The 9/11 Forum

I stayed up late watching this vid. I thought it was well put together.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Is it true that ALL witness accounts have flight 77 passing over the Navy Annex?

There is a interview with taxi driver Lloyd Englund at the end where Lloyd says this is for "people with money" this was "planned" and that this is all too big for him. He says when a problem is large like 9-11, anything he does will "come back to (him)".

I know some people have huge problems with it, but I find it hard to believe any of the rebuttals over these eyewitnesses. The actual plane damage is less important than the angle in my opinion, the lamp poles far more crucial than any debris or lack thereof.

77 is such an enigma it is hard to know where to begin. Just about the only thing I can say for sure about it is that the official version is wholly and completely incompatible with reality.

This vid shows Mr. England admitting it was "planned" and that he was "in it". He did not know he was being recorded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OsD-GmSgDU&NR=1

Lloyd England: No, I wasn't supposed to be involved with this. This is too big for me man. This is a big thing. Man, you know this is a world thing happening. I'm a small man. You know. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people...people who have money and all this kind of stuff.

Interviewer: So you point that these people that have all the money...

Lloyd: This is their thing!

Interviewer: This is...this is their event?

Lloyd: This is for them

Interviewer: Meaning they're doing it for their own reasons

Lloyd: That's right! I'm not supposed to be in it.

Interviewer: But they used you right?

Lloyd: I'm in it

Interviewer: Yeah? You're in it?

Lloyd: Yeah...we came....we came across the highway together.

Interview: You and their "event"?

Lloyd: That's right...

Interview: Well they must have planned it then

Lloyd: It was planned.

Interviewer: They meant for you to be there, didn't they...

Lloyd: No...no they didn't mean for me to be there.

Lloyd: Do you know what "history" is? "History" is "his" "story". It has nothing to do with the truth. It's HIS STORY!

Hi JSSTyger,

JSSTyger wrote:This vid shows Mr. England admitting it was "planned" and that he was "in it". He did not know he was being recorded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OsD-GmSgDU&NR=1

By this standard of admission, then Mr. England also "admitted" that all the photos are fake (he continually disputes the authenticity of the pictures) and that the plane passed nowhere near the bridge where he was photographed.

This is not the attitude of someone who has somehow been charged with keeping the secret on a conspiracy.

What I see in these interviews is someone who does not have a good memory of what happened (perhaps because of the traumatic nature of the event), who feels that they are in something bigger than themselves, but also believes that the plane hit a pole and the pole went through the windshield of his cab.

The going after of L.E. as a liar, etc., is a little ridiculous. The premise that the Cheney-Rumsfeld conspiracy enlisting L. is on its face absurd. As a suspicious person, this makes me more suspicious of the true goals of CIT than it does of an old cabbie who is pretty generous in my opinion to take the time to be submitted to the strange interrogation of CIT.


Melville

The going after of L.E. as a liar, etc., is a little ridiculous. The premise that the Cheney-Rumsfeld conspiracy enlisting L. is on its face absurd. As a suspicious person, this makes me more suspicious of the true goals of CIT than it does of an old cabbie who is pretty generous in my opinion to take the time to be submitted to the strange interrogation of CIT.

I find comments like this very absurd.

What is so strange about an amateur filmmaker trying to up the excitement of a documentary by upping the drama a little. Sure, you can disagree with the ethics, complain about transparent abuse, criticize validity and technique.

But to dismiss the entire thing on this basis and suggest some sort of nefarious intent is going too far. This is the same thing that people do with AE911, just because they don't like the way the go about things doesn't mean they are working for the gub'ment.

The interview is fully in keeping with their stated goals, they may have simply gotten overly excited over a phantom who was only too happy to play the game.

Having said that...

I found your post about the MLK photographer quite intriguing if not all that surprising. It is well known this is a common tactic, as is getting people to accuse other people within the movement of working for the government. Double-triple-quadruple cross.

