England says 9/11 was an inside job, but his claims about how his taxi was ‘damaged’ by a large pole don’t add up
March 20, 2019
This is the first of a two-part report on the story of Lloyde England, the taxi driver who alleges that a light pole hit his car after being knocked over by the plane that the official story says “hit” the Pentagon. In this part I look at what the evidence shows and what England has said. In the second part I will look at the troubling attempts by certain members of the Truth Movement to convince us that the England story is true and that it supports the official claim of a 757 impact with the Pentagon.
“Never have we accused Lloyde England of willingly being involved in this operation because we don’t know that, and we can’t prove it. He could, in fact, be a victim who was coerced on some level or manipulated on some level, which would in essence make him a victim who was forced to be involved in this event.” – Craig Ranke
“‘Accusing’ cab driver Lloyde England is a misnomer; England accuses himself through the massive internal and external contradictions in his testimony.” – Kevin Barrett
“Unless something happened that I’m not familiar with, something I don’t understand about physics, a plane couldn’t go in that hole.” – Lloyde England
By Craig McKee
Taxi driver Lloyde England says that early in his work day on September 11, 2001, he was told by two customers that the Twin Towers in New York City had been hit by planes, and he decided he should go home so he wouldn’t be in the middle of “what was happening.”1
But England’s decision put him right in the middle of what was about to happen at the Pentagon. As he describes it, he was driving south on Route 27 when he glimpsed a low-flying plane crossing the highway in front of him a split second before a large light pole came crashing through his windshield, barely missing him and embedding itself in the back seat.
It’s quite a story. Like a scene from a Bruce Willis movie. And it’s perfect for creating superficial and unquestioning media interest. It gives the Pentagon story a human face, and a sympathetic one at that. But England’s account also appears to reinforce specific official claims. It appears to confirm the downing of five light poles by a 757, which in turn is supposed to corroborate both the official flight path of the plane alleged to be American Airlines Flight 77 and the plane’s minimum wingspan. But instead of confirming this “evidence,” England’s description of events contradicts it. What he describes is not only physically impossible but it is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, and irrational claims.
It is revealing that this impossible account is being supported by a small group within the 9/11 Truth Movement that relentlessly advocates for the government’s impact claim. (For more on this, watch for Part 2 of this report, in which I will address in more detail the false claims of Wayne Coste and David Chandler, who contend that England’s story is factual and reasonable and that it supports both the physical evidence and a 757 impact with the Pentagon.)
The only reason the impossibilities in England’s account are clear to us is because Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team traveled across the country to interview him twice, first in 2006 and again in 2008 (they were accompanied on the first trip by Dylan Avery and Russell Pickering). The first interview became a 20-minute video called The First Known Accomplice?, released in 2007. The 95-minute follow-up was called Lloyde England and His Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm, released in 2008. Footage from both was also used in CIT’s best-known video, National Security Alert. It was during the second visit that England took Marquis and Ranke to his country property 90 minutes from his Arlington County, Virginia, home to see the taxi from 9/11, which had been there for several years, covered by a tarp (see top photo).
Without this investigation by CIT, would the weaknesses of England’s story have passed unnoticed? Before this, we had only a few short TV interviews and England’s Survivors’ Fund account (the Fund provided him with financial support following his “ordeal”). We later had a phone interview done in 2010 by “researcher” Jeff Hill, who has made a point of interviewing witnesses already spoken to by CIT and trying to turn those witnesses against CIT through a series of manipulations and dishonest tactics.2
From these sources we learn that England says he was driving past the Pentagon at either 40 or 50 miles per hour when the pole hit his cab, forcing him to fight for control, with the approximately 30-foot-long pole sticking out across the hood.3
The pole, he explains, bent the front passenger seat back and “stopped” in the back seat, narrowly missing him. He says he brought the car to a stop in the middle of the highway, pointing west, towards the side of the road and away from the Pentagon.
Which pole was that?
Before I get into what can’t be true in England’s account, I have no choice but to address the utterly unfounded claim by Coste and Chandler that England did not identify the approximately 30-foot main part of the first light pole as having hit his cab and instead must have been talking about a much smaller piece at the top of pole 2 (which they estimate to be 11.5 feet long). I will go into this more in the follow-up to this article and will respond specifically to the chapter in Coste’s “video series” that addresses England. But I offer conclusive proof below that it was the long end of the pole England was talking about, not a much shorter piece.4
First, in an NBC interview shown in The First Known Accomplice?, England says: “When [the plane] hit the pole it knocked the light part off. Nothing came through the car but the pole itself.”5
In an audio pre-interview for the same CIT video, England is asked by Pickering, “So which piece did you take out of the window?”6
England: “The long piece. The part that was [unintelligible] off the, off the ground.”
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.
Then, in their 2008 interview, Ranke asks about the length of the pole he is talking about:
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 it was about 30, 40 foot long. … The base of it was in concrete.
Marquis: And to clarify, it was the long piece of the base of the pole.
England: Yes, the long piece that was sticking out across the hood.
In the interview with Hill, England volunteers the size of the pole that he says entered his cab:
England: “I think the pole was about 40 foot long.”
Does all this sound like he’s talking about an 11.5-foot arm on the top of the pole? Incredibly, Coste says this shorter section would appear “long” in comparison to England’s own height.7
Why couldn’t this pole have hit?
Now that we have confirmed that it was, in fact, the large part of pole 1 that England is alleging hit his cab, let’s look at how what he is describing can’t be true.
