"This new tech paper from Pilots for 9/11 Truth complete with calculations and animations is a formal breakdown scientifically demonstrating that a plane on the north side of the gas station can not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon starting with the light poles.



This whole paper is based on the premise that in fact the plane did take a north of the navy annex flight path as asserted by CIT. Unfortunately for them their analysis is full of holes. Even if we ignore the fact they only interview witnesses whose stories can be twisted to fit their version of events (a fuller list can be found here http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses ) and they mangle many of their accounts.

Sammo and I had a long discussion about this here http://forums.delphiforums.com/flt93crash/...ages?msg=1437.1 and I posted a debunking of each of their witnesses accounts in turn pointing out huge errors in math and show how some witnesses perception could have led them to honestly believe the plane was on a North side approach when it was not.

it s quite a long plough through all the posts as I got more into the debunk but I think I covered the main points pretty well.

911 may well have been a big Gov. conspiracy (though I doubt it) but CITs version of events is just laughable.

So nowadays I am a 100% supporter of CIT. These guys cracked the Pentagon event mystery. There is no mystery any more, using logic and gum shoes. Brilliant!


There are many problems with CITs version of events. They have cherry picked their witnesses and misrepresent the evidence of many of them. It comes down to this.....if Mr Morins testimony is correct and he saw the plane (which he identified as a commercial jet) fly over him and all the way down to the Pentagon and hit it, then it HAD to be on a line along the south edge of the navy annex very close to that in the official report or the navy annex itself would have blocked his view.

I got interested in their account in this thread and if you follow it through I show how each witness to a north flightline could be mistaken in what they think they saw.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/flt93crash/...ages?msg=1437.1

blah, blah, blah

sheepie, as you may have decided from the previous post, you may find that you'll get more debate on this subject in a forum such as 911oz.com; I've found this place is best for getting details on the viewpoints of the members, but not for directly challenging their views for much time. There is also the fact that there's already been a fairly heated discussion here regarding some witnesses, atleast some of whom were CIT witnesses, here:

No Witnesses Who Place The Plane On The South Side?

I personally believe that PFT did a very good job of discrediting the witnesses mentioned as south side witnesses, but the author of the thread didn't think so, and that's where things got messy...

I personally believe that PFT did a very good job of discrediting the witnesses mentioned as south side witnesses, but the author of the thread didn't think so, and that's where things got messy...


Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. edit.....it doesn't work

1. CIT "cherry-picked" witnesses. I agree - as well as interviewing the cab driver Lloyd England, they should have interviewed all the witnesses to the pole striking the cab.

2. All CIT witnesses "mistaken". Can equally be applied to all witnesses - even the ones who saw the pole strike the cab. Have you considered this?

Absolutely! Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. CIT distorts what some of them say eg Morin says that the plane flew down the edge of the navy annex and that he watched it down to the pentagon where it crashed. They then show it in thier video traveling at an angle and well over the navy annex on a path that would have taken it out of his sight. The mechanic Paik cannot even see the annex from his viewpoint so again he cannot have an accurate view of the planes route relative to it. The guy in the grave yard (middleton?) say it flew down the road in front of him "so close he could feel the heat" but they show it well over the Annex a long way from him.
Morin and Middleton cannot both be right so at least one of them is mistaken.

Morin judges the speed at IIRC 350mph (knots? = about 400mph?) when in reality he has no way of judging this with any accuracy. He likely has never seen a big commercial jet traveling anything like that fast that low and since by the time he sees it and runs to the edge of the building it is well past him and heading straight away from him. It is virtually impossible to judge speed in that situation. His times are all wrong too.....he says it was 13 - 18 seconds till the plane hit after he first saw it. The Pentagon is only 3000 feet from where he was standing. at 350 mph thats only about 5 seconds fyling time...much less at the 525mph official figures. I'm not saying he is lying just that humans are not good eyewitnesses and do not judge distances, time or speed or indeed anything very reliably.
likewise distances from the plane are easily mistaken as as its silhouetted against the sky there is nothing to judge its size and hence distance against. Most people are not really familiar with just how big or small a commercial jet like the 757 is and their distance from us is not a question that arises very often.....we have no accurate frame of reference to judge where they are relative to things on the ground. add in high speed, loud noise and shock...............

Poor Lloyd could hardly be mistaken about being hit by a pole and a plane flying just over his head but most other accounts must be viewed bearing in mind how unreliable eyewitness evidence is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification whilst mostly concerned with ID errors its worth a read.

Do I need to send my 2 points again given that you just totally ignored them? Maybe you need to read them more carefully.

