People who try to make excuses and suggest that the physical damage to Lloyde England's cab could have been accomplished in real time with a light pole or piece of a light pole are not looking at the information in context.

Examining images of the cab either immediately after the event or preserved under a tarp on Lloyde's 30 acres of woods for almost 7 years changes the frame of reference so this article will bring it back into context.

Before I elaborate I feel it's important to always remember of course that it has been independently proven many times over that the plane was nowhere near the poles to begin with.





But for those who for whatever illogical reasons are unable to accept the scientifically validated north side evidence, let's hypothetically place the plane on the south side and examine the physical evidence of the light pole and cab.

But I have to issue one more disclaimer. I need to stress how the following scenario is extremely hypothetical since we also now have mathematical proof that the final descent required due to the topography and obstacles physically proves the plane could not have hit the light poles as reported. This is due to the fact that the required G forces at the reported speed of 535mph have been proven impossible. The plane would have broken up over the highway.



All relevant calculations available in this 13 minute presentation from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Moving along....

If it was hypothetically possible for the plane to hit light pole 1 as reported we must consider the incredible amount of kinetic energy the light pole would absorb from the approach of this 90 ton Boeing:


But let's not forget the dynamics involved with the cab coming to an immediate skidded sideways stop traveling around 40 mph:

(imagine the pole is in the windshield as Lloyde clearly claims and the interior damage to his cab requires)


But wait!

I'll admit I don't have the exact formulas to calculate this but here is what I would suggest from a layman's perspective: the fact that the 40 mph car and the 535 mph passenger jet would be coming TOWARDS each other would multiply the kinetic force of the pole on the car significantly.


Correct?

Anyone disagree with this?

Now let's take a closer look at the physical damage to the cab.

It's been completely established how there is no damage to the hood and how it in fact looks freshly waxed!

But we should not overlook the fact that the windshield frame and roof of the car are also completely undamaged.

Let's take a look at another look at this hypothesized sideways skidded stop:


Let's once again consider the sheer length of the pole.


Specs from the VDOT:


Ok so the notion that the hood, roof, and windshield frame could remain undamaged during such an ordeal is actually quite silly.

But let's look at the interior.

Lloyde said it went through to the back seat and that the dash held it up over the hood. He even pointed to a dent in the area just above the dash and just under the hood.


But let's take a look at this dent from inside the car. We can see that it is directly underneath the lip or edge of the hood which is also completely untouched like the rest of the hood.



So the dash was the main alleged fulcrum and the other would be the back seat.

There have never been ANY known images of the back seat of Lloyde's cab until our examination.

The images we took of the cab were taken almost 7 years after the event so there is nothing to prove the following damage was created on 9/11. But obviously the LACK of damage is still strong evidence as there is obviously no logical motive for Lloyde to have fixed only the back seat.

The back seat damage we observed and photographed obviously leaves honest people in a ridiculous position to suggest that it represents anything that could remotely account for suspending the heavy base end of the light pole in mid-air over the hood AS the car allegedly came to a skidded sideways stop much less when it allegedly came to rest sideways on the road.





Clearly the blunt bent end of this light pole did not impale the seat in any way whatsoever.


And we know the floorboards were completely intact because they were holding water!

So could Lloyde be innocently embellishing his story about the long pole, the silent stranger, and falling down while removing it and a small piece of pole 1 or 2 be what really caused the damage to his cab?


Once again the physical damage foils this argument.

While there is not enough damage to account for the long pole there is TOO MUCH damage to the interior to account for any small piece.

Damage to the dash on image allegedly from 9/12/2001:

(damage to the dash is shown the same in a news video from 9/11/2001 on highway)

Images from 2008:



Unhinged passenger seat on image allegedly taken 9/12/2001:


Images from 2008:



And of course the already mentioned back seat damage.


So once again, while being completely irreconcilable with a large pole, it's clear that this was meant to be the story as the interior damage is certainly irreconcilable with a small piece as well.

The notion that Lloyde is simply embellishing an otherwise true story or random chance experience on his part is not a logical or rational option in light of the available evidence.

Conclusion: there is no scenario that can account for this physical evidence other than pre-fabrication and staging.

Well, a partial skid mark can be seen in this blow up of Lloyde's neighbors picture.



