They push 757 impact by falsely stating England never claimed long end of pole hit his cab: but he did – on camera!
April 28, 2019
This is the second of a two-part report on the Lloyde England story. I would strongly recommend reading Part 1 (which offers a detailed analysis of why England’s story simply does not stand up to scrutiny) before reading this article. In Part 2, I look at the attempts by a small group within the Truth Movement to con us into believing that the England story is entirely true and that it supports a large plane impact with the Pentagon.
Apparently [CIT] forgot to ask the key question(s): “Lloyd, [sic] how long was the pole? Give us an estimate. How long was the pole? Can you estimate that in feet? – Wayne Coste on the listserv of the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference, Jan. 6, 2017
How long do you think the pole was, approximately? – CIT’s Craig Ranke to England in Lloyde England and His Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm, 2008
I’d say the pole was 30 to 40 foot long. – Lloyde England, responding to Ranke
It was about 40 foot long. – Lloyde England to Jeff Hill, 2010
By Craig McKee
In their continuing mission to convince the 9/11 Truth Movement that the U.S. government is telling the truth about a 757 hitting the Pentagon, Wayne Coste and David Chandler are grossly and deliberately misrepresenting key parts of two interviews that taxi driver Lloyde England gave to Citizen Investigation Team more than a decade ago.
I don’t make these charges lightly.
The first interview was done in 2006 for the CIT video The First Known Accomplice? and the second in 2008 for Lloyde England and His Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm. Coste and Chandler are also ignoring a key piece of information from a 2010 interview that England gave to researcher Jeff Hill that contradicts their ongoing claims.
Furthermore, Coste has reproduced a deceptively edited statement that CIT co-founder Craig Ranke makes in Eye of the Storm to make it seem like Ranke believes the exact opposite of what he actually does. Readers of this article can evaluate the information being presented, watch the appropriate sections of the videos, and judge for themselves whether I am correct in stating that Coste and Chandler have engaged in deliberate deception.
I will also go through “Chapter 9” of Coste and Chandler’s slide presentation — this installment dealing with England. In this chapter, the two pro-impact advocates attempt to support their dishonest claim that England never said his cab was impaled by the long base of the first light pole alleged to have been hit by Flight 77 (this is the approximately 30-foot pole photographed on 9/11 lying in the middle of southbound Route 27, next to England’s cab, and known as pole 1). Instead, they claim that England must have been talking about an approximately 11-foot piece of the top of what is known as pole 2.
They invent this new theory because they need the pole-impact story to be physically plausible, which England’s account is not. And if what England says is not plausible, then their 757 impact claim falls apart. They would rather invent something out of thin air than permit that.
But in the interviews with CIT, Jeff Hill, and mainstream television, England does say it was the long section. Repeatedly.
He even points to the pole on a photograph provided by CIT in Eye of the Storm (30 minutes in). You’ll see a screen shot of this lower down. He says in 2006 audio pre-interviews and on-camera interviews in both 2006 and 2008 that it was the long end. In 2008 he estimates the length to be 30–40 feet. And in the Hill audio interview England says it was about 40 feet. Coste and Chandler simply ignore England’s definitive statements about the poles, perhaps in the hope that few will actually go through the video and audio to check their claims.
There is simply no room for even the slightest doubt about what England was saying. And his insistence that the long mast of the pole penetrated the cab is one of the many things that make England’s account — and the official story — impossible to believe.
To be clear, England never specifically says “pole 1,” but he does point to pole 1 in the photo he is shown. And he can’t mean any other pole, since the long end of the first pole is the only one that ended up anywhere near his cab. He says he and a silent stranger lifted the pole out of the car and put it down on the road, which can only be pole 1. I demonstrated this in my Part 1, “Staging the scene: Lloyde England’s tall Pentagon tale – Part 1 of 2.”
The long end of the pole doesn’t fit the evidence, however — as even Coste and Chandler concede. Yet they need an impact with the cab to have taken place. Why? Because their only interest where the Pentagon is concerned is to support the contention that a 757 hit the building. They must maintain the fiction that England is telling the whole truth. So they come up with a smaller piece of the pole that they can claim matches the observed damage and that would have been easier to remove from the cab’s windshield.
They are crafting the “evidence” to fit their desired conclusion. It’s all quite transparent when you really look closely at what they are doing. (As I have explained in past articles, Coste and Chandler are part of a group I call the “propaganda team” because of their suspicious and almost exclusive focus on what they agree with in the Pentagon official story. I list other members below when I refer to a 2016 paper that seven of them co-wrote.)