Best thing is to accept that it happens and focus on the facts, phantoms will be phantoms, it shouldn't affect you if you keep your own nose clean.

The criticism of AE911T is not that they are working for the government, but that they are a PR operation and are not doing good fundamental research, that they don't retract any statements they have made when it is shown to be false, and they practice the same "censorship" and play the same "games" with respect to engaging criticism that NIST does. This amounts to the kettle calling the pot black.

It's hard to know the true motive of the founders, but I'll assume they both feel that the official account is wrong, inaccurate, incomplete, full of contradictions etc. and they are trying to get to what is termed "the truth" about 9/11 with the tools at their disposal. The truth movement is largely a fragmented array of individuals of varying professional/technical expertise who have tried to apply their knowledge and experience to a reexamination of the events. Most of the "truthers" are no professional investigators or technical experts on any level, but passionate individuals who sense they were lied to and are willing to get behind a case which sounds reasonable and disputes the official account.

For example, Manny Badillo is a passionate man who lost his uncle at the WTC on 9/11/01. He is a committed activist and "truther" and worked tirelessly in the truth movement to bring accountability for what he perceives at the murder of his uncle. But he has no technical background and has to rely on others to "debunk" the conventional explanation of the event. It is impossible to discuss the destruction of the towers with him because all he can do, like so many who do not have a technical or science background, is repeat the "claims" of the truth movement's "experts". Yet another example of the authority argument. One can't even discuss the matter with Manny because he is likely not competent technically, and is is convinced that the government lied and anything which one might say which does not align with the truth movement's experts cannot be true.

The entire matter of what happened on 9/11 is a matter that requires professional technical inquiry along with testable hypotheses access to all the evidence and testimony of many witnesses who have not been heard from.

On top of this, one reads analysis of credentialed experts who, despite their best intentions, still make many errors and produce flawed work. Humans make errors of course and so this is to be expected. But with others reviewing and critiquing research the mistakes should be eliminated over time. Instead we find a kind of entrenchment of positions and an inability of experts to acknowledge their mistakes or even in many cases engage in debate. CIT seems at least open to debate, unlike AE911T.

Now some would say the AE911T does engage in debates occasionally, but the debates often seem as the two sides are talking past one another and each is using talking points to rally their supporters, as opposed to trying to work towards an agreement about what the facts are.

Witness testimony is very unreliable, especially when the witnesses are not trained "observers" or scientists for example who must be skilled observers. This is not to dismiss the statements of people who offer reports of what they saw of heard, but it must be put into context and their qualification taken into consideration.

I have cited the example of the boom boom boom boom reports of rapid sequence of explosions as the twin towers collapsed. But what would the sequential collapse of massive floors sound like? Since few people, if any have hear this, how can they know that this sound was from a sequence of explosions and not from a sequence of impacts of massive structures? They can't.

Some will say the "fact" that the two towers fell in a remarkably similar manner and time is impossible. But one could easily say that the towers were so similar in structure, a collapse or structural failure SHOULD be remarkably similar.

There's a whole lot of fuzzy logic out there and what is needed is cool rational experts whose only agenda is to establish an account which is logically consistent and obeys all the principles of science.

We know that deception is not only possible, but a key aspect of a criminal act. That is to create a cover so that the criminals are not discovered, their motives and or even the true nature of their crime, that others may be charged and so forth.

Once the events of 9/11 are shown to include deception, this opens up a whole can of worms about what really happened. And we are still trying to answer those questions.

Keep trying.

Darkwing wrote:
I find comments like this very absurd.

Darkwing, when you watch that edited video of Lloyd (the one where he believes the camera is off), do you think that the guy is admitting to being knowingly involved in a government conspiracy?

What is so strange about an amateur filmmaker trying to up the excitement of a documentary by upping the drama a little. Sure, you can disagree with the ethics, complain about transparent abuse, criticize validity and technique.

I do disagree, complain, and criticize--and I question their intent. But I guess I should be questioning L.E.'s intent---they really nailed him!