Edit - Which brings up the question Which lane was Lloyde in when he was hit with the pole ?

How can that be a skid for that car? The back tires would have been skidding sideways at a much greater speed and they did not leave a mark.

Assuming Lloyde is telling the truth,

That mark is from the right front wheel... The pole hanging out the front of the car would have reduced the weight on the rear end of the car thereby reducing further the skid marks produced by the back wheels.

The antilock functions of the braking system would likely not lock the other 3 wheels up because they still had the opportunity to turn whereas the right front in that picture was actually going sideways in relation to the wheel hub.

Even so, the left front should have left a mark as the majority of the weight would have been there.

And there may in fact have been skid marks produced by the back wheels, but the image is too coarse to prove that one way or the other.


Does anyone know which lane he was in on impact ?

Learning to drive a car, I remember being told to turn into the skid.
I don't know why I was told to do this,
as it seems to be the only action to take,
in a skid, anyway.

Regardless, I wonder are the cab tires pointing the right direction,
to recover from a skid?
They may be, not sure.

I know why lunk- you live in Canada, where there is a thing called ice for much of the year, plus coefficients of friction (you all really should do a bit less curling up there IMHO, but I'm down with the hockey ).

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.fall2000.w...on/Homepage.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction

http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/record/tris/00223214.html

I learned to drive a 2-ton dump truck in the sub-zero winters on "roads" that were never plowed, loaded with hay, sometime before age 10 and years before a drivers' license, without power steering, a heater, or power [and often any functional for that matter] brakes. It is much easier in a car, and they told you correctly.

Then around age 11, I graduated to a 1970 Pontiac GTO muscle car with 4 on the floor and two 4 bbl. carbs that likely would have done all the maneuvers claimed for Lloyd's cab (sans pole of course) plus a few more, but there would have been a LOT more rubber on the road.

Either way, steering into the skid is solid advice.

EDIT: Here's a song that nearly killed several of us on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS back in the day:

Stroker Ace- Charlie Daniels Band
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTAn-lsHyCc#

If we assume that Lloyd is being less than completely honest about the event...
and the damage staged...

Was the cab skidded into the photo shoot, and then damaged?
How was the damage to the cab done, if not by a flying light pole?

a little camera footage could answer a lot of questions

Nothing skidded.

The damage was staged in advance.

They probably drove it there with damage to the interior pre-fabricated and simply busted out the windshield when they go there.

Lloyd said that the cab wouldn't start after the "crash".
So either "busting the windshield" disabled the car, or
Lloyd knew the car really would start,
and was just saying this, to cover his story.
In other words, the pre fabricated damaged cab must have been drivable,
if it was driven there.

I wonder if that cab would still start now...
Buy the cab off of Lloyd, and see what caused it not to start, if anything at all...

Just an idea.

I'll speculate that TF "hears them engines moan..."

One of two lanes.



IF that pole had hit that windshield as alleged, the small end would have passed Lloyde's head in the driver's seat at a speed of 40 mph (58.6 feet per second) plus the speed that the aircraft allegedly hurled it. But the OCT defenders all believe that the aircraft impact at 535 mph just gently laid the 337 pound light poles down, at the same time tearing the truss arms and light heads violently off the main poles and tearing some of the poles in two. Aren't 9-11 physics laws just great?

Where light poles fell - red dots are original bases


Assuming for the moment that Lloyde was actually driving the taxi, and not sitting in it up on a flatbed truck, and assuming also that Lloyde was not weaving from lane to lane like a drunk, the light pole would have flown at Lloyde at an angle from its broken off base, when allegedly struck by the outer portion of the right wing, to the hole in the windshield.

757 wingspan 124 feet 10 inches


The closer Lloyde was to the aircraft, the greater the angle to the windshield would have been. There is no possible way that light pole hit the passenger seat through that hole in the center of the windshield. If Lloyde was anywhere beneath the alleged aircraft or left wing when allegedly struck, then the small end of the pole and the glass fragments would have struck Lloyde directly in the head and ruined his seat.



However Lloyde and his seat seem to be just fine. But the 9-11 defenders with their sudden love for 21st Century 9-11 physics, think the 200+ pound 33 foot long pole levitated there somehow in some magical fashion, floating there patiently waiting in Lloyde's lane for Lloyde and his windshield to arrive.



