Problems with CIT Witnesses?, Split from Various posts, merged here. Options

[sheeplenshills]

"Again you miss the point, maybe I am being too subtle. Maybe you can list the witnesses who saw the lightpole sticking out of Lloyd England's cab so we analyse what they say?"

There is only Lloyd and the pictures.............and events happen whether or not their are multiple witnesses for them!. Lloyds initial reports are pretty clear as are the pictures and it only many years later when Lloyd is clearly not really all there anymore and CIT lie to him about the witness evidence that he gets confused about where he was and what he saw. His behavior is pretty typical of those suffering from early dementia.



"Find some south side witnesses then. Try just posting a single detailed account of a witness to a south-side flightpath - you implied there were many of them."


Morin seem quite clearly to be a south side witness....his account cannot possibly be true otherwise and I think Madelyn Zakhem also place the aircraft over Columbia Pike and heading straight for the pentagon. If it went over her it cannot have taken the north side line without an impossible bank (which no one witnesses in any case), Paik too places it over or very near Columbia Pike and since he cannot see where it goes after it passes him (he cannot see even the navy annex from where he was standing) he is certainly not a reliable north side witness. Albert Hemphill too quite clearly supports a south flightline. He doesn't mention the Citgo but why would he? its a low insignificant building and not exactly important when you are watching a 757 fly into the Pentagon.
Also as I have already posted eyewitness evidence is always problematical but the physical evidence is crystal clear and only supports a south side approach.

This post has been edited by sheeplenshills: Feb 4 2010, 04:42 PM

[alanj]

I'm a mechanical engineer ... Lloyd is old and clearly suffering from early Dementia

Funny, Sheeplenshills, I'm an electrical engineer but my degree course didn't include Psychology/Psychiatry in the curriculum. We tended to focus more on engineering (you know, maths, physics and such like).

Where did you study to be able to give such an opinion?

I think your patronising [to Mr. England] comment highlights more the way you operate, IMHO. I've read the posts that you provided links to.

The dementia comment is baseless as are most of your other posts, founded on opinion and speculation rather than research and facts (I'm not sure "Googling" really counts as research perhaps one of the real researchers supporting this forum could help me out).

[KP50]

"Again you miss the point, maybe I am being too subtle. Maybe you can list the witnesses who saw the lightpole sticking out of Lloyd England's cab so we analyse what they say?"

There is only Lloyd and the pictures.............and events happen whether or not their are multiple witnesses for them!. Lloyds initial reports are pretty clear as are the pictures and it only many years later when Lloyd is clearly not really all there anymore and CIT lie to him about the witness evidence that he gets confused about where he was and what he saw. His behavior is pretty typical of those suffering from early dementia.

His reports may be clear but his account is quite clearly impossible given the damage to his car, not to mention all the other factors involved in launching a lightpole in perfect javelin fashion. If you saw that in a film, you'd think it ludicrous - yet you accept it from Lloyd England? And yet even though you are engaging in an intellectual exercise, you don't wonder why NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON AN ALLEGEDLY CROWDED HIGHWAY saw this miraculous, impossible event? Not one. Out of all those witness statements, not a single one. That should have been all over the news reports immediately after the event with people rushing to tell their story but nobody pays any attention to Lloyd at all. Bizarre huh? And here you are pushing your bandwagon about all the NoC witnesses being mistaken despite them all being mistaken in a very, very similar way and quite a few of them being in perfect positon to judge the flightpath. Intellectual exercise is it? I see no signs of intellect so far.

"Find some south side witnesses then. Try just posting a single detailed account of a witness to a south-side flightpath - you implied there were many of them."


Morin seem quite clearly to be a south side witness....his account cannot possibly be true otherwise and I think Madelyn Zakhem also place the aircraft over Columbia Pike and heading straight for the pentagon. If it went over her it cannot have taken the north side line without an impossible bank (which no one witnesses in any case), Paik too places it over or very near Columbia Pike and since he cannot see where it goes after it passes him (he cannot see even the navy annex from where he was standing) he is certainly not a reliable north side witness. Albert Hemphill too quite clearly supports a south flightline. He doesn't mention the Citgo but why would he? its a low insignificant building and not exactly important when you are watching a 757 fly into the Pentagon.
Also as I have already posted eyewitness evidence is always problematical but the physical evidence is crystal clear and only supports a south side approach.