1. CIT "cherry-picked" witnesses. I agree - as well as interviewing the cab driver Lloyd England, they should have interviewed all the witnesses to the pole striking the cab.

2. All CIT witnesses "mistaken". Can equally be applied to all witnesses - even the ones who saw the pole strike the cab. Have you considered this?

God, how embarassing. Looks like I put the title as the URL :-p. Here's the link:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17852

You're full of shit sheeplenshills, and about three years too late to be hocking this kind of tripe on this forum. As you see, few here even want to bother debating with you. Why bother? You already have your mind made up.

You accept without question the absurdity of the windshield of Lloyd England's taxi being penetrated by a light pole the way a stick would skewer lamb chunks on a shish kabob. That is an approximately 40' length of aluminum tubing weighing about 200 pounds that didn't just 'fall over' from gravity but was forcibly broken from its base after the impact of an aircraft allegedly flying near 500mph. Oh, and the cab wasn't stationary, either, but allegedly after impact, skidded sideways across two lanes of traffic -- presumably with the pole sticking out of the wind shild without broadening the whole or even scuffing the surface of the taxi's finely polished hood. This, to you, is a completely reasonable and believable scenario. Never mind that Lloyd subsequently changed his story to correspond with a North flight path, insisting despite pure logic and all photographic evidence to the contrary that this incident never occurred on the bridge.

He and his taxi were on the bridge, period, and Lloyd England isn't mistaken, he's a proven liar.

Are witnesses "unreliable" as you repeat frequently in your post? Interesting, then, isn't it how many juried cases are dependent upon witness testimony. And in this instance we have not one but numerous witnesses who, although they disagree in some minor details, nevertheless agree on the most salient and important detail: The plane they witnessed flew north of the then Citgo filling station. Of course you and people like you can not allow these witness accounts to stand; you have to imply that they are ALL mistaken and all mistaken in the same way because you know full well that if their accounts are to be believed, then the prevailing mythology of what happened at the Pentagon must be false.

No one here is buying any of this.

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. Even if sheep was a definite disinfo agent, a possibility that I haven't seen any evidence for myself (you assume he knows all sorts of things, whereas I don't see that he has this knowledge), I wouldn't use the terms you did. Using course insults generally reflects more on the one using them then the one they're used on. I think your point would have been much better without using the "full of shit" and "this kind of tripe". It adds nothing to the point but your view on the matter. The rest sounds much better. You point out that few here want to debate him and I'd agree, but I would think that's essentially because the people who -would- don't believe that the debate will be able to reach its natural conclusion, as happened with the thread I mentioned.

sheeplenshills wrote



What I find laughable is that you find nothing wrong with 3 buildings collapsing in mere seconds with the third building not even have been struck by a plane.

9/11 Truth: firefighters and live, loud explosion at WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kOIvwThj-U

EXPLOSIVES going off in WTC CLEAR AUDIO! 911 Demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALbkzSGvmLM&feature=fvw

911 - Firemen talk about the dropping of the twin towers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzntuqLBOR8...feature=related

No.... I agreed with you. yes they should have interviewed them all (or at least some who witnessed a south side approach, I actually suspect they did interview them but that this was omitted because it did not fit CITs version of events.........)

and yes, witnesses on both sides could be equally wrong.....which then means we have to fall back on the physical evidence which is wholly supportive of a south side approach. I would really like to hear the south side witnesses testimony and add their flightlines to the CIT version. I suspect the "average" flightline would indeed be down Columbia Pike.

Well this discussion is about the Pentagon.............please stay on topic. No doubt other threads discuss the WTC and WTC7 in particular. In this thread I was focusing on CIT version of events at the Pentagon which I find to have serious flaws.

[quote name='painter' date='Feb 3 2010, 06:58 PM' post='10782388']
You're full of shit sheeplenshills, and about three years too late to be hocking this kind of tripe on this forum. As you see, few here even want to bother debating with you. Why bother? You already have your mind made up.

You mind appears equally made up.

You accept without question the absurdity of the windshield of Lloyd England's taxi being penetrated by a light pole the way a stick would skewer lamb chunks on a shish kabob. That is an approximately 40' length of aluminum tubing weighing about 200 pounds that didn't just 'fall over' from gravity but was forcibly broken from its base after the impact of an aircraft allegedly flying near 500mph. Oh, and the cab wasn't stationary, either, but allegedly after impact, skidded sideways across two lanes of traffic -- presumably with the pole sticking out of the wind shild without broadening the whole or even scuffing the surface of the taxi's finely polished hood. This, to you, is a completely reasonable and believable scenario.