That will not work. Lloyde was supposed to be driving along at 40 mph (58.6 feet per second) when he claimed the long light pole smashed into his windshield. Then after Lloyde gathered his senses, he hit the brakes, and skidded to a sideways stop after allegedly going 40 feet. So the principle of levitation will no longer work, and we have the big problem with the trajectory of the pole and Lloyde's poor head. The alleged aircraft had to hurl the light pole towards the windshield at least 40 feet or more. Right at poor Lloyde's head.

One's old physics professor would talk about the "dot, or scalar" product at this point (HINT: -cos ("collision" angle), usually in radians for most calcs/computers).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/vsca.html#vsc1

Then we'd need to get into normal surfaces, normal vectors, centers of mass, and moment arms: all subjects that one of the recent trolls here seems to have skipped in our light pole "dialogs."

EDIT: The troll did mention center of mass a couple of times [cough * picked up from an online forum * cough] but didn't ever provide coordinates, units, or other details on where that lightpole center of mass lived...

imho, we have an apples and oranges thing going here

if the aircraft didn't hit the light pole, then the 'mechanics' of the fall might boil down to a simple rotation (pivot) about the base.
of course that would depend somewhat on how the pole connections to the base were severed.

the mechanics of a plane hit, would most definitely involve some momentum transfer from the plane to the pole and would be delivered as an impulse. then or course, there is the strength of the bolts, how high up the pole was hit, is there deformation etc.


i'm guessing the pole was carted off and 'recycled' w/o ever having been analyzed for aluminum residue, paint and what not?

Quite correct.

This was confirmed with the VDOT direct.

However we also know that they were left laying around for a few weeks after the event for photo ops.

I had thought the same thing way back in fact, they do make the same style metal poles with bends in them. But they also could have used a pipe bending machine.

IMHO these light poles smell as fishy as our Electoral College/Diebold voting polls.

Well that last one looks like an aluminum pole to me (where 247 lbs would have suggested galvanized steel).

According to a phone call with these guys, we can compare 100 feet of 0.050" thick 4-inch diameter aluminum irrigation pipe weighs 73 lbs (3" pipe is 54 lbs per 100 feet). They're rated for 150 psi fwiw.

http://www.mairrigation.com/products/alumi...e/aluminum.aspx

Cattle and horses routinely destroy that aluminum irrigation pipe without tools or opposable thumbs. I have decades of firsthand experience in the above.

Have we been lied to again?

EDIT: According to SPreston's graphic, we've got "1/8" thick aluminum" for the VDOT poles, although I'd expect a tapered thickness myself.

so, no piece of the light pole ended up remaining inside the cab?

It's likely that cab never had a light pole ever in it.

I still wonder if the cab could be started up after the picture was taken.
I know Lloyd said it wouldn't start.

the point i was trying to make (in an obtuse fashion apparently), is that a piece of the lightpole remaining in the cab strikes me as a requirement for the story to hold water.

That's correct.

You should go to ThePentaCon.com and watch the presentations.

Namely the Northside Flyover and Eye of the Storm.

The plane approached on the north side of the Citgo. That means no light poles were struck at all.

The plane flying on the south side of the Citgo should strike you as a requirement for the story to hold water.

oh i'm totally onboard w/ the north side approach. the pentacon site was an eye opener. the photographs do show light poles down and the cab has a hole in it's windshield. somehow, those things were accomplished.

w/o the plane hitting the poles, some other means were obviously employed. even if an explosive charge dislodged a pole from it's base and managed to fall down and hit the cab, some piece of that pole would have been stuck inside the cab...or the cab would have dragged the pole down the road with it.

Groundpounder,

We have covered all of this before. The cab and light poles were staged. That is why his hood was pristine. They more than likely drove the cab up there with the interior damaged and the windshield intact. When the plane went by they/he damaged the windshield.

The light poles were staged. Again, we cover this in the very feature this thread is about. Four of the five were in inconspicuous areas on the lawn/grass hidden by bushes, guardrail, and the human mind that is preoccupied with driving down the highway. Pole 1 (Lloyd's highway pole) was more than likely on the side on the shoulder there. It is the only one that needs to be staged live real time and we have pictures that show what would appear it and the cab being staged or at least the men that more than likely staged the scene.