But to dismiss the entire thing on this basis and suggest some sort of nefarious intent is going too far.

Maybe not nefarious--but self-serving, opportunistic, wittingly or unwittingly driving discussion toward some of the more easily dismissable theories.

The interview is fully in keeping with their stated goals, they may have simply gotten overly excited over a phantom who was only too happy to play the game.

Quite possible. But by their same standards, Lloyd could be evidence that all the photos of him are faked as well: He "admits" that he was not there!

It is well known this is a common tactic, as is getting people to accuse other people within the movement of working for the government.

Give me a break. Their treatment of L. is much more alienating than my vague insinuation.

There's a whole lot of fuzzy logic out there and what is needed is cool rational experts whose only agenda is to establish an account which is logically consistent and obeys all the principles of science.

This is shifting the burden of proof.

What basis is there for believing the official account apart from trust in the sincerity and good intentions of G.W. Bush and the Neo-Cons?

I would have have to say none whatsoever. All the circumstantial evidence presented is highly suspect and the scientific evidence is clearly designed to reinforce a predetermined position.

The "conspiracy theorists" have no burden to produce a consistent and coherent account, they only need to be able to show that the current accepted account is deliberately misleading.

If I wanted to prove someone killed his spouse in a court of law I need to show motive, means and opportunity plus some evidence that they actually committed the crime. I do not need to demonstrate the exact trajectory of the bullet and the origin of the ice-cream stain on the victims shirt.

Conversely if I wanted to show that someone has been falsely accused I need only show that something is inconsistent in the case for the prosecution (evidence tampering, airtight alibi). I do not need to disprove every random detail of the case.

If there are only two reasonable explanations (al-queda or the neo-cons) then eliminating the terrorists is sufficient cause to implicate the neo-cons.

Demanding positive proof to the n-th degree of irrelevant detail is missing the point.

Give me a break. Their treatment of L. is much more alienating than my vague insinuation.

What I am trying to get at is that throwing out accusations is not helpful, this is also in the context of another thread where everybody and their cousin was accusing everyone else of working for the other side. When I watch that video I give zero credence to the whole Lloyd portion, it doesn't really add anything, but by the same token it doesn't really detract much from the far more salient flight path analysis.

I should clarify that I am somewhat perplexed as to why anyone could have accepted the plane knocking down the lamp-poles like that in the first place and carrying on on the path it did. It reminds me of that other famous crash where the fuselage carried on shooting up into the night sky after the nose was blown off the plane. Why even bother with such a patently false explanation?

Whoa now...let me get you guys on track.

I don't think anybody is implicating Lloyd England as willingly being part of the plot. CIT believes that he was "used" and forced to be part of the plot.

I don't think anybody is implicating Lloyd England as willingly being part of the plot. CIT believes that he was "used" and forced to be part of the plot.

My take on this is that it is nothing more than an old guy looking for a bit of fame meeting a documentary maker looking for a big splash.

Whether it is true or not is actually pretty irrelevant in the greater scheme as far as I am concerned.

JSSTyger wrote:Whoa now...let me get you guys on track.

I don't think anybody is implicating Lloyd England as willingly being part of the plot. CIT believes that he was "used" and forced to be part of the plot.

I agree that CIT thinks he was used, but I haven't seen them say that they think he was necessarily forced. I personally think that Lloyde feels guilty though. Seriously, why in the world would he go and show them the car, which essentially proves that the pole couldn't have been stuck in the back seat, unless somewhere inside of him, he wants to confess that he played a part in the 9/11 deception?

I think he's torn; he apparently shows no love for the official story, but I do think he wants to save his own hide, which is understandable. Him saying that he was an NoC witness seems to verify this; it wrecks the official story's SoC trajectory, but the evidence makes it clear that there's no way he could have been an NoC witness. For starters, no NoC poles were knocked down and all the pictures of him and his car are on the SoC path.