This is just one example of many we have seen in which Coste and Chandler take any strong evidence that contradicts the official claim of a 757 impact with the Pentagon as just another challenge to be overcome. And they will look for any way possible to attack and destroy it. When they come across a point in the Pentagon official story that is impossible to have happened they will try to “fix” it so it won’t undermine their — and the U.S. government’s — claim of a 757 impact.
England, meanwhile, sinks the credibility of his own account because it would have been impossible for the first pole, which would have been hit by the plane’s right wing as the plane crossed the highway, to have been knocked by that wing to the left — passing over, under, or through the fuselage. It is also impossible for a 200-pound pole to have embedded itself in the back seat of the taxi — after being hit by a 90-ton plane traveling 530 miles per hour — without making more than a very small hole in the upholstery (see my explanation of the anomalous “damage” to the taxi in Part 1). What’s more, that hole doesn’t even line up with the damage to the dashboard and to the top of the front passenger seat.
All of those physical impossibilities are bad news for the official story and bad news for Coste and Chandler.
The Coste/Chandler con
One thing these two have done to misrepresent the England evidence is to take a section of the 2008 interview he did with CIT that deals with WHERE England’s cab was on Route 27 when it was allegedly hit by the pole and try to make it about WHICH section of the pole he was talking about.
Here’s how they pulled that stunt. On Jan. 3, 2017, Coste wrote on the listserv of the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference, a group he was later expelled from for lying:
“I noted that nowhere in the CIT videos did I find an explicit statement by Lloyd [sic] about how far the pole stuck out of the windshield. Likewise there is nothing definitive in those videos about the size/diameter of the ‘pole’ suggesting it was 6-8 inches in diameter.” From the long video (Eye of the Storm) where CIT goes to the farm where Lloyd [sic] has stored the taxi – there is a segment where Craig [Ranke] points to “the pole that went through your windshield” and Lloyd [sic] doesn’t agree.”
This is false, deceptive, and very slippery. Knowing that both of his CIT interviews, England has estimated the length of the pole, Coste directs our attention to the fact that England never said how far the pole extended beyond the windshield. He also mentions that England never specified the diameter of the pole. But he avoids mentioning the length, which England has said was between 30 and 40 feet. He also implies that England disagrees with CIT about which pole was involved. But he does not. He disagrees about where his cab was when he says it was hit.
Here is the exchange Coste quotes in a written message to the teleconference in an attempt to back up his claim (it starts at 59:55 of Eye of the Storm):
England: Hold it hold it. See where the building is?
England: See where the hole is?
England: [unintelligible] in the picture.
Ranke: The pictures are taken right after each other, at the same time. It shows the pole. The most important point is that – here is your cab – right?
England: That’s not, that’s not [pointing to the white car in front].
Ranke: See your cab? See the grill? That’s you in the cap.
England: Yeah, I see it, I see it.
Ranke: Now here is the pole. That’s your pole. See the bend?
Ranke: That’s the pole you pulled out, right?
England: [no response, stares at the photo]
Ranke: There’s your cab. It can’t be any other pole. The lamp is down next to it. But see how it has the cobblestones [talking about the overpass stone wall].
Anyone who watches this segment of the CIT video — and I strongly urge everyone to watch it — will see clear as day that England is in no way quarreling about which part of the pole it was or how long that part was. He is saying that he was nowhere near the bridge that takes Route 27 over Columbia Pike, despite what all the photos show. Coste has to know this is what England is saying. But he pushes this false narrative anyway.
Note that Ranke points to the long end of pole 1 on the screen and says, “That’s your pole, right?” and England responds, “Yeah.” Then Ranke asks a second time, because he is trying to get England to see that the photo places him and his cab on the bridge: “That’s the pole you pulled out, right?” This time England says nothing and continues staring at the screen. He is clearly wrestling with the obvious contradiction in his story over the issue of where the car was, not about which pole it was.
England is refusing to acknowledge what the photos prove: his car was on the bridge. Off-camera, however, he told CIT that a photographer he knows, who took photos of the damaged cab, was “up on the bridge.” (You can hear this exchange 20 minutes into Eye of the Storm.)