The perps more than likely accomplished the pre-staging on 9/10 in the wee hours of the night. The poles were removed months in advance I am sure and on 9/10 Bush left from that heliport where the plane allegedly hit and was sheduled back on 9/11 at noon, at the same heliport. This allowed them the excuse to put men, "SS" or "Security detail", on the lawn and highway area with vans or trucks. This would allow them to plant the broken pieces. Bush's arrival at noon would make a good excuse to not allow anyone onto the lawn or sidewalk in front of the heliport.

Explosives cannot bend, twist, and pinch the "broken" light pole ends. They cannot cut near perfect symmetrical 'breaks' in the bases.

Another reason to consider those poles staged with phoney damage.

In the area of the bend and break one would expect to see much more varied marking and over a longer length. I just cannot see that a pole would bend and break in that manner when hit by an aircraft. It just would not snap off, it would tend to bend around the leading edge before cutting through the wing progressively a bit as it stretches more and progressively sheares as it meets other parts of the wing structure.

That sort of damage is simply not consistent with meeting an aircaft wing.

And like the thousands of tons of WTC steel that was shipped off to Baosteel by FEMA, PANY, and Rudy, or the serialized plane parts and CVR's, the evidence was destroyed/hidden years ago.

Nothing suspicious there though...

@ Omega: You are right. It looks like those were crimped and then painted.

Aluminum can do strange things in the light, depending upon the surfacing treatment(s) and coatings.

That said, here's the first 2 "metallized" aerosol spray paints from a quick search:

http://www.filmtools.com/krdual1grsho.html

http://www.net4sale.com/Shop/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=123

Although electrical problems look to be quite common in the Lincoln, lunk:

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f117824/48

We find this at the following:

http://www.lincolnsonline.com/tech/00061.html
---------------------------
http://www.lincolnsonline.com/tech/00061_1.jpg

The picture above shows the power distribution box of a '92 Town Car with the compressor relay removed and placed to one side, fuse "U" and the compressor relay pins labeled.

TESTING THE MODULE POWER FEEDS AND ON/OFF SWITCH>

Switch the air suspension off and disconnect the control module connector.

Switch testing

'90 - '94 Town Cars
Connect a voltmeter or test light to the Dark Green/Yellow wire and ground. You should get twelve volts when the air suspension switch in turned on, if not check fuse 1 or service switch/wiring to fuse 1.

'95 Town Cars
Connect a voltmeter or test light to the Dark Green/Yellow wire and ground. You should get twelve volts when the air suspension switch is turned on, if not check fuse U or service switch/wiring to fuse U. NOTE: There are two terminals with Dark Green/Yellow wires, both should test the same.

'96 - '97 Town Cars
Connect a continuity meter (ohms) between the Dark Green/Yellow wire and the Purple/Light Green wire; you should have 0 ohms with the switch closed and infinity with the switch open.

Other power feeds

'90 - '91 Town Cars
Check the Light Blue/Pink wire for battery voltage when the ignition is switched on, if no voltage check fuse 4 and wiring.

'92 - '94 Town Cars
Check the Red/Yellow wire for battery voltage when the ignition is switched on, if no voltage check fuse 8 and wiring.

'95 Town Car
Check the Light Blue/Pink wire for battery voltage when the ignition is switched on, if no voltage check fuse 7 and wiring.

'96 - '97 Town Cars
There are three Light Blue/Pink wires. The ones on pin 1 and 15 will have battery voltage all the time, if no voltage check fuse U and wiring. The one on pin 16 will have battery voltage when the ignition is switched on, if no voltage check fuse 7 and wiring.
-----------------------
Ignition fuses, eh?

EDIT: Yowza, even the Lincoln mechanics are paranoid: "[browser] has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete." Hotlink removed

Are there any aerial or satellite pictures of the pentagon and surroundings taken just prior to 9/11?
It would be interesting to see if those poles were missing.