That's a pretty poor set isn't it. Morin is not clearly a south-side witness. He has the plane going over the Navy Annex which presents problems for the official tale for a start. Paik clearly draws a path that isn't the official flightpath and could easily end up north of the Citgo. Hemphill's account does not have sufficient detail to determine a path.

You're missing the point, I don't want mights, coulds, maybes. CIT have produced over 10 witnesses to back up NoC. Put that intellect to work. Someone backing up Lloyd's story would be a great start as that would really nail the southside approach.

[sheeplenshills]

[quote name='KP50' date='Feb 4 2010, 05:05 PM' post='10782456']


And yet even though you are engaging in an intellectual exercise, you don't wonder why NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON AN ALLEGEDLY CROWDED HIGHWAY saw this miraculous, impossible event?

Who says no one else saw it? you simply have no one come forward who says they did. In any case all those folks had just had a plane fly close over their heads and explode in front of them. A lightpole in a Taxi was probably not high on the list of local "sights" at that moment.

" And here you are pushing your bandwagon about all the NoC witnesses being mistaken despite them all being mistaken in a very, very similar way and quite a few of them being in perfect positon to judge the flightpath. Intellectual exercise is it? I see no signs of intellect so far.

Yet you all the other witnesses are mistaken in thinking it was a south side approach. You can't have ot both ways.
Either witnesses make mistakes sometimes or they don't.

"That's a pretty poor set isn't it. Morin is not clearly a south-side witness. He has the plane going over the Navy Annex which presents problems for the official tale for a start. Paik clearly draws a path that isn't the official flightpath and could easily end up north of the Citgo. Hemphill's account does not have sufficient detail to determine a path. "

He also states he saw it fly down to the pentagon. He simply cannot have done so if it was north of the Citgo he Annex would have blocked ALL his view. I never said the "official" view was right, I just point out that if Morin is telling the truth the plane cannot have gone north of the Citgo. Paik cannot have seen the plane at all once it apssed him. The workshop blocks his line of sight and Hemphill states it came over his right shoulder down Columbia Pike....if it had been on the north side surely he would have named that road instead?

You're missing the point, I don't want mights, coulds, maybes. CIT have produced over 10 witnesses to back up NoC. Put that intellect to work. Someone backing up Lloyd's story would be a great start as that would really nail the southside approach.

Would it? CIT discount lots of other witnesses whose story does not fit their version of events and twist the accounts some of the ones they say back them up. For instance how can you reconcile Mr Middltons and Mr Morins accounts? Cit don't even try they just place the plane where Mr morin said it was not hundreds of yards to the north where mr Middleton accont has it "so close you could feel the heat"

[Quest]

this is just a part time interest for me.....so one topic at a time. I have full time job plus many other interests/demand on my time so can't spend nearly as much time on this as I would like.

Oh, I guess I was mistaken, I thought 911 was the topic. Is your thinking so compartmentalized that one part of the brain doesn't know what the other is doing? My point is the the Pentagon event did not occur in a vacuum and you'll find that virtually eveyone in the 911 truth movement believe the towers to have been controlled demolitioned. Are you aware of this? Also, since you said in an ealier post you don't think 911 was an inside job, was that because you have studied ALL of the 911 events including the twin towers, WTC 7 and Shanksville? Or was the 1st you have heard of "inside job" regarding the non-event at the Pentagon? What I am ultimately getting at is where is your curiosity threshold? Are there other events in your life life you've questioned like JFK, RFK, MLK, BCCI, ENRON, etc? Or you have NEVER questioned anything?

This post has been edited by Quest: Feb 4 2010, 08:48 PM

[scott75]

I'm a definite skeptic! The reason I use the name sheeplesnshills as that what I was constantly called by my main protagonist on an another forum just because I pointed out the errors in Physics, math, engineering and logic in most of his posts. I must admit I became equally rude back!

For me debunking videos like those of CIT is just an intellectual exercise........my postion on 911 is that IF it was a Gov conspiracy is was simply one that persuaded a group of jihadists to crash a bunch of airliners into American buildings and this would be used as a excuse for a war. ie to create a cause de guerre. Frankly I doubt that our Gov is smart enough to carry even that off even if the were that evil.

But as I said, I debate mainly for the intellectual exercise.............