The exchange goes on like this for quite a while as Ranke tries to show England that all the photographs, even the one provided by England’s acquaintance, which England said would prove his true location, show the cab just south of the bridge. But England just sticks to his story that he was well to the north of the bridge.
In Eye of the Storm, the first discussion about his cab’s location occurs between about 26 and 31 minutes in. At the 30-minutes mark, England points right at the long end of pole 1 in a photo (which we can also see) and says, “This shows the pole here…” The discussion about the location resumes 58 minutes into the video after they take a trip to see England’s 9/11 cab at his country property. England continues to claim he was well to the north of the bridge, now adding that he was actually north of the Pentagon heliport (from 1:05:00):
“The car was right there at the Pentagon. Not at the bridge. The bridge is beyond the Pentagon… The bridge is further down the road. I was never down there… Actually the bridge is near Columbia Pike. I was nowhere near Columbia Pike. I was closer to the heliport, where the heliport used to be… I was between the heliport and what they call ‘H’ Road (Jefferson Davis Highway or Route 110).
England refuses to budge from his statement even though there were no downed poles in the area where he says his cab was hit. And England doesn’t sound confused about this; he’s adamant. He does seem unclear about how the angle of a photo can make it seem like the subject is in a different location in different photos (In the photo at the top of this article, he thinks the smoke being behind his car confirms that he was right next to the Pentagon, opposite the smoke cloud).
Chandler, of course, rushes to support Coste in his false claim that England did not agree it was the long end of the pole. I draw your attention to a recent interview Chandler did with one of his gushing supporters, JM Talboo, in which he repeats the same deceptive and false narrative (the section on England starts about an hour into the interview). And he adds some color of his own about England being manipulated by “fast-talking telemarketers.” The level of dishonesty in this “interview” is shameful and extreme.
Here is how Chandler explains to Talboo what happened between CIT and England:
“What they’re doing is they’re trying to get, they are trying to corner Lloyde England with a statement that they can use then to discount his testimony. So what they do is they try to, you can actually see it in one of their videos, Craig Ranke points at that big long pole, the base part of the first light pole, and says, see, that’s your pole, isn’t it? It has to be the one; it’s sitting right there. So Ranke, I don’t know if I’m quoting his exact words but that’s essentially what he says. And Lloyde’s response is silence. He’s just looking at him. And it’s Ranke who is trying to put these words in his mouth, and Lloyde England’s not buying it. And as Wayne Coste has pointed out, there is nowhere in any of CIT’s videos that Lloyde England unambiguously identifies that long 25-foot piece as the piece that, he’s not claiming that’s the piece that hit his car.”
This statement is outrageously deceptive and false. Ranke is not trying to put words in England’s mouth, he is trying to show England that all the photos put his cab on the bridge, even though England swears he was hundreds of feet to the north and directly opposite the hole in the Pentagon façade.
“They’re trying to get him to say something so they can accuse him of being a liar,” Chandler alleges.
Nonsense. Ranke and Marquis are not trying to get him to say anything. They are showing him photos of him and his car on the bridge, and he is denying that that’s where he was. They keep showing him photo after photo and he keeps denying. They show him the cobblestone wall at the side of the road on the bridge and he keeps denying. They go with him to see the site and he continues to deny that he was there.
Then, after going through all this, Chandler posits that maybe England did identify the long end of the pole after all. But if he did, he must have simply been mistaken.
“My point is this,” Chandler says. “Who cares if Lloyde might have misidentified the piece or not? That’s not the point.”
It’s as if the possibility that England might not be telling the truth is something Chandler can’t even conceive of. If England says something that is impossible, he must be “mistaken.” It reminds me of how Frank Legge described the witnesses who described a flight path north of the Citgo gas station as having been simply mistaken about “an unimportant detail.”
So Chandler just eliminates this line of inquiry and takes the parts of England’s story that he thinks he can use to support his impact narrative. Then he misrepresents the parts that don’t.
The interview really becomes surreal when Talboo and Chandler start trying to analyze the CIT interview “style,” which Chandler seems obsessed with attacking at every opportunity:
Chandler: When you look at it it’s abundantly evident. Here they are in his home and they have their laptops set up on his dining room table and they’re pointing out stuff, and they are harassing him with a fast-talking sales pitch, and Lloyde England is this slow-talking, sort of, you know, elderly guy, you know. It’s like he’s being taken to the cleaners by a couple of guys who are trying to foist this narrative onto him.