So, the sequence of events that must have occurred.
Poles were taken down and cut up with hydrolic sheers and cutting torches,
cab was damaged on passanger side and driven to the sceen,
fly over, windshield smashed and cut up poles placed in position.

how is that?

imo, lunk

Thanks to ULTIMA1 and his #8 post in:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13453

specifically his link:

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/ph...pg?t=1223890645

we can see this:



picture of the aftermath of a bird strike on a 767 wing leading edge.

Now we are supposed to believe that a 757 wing, which I'll warrant is not that dissimilar in this respect, would cause the damage seen in the above images of the broken light poles.

I really think that some wanted many people to doubt the OCT.

EDIT. PS. I have seen a military aircraft, Sea Vixen, return after flying through hail the size of tennis balls - radomes (GRP honeycombe) punctured but wing leading edges dented but not penetrated. We knew the size of the hail stones from the size of some of the radome holes and dents in the intake. So I figure that Boeing wide-bodies are not quite so tough. Having said that, US military pilots oft' expressed surprise that aircraft with the power of a Sea Vixen, Scimitar or Buccaneer only managed supersonic in a dive!

FINALLY! Some structural data on those Boeing transport wings, 7+ years later and courtesy of those 3 bird carcass holes.

EDIT: I've read some NASA? paper(s) on the B767 wing design being a "quantum leap" above the "obsolete" B757 wing, B777 and composite-laden B787 more so. Probably one large factor in the "tightness" of Boeing Co.'s lips.

EDIT2: I should add- that is the "beefy" section of wing between the turbofan pylon and the wing root...

Ok, I'd like to do some calculations relevant to Lloyd's story.

Here's what I'm thinking:

1) The damage doesn't even look coherant.

All of the radial cracks originate from the center of the windshield. If the base of the pole was resting on the passenger side of the car (like a '/') as required by the outer damage then the interior should be damaged in the back seat on Lloyd's side. But the interior damage is on the passengers side, which would require the base of the pole to be resting on Lloyd's side (like a '\'), but the damage to the windshield does not reflect this. The only way to reconcile this is to claim that the pole didn't even touch the dash, but this contradicts both the physical evidence (the bend in the dash) and Lloyd's testimony.
Here's the basic shape of the hole:
----------
Origin_|
|_|

/ Pole inconsistent with interior, consistent with windshield.
\ Pole consistent with interior, inconsistent with windshield.

2) It seems that if Lloyd skidded like he said he did, even if the pole was wedged between the two seats, the pole would have shifted around and boken up more of the windshield.

Is there any way one could calculate (a) the force exerted on impact and (b) the force exerted on the pole and windshield in the alleged 40 mph sliding skid?

Here's an interesting source for glass fracture analysis:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan...5standards7.htm

Well 'quantum' leap or not, and that incidentally sounds like marketing speak to me, that looks like plain ol' aluminium alloy to my eyes. A fibre based material would have broken out in quite a different way. Now, a comparatively 'beefy' section it may be but the metal still looks quite thin to my eyes. I was used to seeing metal of the order of 14 swg and 16 swg [1] in those areas but then that was military applications where often the leading edge was almost another spar.

It should also be considered that much of the 'beef' of a wing comes from the spars and ribs which would be of stouter material section and/or more closely grouped inboard.

It is the existance of such ribs and spars that causes me to consider that the damage to the light poles could not have been done by contact with an aircraft wing.

Has anybody got dimensions - diameter and material thickness - of the poles at the breaks and a measure of the linear extent of the damaged section?


[1] I still have my Zeus tables here, and the 0-1 inch micrometer that took me about 15 weeks to save up the £5 cost of during the first part of my engineering apprenticeship. So 14 swg and 16 swg are 0.080 inch and 0.064 inch respectively. Now much aircraft structure, fixed wing, tended to be formed from 18 swg (0.048 inch) with stiffness added by stiffeners, flanges and lightening holes with the most commen material in my day being an Alclad L72. Alclad being duraluminium sheet with a pure aluminium coating on each side as a corrosion inhibitor. Aluminium when exposed to atmosphere and moisture forms a skin of oxide which is impervious to moisture. This of course requires very careful handling of the L72 when forming. Helicopters were a different game because of the need for a greater than 1/1 power to weight ratio and the low power of earlier generation, often piston, engines, with much thinner sheet material being used 20 swg (0.036 inch) and even 22 swg (0.028 inch) and of different compostion being magnesium alloy.