I think you have a lot to learn, young padawan, laugh :-). I'm all too familiar with virtually everyone getting rude when disagreeing on aspects of 9/11. I myself generally refrain from such language, though.

This post has been edited by scott75: Feb 4 2010, 10:54 PM

[KP50]

For an intellectual, you have some trouble using the quote feature.

And yet even though you are engaging in an intellectual exercise, you don't wonder why NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON AN ALLEGEDLY CROWDED HIGHWAY saw this miraculous, impossible event?

Who says no one else saw it? you simply have no one come forward who says they did. In any case all those folks had just had a plane fly close over their heads and explode in front of them. A lightpole in a Taxi was probably not high on the list of local "sights" at that moment.

OK nobody has come forward - so we have a physically impossible tale that nobody claims to have seen with 10+ witnesses who saw the plane on a different flightpath. A normal person would find that an odd sort of story - an intellectual would be somewhat distressed that he has been totally deceived. Because when you get down to it, if Lloyd England's story is false, it is an inside job irrespective of all the other impossible events that happened before 10.30am that day.

" And here you are pushing your bandwagon about all the NoC witnesses being mistaken despite them all being mistaken in a very, very similar way and quite a few of them being in perfect positon to judge the flightpath. Intellectual exercise is it? I see no signs of intellect so far.

Yet you all the other witnesses are mistaken in thinking it was a south side approach. You can't have ot both ways.
Either witnesses make mistakes sometimes or they don't.

You haven't found a south side approach witness yet as evidenced by your poor attempt first time. Not a single one.

"That's a pretty poor set isn't it. Morin is not clearly a south-side witness. He has the plane going over the Navy Annex which presents problems for the official tale for a start. Paik clearly draws a path that isn't the official flightpath and could easily end up north of the Citgo. Hemphill's account does not have sufficient detail to determine a path. "

He also states he saw it fly down to the pentagon. He simply cannot have done so if it was north of the Citgo he Annex would have blocked ALL his view. I never said the "official" view was right, I just point out that if Morin is telling the truth the plane cannot have gone north of the Citgo. Paik cannot have seen the plane at all once it apssed him. The workshop blocks his line of sight and Hemphill states it came over his right shoulder down Columbia Pike....if it had been on the north side surely he would have named that road instead?

If the official view isn't right, why do you believe it? Blind faith? Morin and Paik aren't the best witnesses to a north-side approach, given their vantage points, as you know well. But if they're your best southside witnesses you had better concede defeat right now.

You're missing the point, I don't want mights, coulds, maybes. CIT have produced over 10 witnesses to back up NoC. Put that intellect to work. Someone backing up Lloyd's story would be a great start as that would really nail the southside approach.

Would it? CIT discount lots of other witnesses whose story does not fit their version of events and twist the accounts some of the ones they say back them up. For instance how can you reconcile Mr Middltons and Mr Morins accounts? Cit don't even try they just place the plane where Mr morin said it was not hundreds of yards to the north where mr Middleton accont has it "so close you could feel the heat"

Which are these witnesses that they discount? The ones with southside evidence that you claim exist? Put up or go back to your intellectual exercise.

[sheeplenshills]

Funny, Sheeplenshills, I'm an electrical engineer but my degree course didn't include Psychology/Psychiatry in the curriculum. We tended to focus more on engineering (you know, maths, physics and such like).

Where did you study to be able to give such an opinion?

I think your patronising [to Mr. England] comment highlights more the way you operate, IMHO. I've read the posts that you provided links to.

The dementia comment is baseless as are most of your other posts, founded on opinion and speculation rather than research and facts (I'm not sure "Googling" really counts as research perhaps one of the real researchers supporting this forum could help me out).

Well I'm a Mech Eng but I took a step to the dark side and got an MBA when the company I work for paid for it and when I still thought I'd like to be a manager.......I choose not to in the end (read Dilbert cartoons if you want to know why!)
The MBA covered a lot about what motivates people and why they do what they do despite it being seemly irrational. I don't think I'm patronizing him at all. The CIT video shows him as a confused old man and when they lie to him about how ALL the witnesses say it was a north side line he changes his story to match. You also have to remember he is a man who grew up in the Jim Crow south and the interviewers was young and white. I live in the South today and it does affect things even now.

