corroborating eyewitness accounts CIT harnesses: the south side defenders will try to nitpick at the credibility at each and every single one, while at the same time, their (in print, not on camera) south side witnesses (who merely make statements which ss defenders interpret to be a south side approach) possess airtight credibility.

If Lloyde is innocent why is he lying about being on the bridge?

jimd3100, I understand that it's upsetting to have your most deeply held beliefs threatened. But try to just look at the evidence. There's no getting around it. When not filtered through the corrupt and complicit mainstream media, every single witness describes a flight path that could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon. Of course if they saw the plane head straight at the building and then saw a huge fireball, witnesses will assume the plane crashed into the building and caused the fireball. Who wouldn't?

But you won't hear a single witness say "I saw the plane crumple against the building," or "I saw the wings slice into the building and disappear." They saw the plane in the air, and next they saw a fireball. Their assumptions took over from there.

jimd3100: "He never confessed to anything. Did you actually watch the full movie? If you did and still believe he made some sort of confession you deluded yourself into hearing what you wanted."

I never used the word confession, not in in my Rock Creek Free Press article, nor in this forum. Instead, I transcribed the conversation so readers can reach their own conclusions about Lloyde's meaning:

The video with England validates CIT’s practice of keeping the camera rolling as much as possible, even during casual conversation, as the most damning statements from both England and his wife came out spontaneously and unexpectedly. While Ranke and England’s wife were chatting at the Englands’ home, Ranke told her that they had determined that the jet never hit the Pentagon, but kept on going, and, amazingly, she agreed! The audio is hard to hear and she then refused to say more, but her meaning was clear. Mrs. England, who works for the FBI, also said that she knows why her husband’s car was not impounded as evidence, but wasn’t going to tell.

England spontaneously offered this damning statement: “You gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it, you…eventually it’s gonna come to me, and when it comes to me, it’s gonna be so big, I can’t do nothing about it.”

CIT also kept the camera running during the 90 minute drive to see England’s car, and captured a few very interesting statements on tape. Although England speaks generally and indirectly, in the context of a conversation about the attack at the Pentagon, his meaning is clear.

England: I wasn’t supposed to be involved with this, this is too big for me, man, this is a big thing. This is a world thing happening, I’m a small man…I’m not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people, people who have money and all this kind of stuff.

Ranke: Your point that these people who have all the money…

England: This is their thing.

Ranke: This is their event.

England: This is for them.

Ranke: Meaning they’re doing it for their own reasons…

England: (with conviction) That’s right. I’m not supposed to be in it.


Ranke: They must have planned it.

England: It was planned.


England: You know what history is? It’s not the truth. It’s “his story.” Has nothing to do with the truth.


At this point, all they can do to try to discredit us is downvote our posts.

Craig Ranke debated Adam Larson of the "frustrating fraud" blogspot cited ad nauseum by the anti-CIT people on this thread. Ranke debunks Larson in a very decisive fashion, much like Greg Jenkins' debunking of Judy Wood. Within the first two minutes, Larson concedes that the 13 north side witnesses can't be wrong by accident, and insinuates that the 13 witnesses are part of a massive disinfo campaign. But, on the other hand, CIT supporters are supposedly making truthers look insane by suggesting that one nice old cab driver might be part of a psyop disinfo campaign.

Here is Craig Ranke in debate with his no. 1 critic, "Caustic Logic."

Talking to Larson is like shooting fish in a barrell

This is so easy for Ranke -- at 2:20 he breaks out laughing-- cause Larson is saying that the most likely explanation is that all 13 witnesses are in on a conspiracy to prove the OCT wrong. Say wha?

reality vs CIT

>>If Lloyde is innocent why is he lying about being on the bridge?

>>I never used the word confession

Right, you used the word lying instead.

>>When not filtered through the corrupt and complicit mainstream media, every single witness describes a flight path that could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Actually, the media likely did not cover the many hundreds if not thousands of people who would probably have reported it if they saw things like missiles, commercial jets flying away, drones, A-3 Skywarriors, lamp posts spontaneously falling down, etc. And at least one person who CIT claims was pointing North, has apparently been debunked. And by a debunker, too, which is really sad and embarrassing, but shows how sloppy this work is --

"CIT interviewed Mr. Paik on at least two occasions. On one occasion Craig Ranke drew a flight path and had Mr. Paik sign it. The animated image below was taken from the filming of his testimony by CIT. They named this file Edwardpointsnorth.gif, but note that he is NOT pointing North at all. He points parallel to Columbia Pike visible in the background. That is approximately a 0720 heading corresponding along a path EXACTLY to where the next witness observed the aircraft."

Exactly right greenback-Good onya

LLoyde England was approached by "men in black", or more likely, white guys in suits. They smash his windshield and then tell him how that happened. When he gets the story straight, they leave after letting him know that they know where he lives and just what could happen to him if he forgets the "story" or tries to be a hero. He is telling truth in his own way, the best he can under the circumstances.

And, Bravo to CIT. They put their lives on the line for the sake of truth. I can't criticize that.


"They put their lives on the line for the sake of truth."


Completely the opposite of the anonymous spook, "Arabesque."

If Arabesque is a spook,

If Arabesque is a spook, then it looks like the intelligence agents are now working for our side! . . . it's about time, too. I can't believe they've finally come around . . . great news.

But going around claiming people are spooks is not unlike the baseless claims that CIT makes as though they have ESP to read the minds of anyone who says "this is bigger than me", to mean "it was an inside job that Osama didn't do and I probably played a part". If someone has ESP, then they know what other people are *really* saying when they say something else.

In reality, as numerous bloggers have pointed out, Lloyd's phrase could easily have meant almost anything, from

"there were a lot of people who are witnesses, not just me,"

"this is the Pentagon and men came around and took all the evidence, so this was a big deal and I can't get involved,"

"this is about terrorism, big terrorism . . . "

or even, "I think it was an inside job because the plane was allowed to hit here when it never should have", a phrase that would have nothing to do with "I was involved," or "a plane flew over" or "I know what happened" etc.

Unfortunately for us regular folk, without ESP, we really have no idea what he meant. Since CIT was there, you'd think they could have just asked him what exactly he meant by those phrases, without having to rely on their special ESP powers. But apparently, they did not even ask him. And here in reality, we'll probably never know if they did or not..

It seems they also never asked their witnesses if they saw the plane fly away over the building. Can't imagine why.

"anonymous spook"

Why are you repeating this phrase on multiple threads? It's almost like you're attempting a smear job. Calling other users agents (or any other kind of ad hom attack) used to be against the rules on this site.

EDIT: I've been informed that snitchjacketing is still against the rules here.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month