Anyway, if you'd like to listen to a debate on what happened, you might want to pop on over to 911oz The All New Fighting Pit, where I post a fair amount on the subject (I'm scott there as well). CIT posts there sometimes as well, as do some senior members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which is fairly unified with CIT on their view of what happened.

scott wrote:I think he's torn; he apparently shows no love for the official story, but I do think he wants to save his own hide, which is understandable. Him saying that he was an NoC witness seems to verify this; it wrecks the official story's SoC trajectory, but the evidence makes it clear that there's no way he could have been an NoC witness. For starters, no NoC poles were knocked down

This is a total misconception. In fact, all credible witnesses claim the lighpole/cab event occured NoC.

These witnesses are Hemphill, McGraw, Brooks, Lagasse, Fortunato, and England himself. All of these witnesses testify that the event occured NoC. I don't know of a single credible witness that claims the event occured SoC.

and all the pictures of him and his car are on the SoC path.

Yes, provided by the government. The SoC scene was staged to make it appear that it occured SoC because the fact that it occured NoC was very damaging to the official story. England was either photoshopped into the photos or they forced him to move SoC. But the fact is that all witnesses claim it occured NoC. The entire reason for the SoC lightpole story was because the plane hit a lightpole NoC and they had to cover up this fact.

strum wrote:

scott wrote:I think he's torn; he apparently shows no love for the official story, but I do think he wants to save his own hide, which is understandable. Him saying that he was an NoC witness seems to verify this; it wrecks the official story's SoC trajectory, but the evidence makes it clear that there's no way he could have been an NoC witness. For starters, no NoC poles were knocked down

This is a total misconception. In fact, all credible witnesses claim the lighpole/cab event occured NoC.

-.- There are photographs which clearly show that Lloyd England was on an SoC path along with his cab.

strum wrote:These witnesses are Hemphill, McGraw, Brooks, Lagasse, Fortunato, and England himself. All of these witnesses testify that the event occured NoC. I don't know of a single credible witness that claims the event occured SoC.

Other then Lloyd England himself, who CIT did a great documentary on, who claims to have actually seen Lloyd England's cab on an NoC path? Hemphill does claim that -1- light pole was clipped on an NoC path, but he never saw a light pole actually being knocked down, suggesting that he may have deduced that it had hit a light pole. He mentions seeing a flash of light, something that another witness (I forget the name) also mentions seeing; that witness saw the flash of light too high for it to have hit any of the light poles. Furthemore, I have seen absolutely no evidence that any of the NoC flight path light poles were hit at all, let alone knocked down. If you have such evidence, please present it. Otherwise, this seems like just another unsubstantiated claim, which seems to be par for the course when it comes to the pentagon attack.

strum wrote:

scott wrote:and all the pictures of him and his car are on the SoC path.

Yes, provided by the government. The SoC scene was staged to make it appear that it occured SoC because the fact that it occured NoC was very damaging to the official story. England was either photoshopped into the photos or they forced him to move SoC.

Actually, Lloyd initially admitted that he was SoC. Only when faced with the fact that all the witnesses interviewed on camera saw the plane NoC did he change his story.

strum wrote:But the fact is that all witnesses claim it occured NoC.

All the interviewed witnesses claim that the plane flew NoC, yes. But when you realize that there was no -damage- to the NoC flight path light poles and that the damage at the pentagon was inconsistent with a plane hitting it from that direction, the conclusion is inevitable; the plane didn't crash into the pentagon. The most reasonable explanation is that it flew over the pentagon; Roosevelt Roberts assertion of seeing a commercial airliner shortly after the explosion at the pentagon from the East loading dock at the pentagon supports this assertion.

strum wrote:The entire reason for the SoC lightpole story was because the plane hit a lightpole NoC and they had to cover up this fact.

You have any evidence for that assertion? An actual NoC light pole that was damaged perhaps?

I'm not even one of the heavyweights when it comes to knowledge on this issue. If you really want to get a taste of people who really know their stuff, you might want to head over to 911oz.com, where I'm still learning things myself.