Talboo: It’s like a couple of fast-talking telemarketers talking to an elderly person.
Chandler: That’s right. I’ve heard, I haven’t verified it, but I’ve heard that they were a couple of telemarketers, Craig and Aldo.
Talboo: Yeah, that’s right. I heard that, too. I heard that, too.
Chandler: Their behavior definitely seems to be of a marketing campaign. They have this scenario that they are trying to cram down everybody’s throat, and they’re trying to give reasons why, oh, this has to be it. It’s so, so blatantly biased, and pushy, and unscientific, and everything they’re doing, it’s a nightmare.
These remarks are embarrassing to read. Fast-talking telemarketers? A sales pitch? A marketing campaign? The hypocrisy in Chandler calling CIT “unscientific” here is epic.
Why didn’t Chandler and Talboo just say that Ranke and Marquis were silver-tongued city folk trying to use their highfalutin words and fancy talk to confuse a feeble and simple old man? (By the way, the interview between Ranke and England did not take place in England’s home, it took place at the home of CIT supporter Jeff Long, a member of DC911Truth who was living in Fairfax, VA, a suburb of Washington, D.C., at the time.)
“I mean it’s absolute slander, to try to take some guy and destroy his reputation. They’re basically accusing him of being kind of one of the collaborators with this whole thing. And hey, go to Truth and Shadows; Craig McKee is putting up a new one right now, a two-part thing, and he just put up a rehash of the whole accident thing again. It’s the same old thing.”
Chandler loves to throw around words like “slander” and “defamation” and “harassment.” He has accused me repeatedly of defaming him, but he can’t point to any actual defamation. And Ranke and Marquis did not slander anyone; they simply pointed out where England’s story did not add up. Ranke says right in the video that if England has been coerced into giving a false account, this would make him a victim. But regardless of whether his account was given willingly or not, it does not hold up.
As to his remarks about me, Chandler does not identify anything incorrect in the first of my two articles; he just calls it “the same old thing.” And I bet he will offer nothing of any substance to refute this one either (other than feigned “outrage”). That’s because what I’m saying is true, while what he is trying to push is absurd and deceptive. Either Chandler is deliberately misleading all of us or his hatred for CIT is so extreme that he can’t see reason.
A new Coste deception
Things get worse. On a mocking site Coste created to attack me and my Truth and Shadows site — he cleverly calls this one “Dump the Shadows” — Coste quotes Ranke from Eye of the Storm. But he takes out a critical part of the quote so it will appear to have the opposite meaning.
Coste begins the misquote of Ranke about two minutes in:
Ranke: “Researchers have questioned the account of Lloyde England for quite some time simply by observing the photos of the scene, primarily of his taxicab and the lack of damage to his hood of his car. If, in fact, a light pole did spear it after being hit by a 90-ton Boeing, the obvious question is: Why isn’t there any damage to his hood?”
Okay, so far so good. Then Ranke says (I have put the part of his statement that Coste quotes in red so you can clearly see what he cut out — and why):
“Previously, researchers had thought of different possible scenarios to explain this — one of them being that, well, perhaps the pole itself isn’t what speared the windshield and maybe it was the top smaller part or an arm of the pole that just went through the windshield all the way to the back seat, whereas nothing was sticking out over the hood at all.”
Coste removes the beginning of the quote to make it seem like Ranke is entertaining the possibility that it was a smaller piece that England is alleging hit his cab. He not only picks up Ranke’s comments in mid-sentence but starts with a capital letter as if he is quoting a complete sentence. So, the quote appears this way:
“… Well perhaps the pole itself isn’t what speared the windshield and maybe it was the top smaller part or an arm of the pole that went through the windshield all the way to the back seat, whereas nothing was sticking out over the hood at all.”
This is conscious, deliberate misrepresentation of what Ranke said. Obviously, Ranke isn’t undecided about whether England is talking about the “long end” of the pole. But Coste makes it seem that way. How can Coste’s deceptive tactic be any clearer than this?
Coste’s ‘Chapter 9’ is baseless
This was great for Coste, who was then able to spam links to all the chapters in dozens and dozens of Facebook comments. He virtually stalked me on Facebook, attaching the same one or two comments dozens of times to anything I would post. I finally had to block him. When I posted Part 1 of this report, Coste called it “poor research masquerading as ‘truth’” and said it was “filled with strawmen arguments,” which he incorrectly defined as being “ridiculous claims that are easily disproved,” He added that, “A little fact-checking would have prevented these errors.” But he doesn’t tell us what those “errors” are. It’s all about spin with these Pentagon impact advocates.