EDIT: tpyo

So my 0.050" alumin(i)um sprinkler pipe wasn't such an off-base comparison then O892?

P.S. Of course, we have yet another and entirely different "gauge" system here in the States...

EDIT: The papers got into supercritical airflow and such business, but I'm working overtime to stay in the graces of Bill Boeing's corporate sharks here.

If a light pole was hit, by whatever, near the top,
It should have broken, from a whole, attached, light pole, at only one point!
NOT TWO!

From what I've seen ALL the light poles were broken at more than one location.
This, I think, is a physical impossibility!
If a single force was applied, the pole would only break at the weakest point.

EXPERIMENT:
Take a paper towel,
rip it into 3 sections (or more) but not all the way through,
now take the two corners and pull,
it will only break in one spot.

This means that the light poles, if hit by anything, once, would only break at only one location,
unless a secondary force was used after the initial break.

This alone may prove that the poles had to have been staged, in advance.

imo, lunk

Funny, I don't recall NIST ever bringing this subject up. They certainly had a few "purty" pictures from their computer graphic in the one report- not really worth looking up the reference tonight in 10,000 pages and several .PDFs. I'm really not sure that NIST would be as qualified as some in this area either.

They've got a really nice office in Boulder, CO though.

EDIT: Exploding B777 wings (~"154%" of presumably maximum design load limit)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746641

Boeing 777 Wing Load Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o

Off topic, but here's a BEEFY pair of wings. The grapevine rumors of those "in the know" have this Fairchild brute designed to fly without one engine and most of one wing torn off, but I haven't seen it. That Ti "bathtub" was a pretty good idea too. I heard of one female pilot who managed to fly one back to base in Iraq, and no one could figure how she managed it. I believe that the Russians have had more female combat pilots and cosmonauts than the US, but the Soviets didn't exactly advertise certain things.

It's the Wiki, but the "other" sources are likely not too public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kim_cam..._damage_a10.jpg


Engine photo- but Smithsonian Institution can be as suspect as Wiki or worse for certain "historical" malfunctions.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/imagedetail.cfm?imageID=289

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...rcraft/a-10.htm

"The A-10's survivability in the close air support arena greatly exceeds that of previous Air Force aircraft. The A-10 is designed to survive even the most disastrous damage and finish the mission by landing on an unimproved airfield. Specific survivability features include titanium armor plated cockpit, redundant flight control system separated by fuel tanks, manual reversion mode for flight controls, foam filled fuel tanks, ballistic foam void fillers, and a redundant primary structure providing "get home" capability after being hit."

No "fly by wire" in those 'hogs- old fashioned cables in "manual" mode IIRC.

EDIT: For the layman, these were designed during the "Cold" War to destroy Soviet tanks, not light poles...

Seems like Lloyd would have been killed just from the whipping sideways of the pole during the skid.

Seems like the damaged rear seat would have been much more extensive due to that whip-lashing pole.

Seems like there should have been a lot of glass dragged into the rear seat and floor area.

Seems like there should have been aluminum paint color all over and sideways of the "dent" in the dashboard/window interface.

Seems like two guys, especially one of whom was 70 years old, would have a lot of trouble moving a 200+ pound pole without messing the shine up.

Seems like it was a stroke of unbelievable luck to get a passerby to so quickly help remove the pole before anyone had a chance to catch it on film still sticking outta the car.

Seems like someone stuck in traffic northbound would have mentioned this extremely unusual event.

Maybe I am expecting way too much.

Seems like we have absolute proof that the plane didn't hit the poles!

What could possibly have broken the passenger side seat back without tearing it? Certainly not a jagged edge. The hole in the windshield has at least one square corner, too small for the base. No way a length of pole did that.

On the other hand smashing a big hole right through a laminated windshield takes a lot of force, I can't imagine doing that on the road without being seen by somebody not in on the plot.

Great post. The degree of whip-lashing of the pole would seem likely to crush the entire windshield, and/or Lloyd, and/or the A pillars of his cab. and, gosh, at a minumum, scratch hood.

I also think that the lloyd story is bogus. I don't know what did happen, but, lloyd has never been asked to testify under oath.