[sheeplenshills]

Oh, I guess I was mistaken, I thought 911 was the topic. Is your thinking so compartmentalized that one part of the brain doesn't know what the other is doing? My point is the the Pentagon event did not occur in a vacuum and you'll find that virtually eveyone in the 911 truth movement believe the towers to have been controlled demolitioned. Are you aware of this? Also, since you said in an ealier post you don't think 911 was an inside job, was that because you have studied ALL of the 911 events including the twin towers, WTC 7 and Shanksville? Or was the 1st you have heard of "inside job" regarding the non-event at the Pentagon? What I am ultimately getting at is where is your curiosity threshold? Are there other events in your life life you've questioned like JFK, RFK, MLK, BCCI, ENRON, etc? Or you have NEVER questioned anything?

Topic of this thread is problems with CIT witnesses. If you want to debate other 911 questions there are other threads to do that in. I am quite aware of what some people think happened to the WTC towers, shanksville etc but one has to focus on one area at a time or any debate becomes a shambles.

I am also quite aware of lots of other CTs like JFK (I would like to know why Ruby shot Oswald........but he took that to his grave so we likely will never know) and the Moon landings (did you see Mythbusters recent go at some of those ideas?) I don't get much into some conspiracies as they don't interest the Engineer in me.....videos like the one from CIT do because you can tear it apart pretty easily IF you have even a basic understanding of math, physics, engineering and human nature.

I question almost everything (get me into trouble all the time) but just because I come to a different conclusion than you does not mean I'm wrong.......... you go from a base line that the gov,. did it prove me wrong, I come from the other side, the terrorists did it, prove me wrong........and all along I've said that its quite possible the terrorists were fooled into doing it buts thats not a engineering question so I can have no real input into whether its true or not other than they must have silenced an awful lot of people......

[Quest]

I question almost everything (get me into trouble all the time) but just because I come to a different conclusion than you does not mean I'm wrong.......... you go from a base line that the gov,. did it prove me wrong, I come from the other side, the terrorists did it, prove me wrong........and all along I've said that its quite possible the terrorists were fooled into doing it buts thats not a engineering question so I can have no real input into whether its true or not other than they must have silenced an awful lot of people......

Sheep, I notice you seem to be spending an appreciable amount of time in this thread yet you have no time to look at the big picture? You also said you "question a lot of things and it sometimes gets you into trouble". That seems to me like you would like to discuss other aspects of 911 as well, true? Understand that I am not trying to derail this thread but rather I am trying to get at this topic from another angle. That being said, will you join me in another thread regarding another aspect of 911? I mean, with all the time you spend here in this thread surely you can share a post or two with me. How about it?

This post has been edited by Quest: Feb 5 2010, 12:15 PM

[painter]

painter, as you know, we fell out a while back. You may wish to consider the possibility that it's your approach that made this happen.

Fuck you, scott75. The time for polite debate has long since passed. The crimes of 9/11--treason and mass murder leading to war crimes and crimes against humanity in the form of a bogus 'war on terror' and all that has been 'justified' by it--were evident on their face from day one to anyone who could look objectively at what was presented. 110 story buildings do not "collapse" through the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed while spewing hot gasses, dust, steel spandrels and girders and bone fragments hundreds of yards laterally. THAT is as much a physical impossibility today as it was on 9/11. 47 story skyscrapers do not "collapse" into their own foot print in 6.5 seconds at 5:20 in the afternoon due to fire or anything other than controlled demolition. Airliners do not evade our national air security and plough into the Pentagon at precisely ground level leaving no positively identified debris in their wake. Airliners do not nose dive and bury themselves in rural fields leaving behind nothing but a small crater and little debris. All this was obvious from day 1.

Since then what was obvious has been confirmed repeatedly by analysis of some very fine details while ass hole sheepdipshills have taken it upon themselves to publicly defend the indefensible while fuck wads like your defend them.

Do I sound a bit angry to you? God damn right I'm angry. I'm livid. And the problem with Americans today is they aren't angry enough. They've allowed this country to be hijacked by criminals of the highest order. Criminals that have murdered their fellow citizens in broad day light and gotten away with it, used this spectacle to justify wars of aggression killing untold hundreds of thousands more, used it to circumscribe liberties and protections guaranteed by our Constitution, not to mention stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from our treasury. Oh but who gives a shit about any of that, right? Lets all just be polite and debate reasonably with one another until the perpetrators of this crime decide to use the tyrannical infrastructure they've now cemented in place and consecrated with detention and torture.