Chandler has a similar approach. He urges people to look at their chapter 9 to get the real story about England rather than what I “characterize” as his story. Chandler loves to drop the hint that he has been misquoted or to hint that something I’ve produced is merely a “version” of his words rather than what he actually said or wrote. Like Coste, he doesn’t feel the need to support these insinuations.
There is humor in Coste naming Chapter 9 of his opus “Lloyd’s Taxicab: A comprehensive review of the Lloyd England accident scene.” Calling his review “comprehensive” is kind of like calling extremely cheap batteries “heavy duty.”
Chandler’s voice starts this nine-minute nugget of misdirection with this “narrator’s note”: “Lloyde England’s taxicab is evidence that the downing of the light poles was a real-time event that could not have been staged ahead of time, therefore a large plane really did fly into the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11. It was Wayne Coste’s excellent treatment of this topic that first motivated me to get involved with his project.”
I’ll bet it was.
The more Chandler digs his heels in and focuses on what he wants us to think is true in the official story, the more he damages his own credibility.
On the next slide, we get these words: “When treated as an accident scene using the physics of motion, the location of the taxi and debris supports Lloyd’s Survivors’ Fund statement.”
But the Fund statement itself doesn’t match the evidence or what England said. Chandler actually reads the statement and does not seem to notice that several things in it are directly contradicted by subsequent statements from England. Perhaps Chandler doesn’t know the evidence as well as he would have us believe. Or perhaps he doesn’t care what the evidence shows as long as he can spin it to support a 757 impact.
First, the Survivors’ Fund statement says the pole fell onto England’s car, which is not possible given that the pole is alleged to have penetrated the windshield without doing any damage to the hood or the rest of the car’s exterior. Second, the account says that a car stopped and a man helped England move the pole off the car. Again, it was not on the car.
It was also not a car that happened to stop but a van that was flagged down by England. And third, the account says the two men were moving the pole when they “heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion.” We never hear this claim from England in any of his interviews with CIT or Jeff Hill. He did mention witnessing an explosion at one point but never does he say it was while they were removing the pole. In the 2010 interview with Hill, he isn’t even sure there was an explosion.
Chandler goes on with this incredible statement: “In the rear seat, there are some holes consistent with the lower support arm being the impinging projectile.” On the slide we see the words: “Small holes in rear seat fabric.”
There are not “some holes,” there is ONE TINY HOLE! And to say it’s consistent with anything is absurd. If England played hockey you could say the hole is consistent with the butt end of his hockey stick poking a hole in the seat. Does that mean it was a hockey stick? When asked by CIT if there were any rips in the back seat from the pole, England actually says, no, which suggests the possibility that the very small hole had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.
On the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference, Coste gave an earlier version of his England presentation, and in response to a question from me, he said the “hole” in the back seat was “significant but not huge.” When I challenged the use of the word “significant,” he answered, “I’ve said the hole is significant because it’s a hole. It’s not a huge hole; it is what it is.”
This is how this “researcher” deals with evidence that contradicts the story he’s trying to sell. The hole looks in photos to be no more than two or three inches across. To suggest ANY part of a flying light pole made it is absurd.
Next in the video we hear about the authoritative-sounding: “Probable sequence of Lamp Post Dis-Integration.” Chandler tells us that it’s “not reasonable” to think that any part of pole 1 hit Lloyde’s taxi.
But in 2016, Chandler co-authored a 95-page critique of the research of Barbara Honegger in which it is explicitly stated that it was the long end of pole 1 that impaled England’s cab. (The other co-authors feature the propaganda team’s starting lineup: Ken Jenkins, John Wyndham, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Jonathan Cole, and Frank Legge. At this point, Coste hadn’t yet been called up to the big squad.) In this paper, these “scientists” had no problem claiming that England’s cab was hit by the long pole.
Wyndham, who has called CIT’s research of the England story “farcical,” was also perfectly comfortable saying it was the long end in his 2013 paper “The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues: A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman.” In Appendix C, Wyndham writes: “England stated that the pole, about 30 feet in length with the top portion and light fixture missing, pierced the windshield and lightly penetrated the back seat.”
I love the use of “lightly penetrated.”