Remember, Craig interviewed Lloyd previously where Lloyd stated it was a friend of his that helped him remove the pole. He changed the story and stated in "Eye of the Storm" that it was a stranger/passerby (who uttered not a word) that helped him. And, you're right Jack, the damage (lack of) is impossible.

Marc

Sorry for the caps, but I replied to a few fire dept truthers so to speak (the ones that watched the Eye of the Storm DVD and I also sent them the link to First Accomplice), via email in caps and I decided to copy and paste what I emailed them here.

I regards to this video below and also the Eye of the Storm video, I had some thoughts.

The First Known Accomplice? (featuring Lloyd England)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5090691830986329305



IN THIS INTERVIEW (FIRST ACCOMPLICE), LlOYD'S ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED IS SO FAKE AND REHEARSED, IT IS PATHETIC. AND EVEN STRANGER IS THAT HE TELLS THE INTERVIEWER (CIT MEMBER, BUT NOT RANKE) THAT THERE IS NO WAY A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON DUE TO THE SMALL HOLE AND LACK OF DEBRIS. THAT IS SO INLINE WITH BEING AT THE LEAST, AN UNWITTING GOV'T SHILL PLAYER IF YOU WILL. PRETEND TO BE A SO CALLED CONSPIRACY THEORIST SO IF ANYTHING GOES AWRY WITH HIS STORY -- THEN HE IS AUTOMATICALLY DISCREDITED.

SUMMERIZING WITH DETAILS FROM BOTH FILMS AND SOME THOUGHTS (sic):

1)HIS STORY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AT ALL. HE FABRICATES DETAILS AND OTHER DETAILS ARE INCONSISTENT OR OUTRIGHT LIES (FRIEND VS. STRANGER OR LOCATION >> ON THE BRIDGE VS NOT BEING ON THE BRIDGE,ETC)

2) HE HAS A DAVID ICKE CONSPIRACY BOOK IN HIS CAB AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT

3)HE'S SUPPOSEDLY TAKING CONSPIRACY THEORY CLASSES ONCE A WEEK.

4) HIS WIFE WORKS WITH THE FBI AND SHE MAKES ODD COMMENTS LIKE "I KNOW HOW THAT POLE GOT THERE, BUT I AINT TELLING"

5) HE DOESN'T BELIEVE A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF HOLE SIZE AND COMMERCIAL PLANE DEBRIS

ONE OTHER THING DOES COME TO MIND. DO YOU THINK MAYBE LlOYD WAS TOLD BEFOREHAND THAT HE WAS AN ACTOR IN A EXERCISE DRILL? DID SOMEONE TELL LlOYD THAT THE STAGING OF THE POLE/S WAS FOR THE DRILL?

IN OTHER WORDS, AS HAS BEEN WONDERED MANY TIMES BEFORE, WAS LlOYD AN UNWITTING PLAYER? WHEN THE PENTAGON EVENT OCCURED FOR REAL, WAS LIOYD LATER TOLD "THESE THINGS HAPPEN AS EXERCISES SOMETIMES GO LIVE"?

THAT'S WHAT THE OTHER GUYS AT THE DEPT TELL ME.THE ONES WHO THINK I AM CRAZY. THEY ASK ME:"IF WE ARE DOING A TRAINING EXERCISE INVOLVING A FIRE SCENARIO IN WAREHOUSE AND SUDDENLY A WAREHOUSE FIRE CALL OCCURS AT THE SAME TIME -- DOWN THE STREET -- DOES THAT MEAN THE FIRE WAS STAGED OR AN INSIDE JOB"? THESE THINGS HAPPEN. AND THIS SUCH THING WAS 'DRILLED' INTO LLOYD'S MIND....THAT THIS WAS PURELY COINCIDENTAL.