Fuck you.

[sheeplenshills]

Mr Morin

In the CIT video Mr Morin is half way along the navy annex, ie about 3000 ft from the collision point. He says it took about 13 seconds to get from where he was to the pentagon. An aircraft travelling at his stated 350mph would travel about 350 x 1760 x 3 divided by 40 x 4.6 = 6695 feets.....ie well over twice the distance to the building. So he is either wrong about his timing by a factor 2+ or he is wrong about the speed by a similar factor and the plane was flying as slow as 150mph (perhaps a little slow without flaps deployed?)

There is another problem with his testimony. If as he says the plane was over the navy annex when he first saw it and really only took approx seven seconds to cover the distance (as it must have even at his low estimate of 350) he could not have have run far enough out to have seen the plane at all as the building would have blocked his view (unless it was on the south path (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) or seen the actual collision. If he saw the plane after it passed over his head it must have been flying no more to the north than the edge of the navy Annex. If as asserted it flew to the left had side of the citgo there is no way he could have seen it again after it flew over his head. The Navy annex is simply too high and too big (remember he had at most 7 seconds to change his position, not anywhere near enough time to get far enough away from the building to see anything.
(IMG:http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Libraries/history/images/Oral_History_Images/911-AAR-workers-evacuate..gif)

http://s643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/t...goannotated.jpg

problem getting that picture to show here...something about dynamic pages..........

That means that Mr Morin

Is mistaken about speed, time and route (as CIT portrayed it), or

he was mistaken about speed and time (common errors in witnesses) but right about the route as he describes it, watching the plane fly down to the Pentagon (hard to be wrong there), or

he is lying.

The result he is either a south side witness, is exaggerating what he saw which may allow a north side approach or is no witness at all..............


My opinion, for what its worth, is that he heard the plane, saw the shadow of it pass over him or to the north of him, by the time he looked up it would have been past him and out of site. he ran the 10 feet to the edge of the building and saw the last second or two of its flight and the explosion. Note he was in a perfect position to see a fly over and bank to the right (required for the loading bay guard story to be true) yet does not report any such thing. He also says it definitely was a large twin engined commercial type jet....originally reported a 737 and changed it later to 757 (an easy mistake to make in the circumstances).

[painter]

But as I said, I debate mainly for the intellectual exercise.............

In other words, this is just a game to you, just a joke. This is what you do for "fun". You and people like you disgust me beyond words.

[sheeplenshills]

Fuck you, scott75. The time for polite debate has long since passed. The crimes of 9/11--treason and mass murder leading to war crimes and crimes against humanity in the form of a bogus 'war on terror' and all that has been 'justified' by it--were evident on their face from day one to anyone who could look objectively at what was presented. 110 story buildings do not "collapse" through the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed while spewing hot gasses, dust, steel spandrels and girders and bone fragments hundreds of yards laterally. THAT is as much a physical impossibility today as it was on 9/11. 47 story skyscrapers do not "collapse" into their own foot print in 6.5 seconds at 5:20 in the afternoon due to fire or anything other than controlled demolition. Airliners do not evade our national air security and plough into the Pentagon at precisely ground level leaving no positively identified debris in their wake. Airliners do not nose dive and bury themselves in rural fields leaving behind nothing but a small crater and little debris. All this was obvious from day 1.

Since then what was obvious has been confirmed repeatedly by analysis of some very fine details while ass hole sheepdipshills have taken it upon themselves to publicly defend the indefensible while fuck wads like your defend them.

Do I sound a bit angry to you? God damn right I'm angry. I'm livid. And the problem with Americans today is they aren't angry enough. They've allowed this country to be hijacked by criminals of the highest order. Criminals that have murdered their fellow citizens in broad day light and gotten away with it, used this spectacle to justify wars of aggression killing untold hundreds of thousands more, used it to circumscribe liberties and protections guaranteed by our Constitution, not to mention stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from our treasury. Oh but who gives a shit about any of that, right? Lets all just be polite and debate reasonably with one another until the perpetrators of this crime decide to use the tyrannical infrastructure they've now cemented in place and consecrated with detention and torture.

Fuck you.