Team members Legge and Warren Stutt, in their 2011 paper “Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon,” estimate the long end of pole 1, which they assert hit the cab, at 31 feet.
If the idea that it was the 30-foot mast was reasonable then, why isn’t it anymore? If the idea that two men (one of them nearly 70 years old) pulled a 200-pound pole out of the car from in front of the hood was believable in 2011 and 2013 and 2016, why isn’t it now? It reminds me of the five or so Pentagon flight paths that Coste has been “convinced” of at one time or another.
In 2018, Wyndham abandoned any pretense of using “the scientific method” when he commented on a 9/11 forum that Coste has “proved” that it was the small piece of pole 2: “Through his analysis of a series of photographs of the pole pieces for light poles #1 and #2, Coste proves that it was the much smaller lower lamp support arm of light pole #2 that entered the windshield.”
Again, how has he proved this? We never find out. This is obviously more public relations than science. We never learn what has changed since 2016 that makes it so certain now it was another piece of another pole. All we get in the Coste/Chandler video is that the piece that they claim is “consistent” with the lower support arm was obscured in some photos and then “discovered” by Coste.
From the Coste/Chandler video:
“The CIT assumption was that the large mast piece from lamp post number 1 was what Lloyde England described removing from his windshield. That would be unreasonable because the car could not have been in this position when it was hit. Also, it would have been too heavy for two men to have lifted without scratching the hood, and it did not match Lloyde England’s sketch. The physical evidence supports the statement in Lloyde’s Survivors’ Fund interview, so there is no reason to consider his testimony to be suspect.”
IT WAS NOT AN ASSUMPTION!!!! England said it clearly and repeatedly! I will provide additional proof of this below.
Coste and Chandler try to convince us that England’s use of words like “heavy” and “long” are just relative and could easily apply to the 11-foot lower support arm.
“Heavy is a relative term,” Chandler says in the video. “Anything that could cause a 69-year-old man to stumble or fall would involve some effort to get back up. We should not read too much into that single word.”
And Coste says that this shorter pole could be considered “long” in comparison to England’s own height. Spin, spin, spin.
What this duo does is start with an immovable conclusion: a 757 hit five light poles, and a piece of one of those plunged through the windshield of England’s cab. Then, they try to figure out which pole is most likely to have done that. Then they twist every nuance of the story to make it seem like it doesn’t contradict their conclusion.
On Coste’s website, where all the videos are available, we get this summary of the England segment: “Lloyd England’s taxicab is evidence that the downing of the light poles was a real-time event that could not have been staged ahead of time. This single piece of evidence therefore discredits any theory that eliminates a large plane flying along the path of the downed light poles.”
More outright deception. The taxi is evidence, all right, but it is evidence that the story told by Lloyde England doesn’t add up. But Chandler and Coste want so badly for it to be true. The claim that the England story discredits “any theory” other than theirs is just one more absurd thing they are pushing.
In the video, they even admit that the piece of the pole they claim hit the cab is “missing,” although they later show a piece on the highway that they suggest looks “consistent” with the support arm from pole 2. This is their idea of proving their case.
Proof England was talking about the long mast
Let’s review England’s statements, which absolutely prove with 100% certainty that he was talking about the long end of the first pole hitting his cab, not a much smaller part of the top of the second pole. First we had this audio exchange from The First Known Accomplice? (Russell Pickering and Dylan Avery joined CIT for the interview):
Pickering: So which piece did you take out of the window?
England: “The long piece. The part that was from the ground [unintelligible] off the, off the ground. That went all the way through the car into the back seat. It was still sticking out across the hood.”
Ranke: So you lifted that out yourself?
England: I had help from a friend of mine.
Ranke: A friend of yours helped?
Pickering: So it’s the long piece?
England: Yeah, the long piece. See it’s the long piece. See the end on it?
Ranke (to someone in the room): Show him the end.
England: Yeah, this was the piece that was in the ground.
Ranke: And that was in your cab?
England: It went through. This is the part that went through. The bent part.
On camera, CIT co-founder Aldo Marquis gets him to confirm which part of the pole it was:
Marquis: Just to confirm, it was the large piece of the base of the pole.
England: Yeah, it’s the large, yeah, the large piece. It was sticking out across the hood.
In Eye of the Storm, Ranke shows him a photograph of the cab and the long pole lying on the road and asks England to clarify (which they’ve now done many times) which part of the pole it was:
Ranke: That’s the pole, right? (showing England the photograph)
England: (England looks at the photo) That’s right. That’s after we pulled it out.