I'm a mechanical engineer and I find nothing impossible about at all and I discuss this here
http://forums.delphiforums.com/flt93crash/...es?msg=1437.121


Never mind that Lloyd subsequently changed his story to correspond with a North flight path, insisting despite pure logic and all photographic evidence to the contrary that this incident never occurred on the bridge.

He and his taxi were on the bridge, period, and Lloyd England isn't mistaken, he's a proven liar.

Lloyd is old and clearly suffering from early Dementia

Are witnesses "unreliable" as you repeat frequently in your post? Interesting, then, isn't it how many juried cases are dependent upon witness testimony.

Actually if you read my link it is well known that there are big problems with eyewitness testimony. In the UK it is very hard to get a conviction on eyewitness testimony alone.

And in this instance we have not one but numerous witnesses who, although they disagree in some minor details, nevertheless agree on the most salient and important detail: The plane they witnessed flew north of the then Citgo filling station. Of course you and people like you can not allow these witness accounts to stand; you have to imply that they are ALL mistaken and all mistaken in the same way because you know full well that if their accounts are to be believed, then the prevailing mythology of what happened at the Pentagon must be false.

Then lets have all the testimonies on CIT dog and pony show! there is only one witness. Mr middleton whose testimony definitively places it on the left approach (all the others either could not have seen where it came from (Turcious or the Cops) or had no frame of reference for saying it was in front or behind the Citgo (the Guys in the Cemetery). I deal with middletons testimony here
http://forums.delphiforums.com/flt93crash/...es?msg=1437.105

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.............

Thanks for the link...its great reading! I love how the CIT guys say there were "no eye witnesses of a south side flightline BECAUSE it took a north side path" as if all north side ones must be right and allsouth side ones must be wrong! I like reading the other accounts that CIT conveniently missed out.

I don't really care what you "suspect", you are incorrect, you really need to do more research.

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?


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.

Will you debate me in thread on control demolition of the towers if I create one? Oh, and by the way, did you bother watching the videos?

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.

"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.

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).

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.


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.

[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"

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?

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.

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


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.


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


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.


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.

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.

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......

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?

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.

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 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.


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).

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.

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.

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).

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!)

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:



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.

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.

I wrote higher up the page


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.

Why not believe Lloyd but believe all the other witnesses who you think support a NoC path? There is nothing "impossible" about what happened to his cab or what he describes. We even have pictures of the pole and cab. He does not make a great witness now but he was clear enough about what happened at the time. There must have been hundreds of people who saw the plane that day most never came forward as witnesses, why would they, not everyone like publicity and cameras (and the like of Craig and Aldo hunting them down ) and since they had seen a plane fly down and crash into the building what would their account have added to what was already crystal clear. Now if a lane had flown down and overflown there would have been lots of witnesses saying as that did not match what the Medias was saying, but there is only one (well CIT could find only one) and as I show later it is very unlikely that he is correct in what he says as the math does not add up.

You just answered your own question. The other witnesses have corroboration in large number. Lloyd is all on his own. Do the maths.


Maybe you watch too much bad TV. Or maybe you don't want to subject it to an intellectual exercise? Try this thread

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15410


Shame there isn't a photo of pole in cab huh? Now that would have been a great photo. Shame one of the many witnesses didn't get a quick photo of it. You almost seem to want to be fooled - Look, look, a pole and a cab and look, they're in the same photo!!! You do realise that your whole shield of denial rests with this old man don't you? It also rests with many witnesses not knowing their left and their right. Lose much sleep over it?

sheepshit is sheepshit.

just another troll. unworthy of addressing.

don't waste your time with this clown.

And that included being able to diagnose the employees under your charge as suffering from onset dementia if they appeared slightly confused with your orders/directives? How progressive.

Check out the following link posted at the CIT forum (amongst other places): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1julr_ll...and-on-nbc_news of a news report including Lloyd at around the time of the Moussaoui trial.

Some quotes from the clip:

"Nothing came through the car except the pole itself. "
"The light pole shaft speared its way through Englands cab"
"I had to wrestle with the car to stop it"

What is curious is the photos of him a very short time after the alleged event, standing at the barrier at the side of the highway. He doesn't look particularly shaken up. A light pole travelling at +500pmh has just speared through his cab, he had to wrestle with the car. He was fighting for his life. It's a good job he's got such a strong heart. He didn't need oxygen? He didn't need to sit down?

I'm sorry, it doesn't add for me.