Please take your comments on WTC towers etc to a Thread that covers them. If you cannot remain civil and keep on topic please do not post further in this thread.

[painter]

Please take your comments on WTC towers etc to a Thread that covers them. If you cannot remain civil and keep on topic please do not post further in this thread.

Take it to the judge you arrogant piece of shit.

[sheeplenshills]

Sheep, I notice you seem to be spending an appreciable amount of time in this thread yet you have no time to look at the big picture? You also said you "question a lot of things and it sometimes gets you into trouble". That seems to me like you would like to discuss other aspects of 911 as well, true? Understand that I am not trying to derail this thread but rather I am trying to get at this topic from another angle. That being said, will you join me in another thread regarding another aspect of 911? I mean, with all the time you spend here in this thread surely you can share a post or two with me. How about it?

I have discussed most other aspects of 911 with "Sammo" in another Forum and perhaps will get to them in this one to in time. I have found however if you jump all over the place trying to cover all aspects at once you cannot properly cover any of them. This thread is only intended to point out errors in CITs version of events....it makes no attempt to prove any other version other than I will occasionally give my opinion of what I think happened (I have been to the places but I was not there on 911).

[sheeplenshills]

In other words, this is just a game to you, just a joke. This is what you do for "fun". You and people like you disgust me beyond words.

It was intellectual curiosity that got me into this, I was curious as to why the towers fell so easily, and that just grew to the whole 911 CT world. And no its not just a joke to me.....people who state things as fact when they are merely grossly ignorant opinion really anger me and ones that deliberately distort evidence to their own ends anger me even more. Most people who read this or any other forum simply do not have the education or experience to know if a technical sounding story really is reasonable or not. My old adversary on another forum would state things with absolute conviction whilst quite clearly not having a clue what he was talking about. he was merely parroting what others had said but with the absolute faith of a religious zealot.

However being passionate about a subject is no excuse for incivility (I've been guilty of that in the past too so am no saint in that regard) and it would be better to keep this thread civil at least to to the extent that is possible given what I think CIT did to the witness evidence (and in Lloyds case to a witness!)

[painter]

It was intellectual curiosity that got me into this, I was curious as to why the towers fell so easily, and that just grew to the whole 911 CT world.

The very fact that you say "the whole 9/11 CT world" -- that is, 'world of conspiracy theories' in the pejorative and 9/11 in specific -- shows that you are not objective. Beginning with what you characterize as "curiosity" you move on to social psychology. I also note that this "curiosity" was about "why the towers fell so easily." Interesting, isn't it, how a simple word choice like "fell" is applied to what is obviously an "explosive" event:

(IMG:http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/imag1.jpg)

Oh, but you don't want this thread to be taken off topic. For you the topic is 'problems with CIT witnesses' while for me the topic is you and people like you who claim superior knowledge in the face of the obvious. What can we make of people who, motivated my "curiosity," adopt a prejudiced and unscientific bias against an entire class of people and their "beliefs" while mischaracterizing explosive events as gravity acting upon mass? What drives such denial in the face of the obvious? What motivates a person to spend hours 'exercising' his 'intellect' by arguing with "grossly ignorant" people? That is, people who do not share his denial of the obvious?

We share a common trait: "people who state things as fact when they are merely grossly ignorant opinion really anger me and ones that deliberately distort evidence to their own ends anger me even more." This is where I stand, emotionally, in relation to you and the absurd notion of 'civil' debate in this context. Civil debate can take place when people are willing to acknowledge their own prejudices, biases and obvious errors. Absent this there is no 'debate' civil or otherwise.

[Quest]

Wow. Great picture of an exploding building, Painter. Where'd you get that?

Of course, I'm kidding. It just cracks me up when people try and deny the obviosness of that photo.

This post has been edited by Quest: Feb 5 2010, 03:43 PM

[KP50]

I wrote higher up the page

Because when you get down to it, if Lloyd England's story is false, it is an inside job irrespective of all the other impossible events that happened before 10.30am that day.

If you disagree with this statement, please let us know why.

If you agree with it, then please state why you believe Lloyd England's story given the impossible nature of the event he describes not to mention the lack of supporting physical evidence of his damaged cab, not to mention the lack of corroborating witnesses. I know you would rather dwell on the minutiae of the many NoC witnesses. However, indulge me.