Ranke: Doesn’t that pole, doesn’t that pole, I mean does that look, I mean, look how long it is!
England: I know it’s long. It was in the car. It came from out here and it stopped in the rear seat.
Ranke: It stopped in the rear seat.
England: If anyone had been on the right side on me, the pole would have went right through them.
Ranke: But you’re saying the top bent part, the top lighter end of the pole, the very top, right, was in the back seat? The bent part?
England: That’s right.
Ranke: Now that’s the lighter end of the pole
England: That’s right.
Ranke: So that means the heavier end…
England: Was out. Sticking out.
Ranke: Over the hood?
England: That’s right.
The long piece. The piece that was in the ground. The heavier end was sticking out. Again, the much shorter arm that Coste and Chandler are speculating actually hit the cab does not have a heavier end and a lighter end. Only the main part of the mast does.
England then explains that the reason this large pole did not damage the hood was that it entered the cab on a downward angle (his hand motion suggests about a 45-degree angle). This is an even less likely scenario because, had it entered this way, the pole would have obliterated the passenger seat and plunged right through the back seat and possibly through the floor. It would not have simply stopped “at” the back seat, as England describes.
With no sign the pole was held up by anything other than the dashboard, it would surely have fallen onto the hood and caused damage. And at such an angle it would have been impossible to remove by two men standing in front of the hood of the car, which is how England says they removed it in The First Known Accomplice?
The exchange in Eye of the Storm continues:
Ranke: The problem is, people wonder, how come the pole is so long, if the lighter end is inside, that means a lot of that big, long pole has got to be sticking out over.
England: That’s true.
Ranke: But what held it up?
England: The car, the dash. It went right through the dashboard.
Ranke: Through the dashboard.
England: The car, the car, It didn’t hit like this, it hit at a angle. Like it was driven down.
Ranke: But did it go through the floor of the car?
England: No, it stopped in the rear seat.
Ranke: It stopped. Did it rip the rear seat?
England: You can see it. The car’s still there. It did not rip the rear seat.
Ranke: We should go take a look.
Then, removing any possible doubt, Ranke asks him directly about the pole’s length (53 minutes in):
Ranke: So, you’re saying, how long do you think the pole was? Approximately?
England: It was sticking out, way over…
Ranke: No, I mean the whole pole.
England: I’d say the pole was about 30, 40 foot long. It was down on the ground like a telegram pole, sticking up. The base of it was in concrete.
Ranke: But the base, the bottom part, was outside?
Ranke: The top, bent part was inside.
Ranke: And the pole, you’re thinking, was maybe 30 to 40 feet long.
England: I would say that. And actually that can be confirmed by measuring the pole.
Ranke: Well, yeah, VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) says those poles are about 40 feet long.
Ranke: But it was cut off at the top a little bit, so maybe it was a bit shorter.
England: No, it wasn’t cut off. That pole wasn’t cut off.
Ranke: Well, the top lamp part was cut off.
This last exchange seals the deal. There is simply no way he is talking about a short piece from another pole. England even estimates the portion of the pole that was inside the taxi at about “five feet,” leaving between 25 and 35 feet sticking out beyond the windshield. Again, this story is completely unbelievable, but it is still what England claims.
In the interview with Hill in 2010, England is just as specific about the size of the pole:
England: “I think the pole was about 40 foot long.”
There is simply no doubt about what England is saying. And for Coste and Chandler to say that England was having words put in his mouth or that he was trying to dispute a claim by Ranke that it was the long end, is simply a deliberate act of deception. If Coste and Chandler are honest about this, they will change their position as a result of this article. But I don’t think that will happen. They will stick to their story even though it is plainly false.
Expect Coste to repeat his false narrative at the propaganda team’s “conference” in Denver on May 4, which will put forward a single point of view: that a 757 hit the Pentagon. I don’t think this really is a conference; I think it’s going to be a show – a piece of propaganda theater.
And expect Coste, Chandler, and the rest of the team to continue their unrelenting attacks against Ranke and Marquis of CIT, who uncovered some of the most critical evidence we have proving that the government story of what happened at the Pentagon is a lie.
After 17 years, I think we should focus on challenging the official story, not propping up most of it. For some reason, these two don’t agree.
Part 1 of this report can be read here.