I TELL THE OTHER FF'S THERE IS NO COMPARING SUCH A SCENARIO TO THIS ONE SINCE FIRES, MAJOR CAR ACCIDENTS,ETC HAPPEN FREQUENTLY IN VARIOUS PLACES WITHIN A LARGE CITY AND SUCH AN EVENT DURING ONE OF OUR TRAINING EXERCISES WOULD NOT BE DEEMED AS SUCH AN ODD SO CALLED COINCIDENTAL OCCURENCE. UNLIKE 9/11, WHERE SUCH AN EVENT OR EVENTS ARE UNLIKE ANY OTHER AND THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENCES AT ALL THE SCENES...NYC, D.C., & PENN....ARE IN REALITY -- NOT COINCIDENCE AT ALL.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE CHANCES THAT LlOYD WAS INVOLVED IN SUCH A SCENARIO? THAT HE WAS A ROLE PLAYER IN A PREPLANNED SETUP OF EXERCISE VS REAL WORLD ---- THE VICTIMIZED NAIVE ELDERLY CAB DRIVER PROPAGANDIST SALESMAN? WHAT WAS LLOYD TOLD OR PROMISED AFTER THE DRILL WENT LIVE? WAS HE PAID OFF?

AND THOUGH LLOYD PROBABLY HAS LONG SINCE FIGURED THIS OUT AND GONE FROM NAIVE TO WISE YET UNWILLING TO GIVE UP HIS 15 MINUTES OF FAME, HE HAS BEEN HUSHED ON THE MOST PART (MAINSTREAM MEDIA INTERVIEWS). THE QUESTION IS - WHY DOES HE STILL ACCEPT INTERVIEWS FROM CIT ? WHY DOES HIS FBI EMPLOYEE WIFE STATE TO CIT "IF I WAS LLOYD, I WOULD NOT BE TALKING TO YOU"? AND "I KNOW HOW THE POLE GOT THERE BUT I AINT TELLING."

I LOVED THE RECENT NORTH FLIGHT PATH AS WELL, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE CRAIG AND CIT BREAK LLOYD COMPLETELY (HE KNOWS YOU GOT HIM JUST ABOUT TO THAT POINT IF NOT ALREADY). BUT, PLEASE....NO WATERBOARDING ALLOWED,LOL!



Marc

hey madtruth, welcome to the forum and to the pursuit of the truth about what happened on 9/11.

regarding lloyde and his level of complicity, you might want to look at this thread for a range of thoughts on the matter (including craig and aldo's):

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...c=417&st=15

feel free to look around that forum for some other insights and info as well.

good luck!

Thanks for the welcome and the link to this thread and other board!

Great work by "22205" on the exercise scenario possibility and the other things he posted of interest. The other firefighters at my dept who watched Eye of the Storm were very interested in what they watched but bombarded me with questions as to why and how he would be involved. The exercise scenario is one that just popped in my head yesterday.Now I see it's been brought up before.

I emailed the ff's with this (my take) scenario yesterday before I saw your reply with the link to this thread. But now I will email them 22205's take on it to show them that it's just not me who thought of this. I think they will probably be blown away once again or at the least, get them thinking. The thing is to get these ff's to stay involved, as they have short attention spans due to family situations,2nd jobs,etc.


Marc

You’re welcome madtruth, but I hope that you saw some of the rebuttals to 22205’s speculations as well, in particular aldo’s point about the timing of the event: lloyde would have been aware that the WTC’s had been hit for real (and not simulated as a drill), so he had the choice of backing out or not showing up to the pentagon if he was innocent or unwitting, cuz at that point he could no longer be under the (false) impression that “drills” were taking place. So the fact that he was aware of the events in NYC, yet still showed up at the pentagon, is a good indicator that he may have been more involved than duped. Imo, aldo’s point has some major merit and should be given serious consideration in any assessment of lloyde’s complicity.

So feel free to make your own judgements about lloyde’s level of complicity. Frankly that’s secondary to the real deal: that the plane never flew near those poles, never hit them, and thus no pole ever flew into and/or smashed that cab’s windshield. So regardless of level, lloyde is definitely complicit one way or the other in lying about the pole. So he is guilty of deception and of aiding and abetting the perpetrators, as an accessory (possibly before as well, but definitely) after the fact.

Those are great points. And also, the perps would not recruit him as an unwitting duped drill actor knowing that the WTC's would be hit prior and that the chances of Lloyd catching on so easily. So,yeah, it does point to him being knowingly involved rather than duped. And as you said, it's all academic anyway as we know. Lloyd is guilty,and the evidence is so overwhelming. So overwhelming that I think this has a better chance than anything we've seen before, to make it to a mainstream media source.
Let's hope so!

Marc