The plane is supposed to have crossed the north-south Route 27 diagonally, hitting pole 1 with the right wing (the cab would have been to the left of the plane). But given that the plane’s wings are not perpendicular to the fuselage but somewhat swept back, the pole should have been knocked forward, to the right, and across the road. Had it been knocked in the direction the official story claims, the plane’s fuselage would have been directly in the pole’s path. We’re supposed to believe the pole was sent flying to the left of the plane by the right wing, that it somehow passed over, under, or though the fuselage, and that it then impaled the cab. And we’re supposed to believe that the cab moved south as England struggled to gain control, ending up basically where the pole was originally standing in the first place. Interestingly, the other four poles just fell over and remained very close to their original locations. Only pole 1 is supposed to have traveled any distance, and yet it ends up right near where it started, just like the others.
Anomalous ‘damage’ to the cab
Then we have the “damage” to the taxi itself, which was not what would have been expected from the catastrophic impact of a more-than-200-pound light pole hit by a 90-ton plane flying at 530 miles per hour.
It is clear that the windshield was significantly damaged by something. But the hood is not scratched or dented in any way (England even points this out to CIT in a video interview, as if to pre-empt his interviewers when he is acknowledging that the pole was “lying on the hood”). The bent and jagged end of the main part of the pole is supposed to have crashed through the windshield, doing major damage to the dashboard on the passenger side, bending the front passenger seat back (without tearing it at all), and making a tiny hole low on the upright part of the rear seat.
So much of this is simply impossible.
The most extreme element of this claim is the almost complete absence of damage to the back seat. How could the tapered end of this 30-foot pole be hurled through the windshield at great speed and make a hole in the rear seat that you couldn’t fit a tennis ball through? The diameter of the end of the pole is obviously significantly greater than the diameter of the hole. And how could the pole, with jagged metal on its end, bend the front seat back without tearing its upholstery?
Then there is the dashboard. With the 1990 model of the Lincoln Town Car (this is the cab he drove), the dashboard appears to be somewhat higher than the lip of the hood where it meets the windshield. And in photos of the actual damaged cab you can see that the dashboard has been crushed by something so that it is now lower than the lip of the hood. But the hood is undamaged. Not even a small dent in the lip. How could a pole smash the dashboard until it’s lower than the hood without damaging the hood itself? Again, impossible.
Then we have the fact that the damage does not line up. The pole is supposed to have gone through at about the center of the windshield, hit the front passenger seat (which appears to have received an impact to its top right corner as you’re looking at it through the windshield), and then made a sudden, downward turn to create a tiny hole low in the upright part of the back seat.
And, given that we can see clearly that no pole penetrated the back seat (the tiny hole not being large enough to accommodate the end of the pole even if it did line up), then we have to ask the question, what kept the pole from touching the hood if it wasn’t embedded in some part of the car? And how could the car swerve around as England tried to gain control without the pole touching and damaging the hood?
Another oddity arises from England’s “Survivors’ Fund” account:
“As he approached the Navy Annex he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s [sic] taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another driver stopped and helped move the pole off of Lloyd’s [sic] car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd [sic] and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened….”
This account is not only in the third person, as opposed to being in Lloyde’s own words, but it actually contradicts what he has said on other occasions. First, we know the pole did not come “crashing down onto the front of Lloyd’s [sic] taxi cab….” We know this because there was not a scratch on the hood or the roof. Consequently, we know that England and the silent stranger never lifted the pole “off the car.” (England actually repeats this claim that the pole fell “onto” the car in the Hill interview.)
In the first CIT interview, England volunteers that he witnessed a large explosion at the Pentagon that sent “rocks” flying onto the highway. (This explosion could not have been a plane impact because what he says he saw would have occurred minutes after the “event.”)
Ranke: Was the explosion after you stopped the cab?
Ranke: After you got out?
England: It had to be.
He is asked again about seeing or hearing an explosion in the same interview, and then he seems less sure:
“I think I did. You know, it’s been quite a while ago. I think I did because rocks flew out, and the rocks flew out over the cars and the people that were across the street from it.”
In the Hill interview, England seems even less sure about having witnessed any explosion. And no more does he associate falling down with an explosion.
“There might have been an explosion. If it was an explosion it wasn’t anything on the outside, it was all contained in the area where the hole was.”
The silent stranger
England says he was very lucky to avoid death when the pole plunged through his cab. Given England’s close call, his next decision was an odd one. Rather than waiting for police to arrive at the scene, he flagged down a motorist and asked him to help him remove the massive pole from the car. Keep in mind that England was reported to be in his late 60s at the time.
Why would he even want to remove the pole? He says it was because he wanted to drive the car home, but that seems very questionable since the windshield would have been almost impossible to see out of. Did he think he could just drive away without any authorities getting involved?
England’s description of the behavior of the man who stopped also raises red flags. He says the man helped him remove the more-than-200-pound pole while he “never spoke a word” and was “so quiet.” On several occasions, England also describes the scene as being “so quiet,” which sounds to me like an embellishment intended to add some color to the story (I encourage readers to listen to the interviews and make their own judgments). In the 2006 audio pre-interview by CIT, England also described the silent man as “a friend of mine” but in later interviews as a stranger.
As England explains in the first CIT interview, both men reached the pole from in front of the car and therefore had to pull the pole towards them. The pole would have been several feet above the hood by the time it could be reached from in front of the car. This would have made prying the heavy pole out of the back seat and out of the windshield extremely difficult if not impossible. How would they have had the strength to go about it this way? Surely they would have gained much more leverage by standing beside the car. How could they have removed the pole from the front without any part of it hitting the hood, which didn’t have so much as a scratch on it? It’s simply an absurd notion that these two men could have removed such a heavy pole from the car in this or any other way.
England says that after the pole was out, he fell back to the ground as the bent end “swung down.” But the bent end could have done that only once the pole was completely free of the front of the car, since the bent end would have been the last part out of the car. Then, instead of helping England get out from under the pole, the silent Samaritan gets back in his van and drives away. Does this seem remotely plausible?
“We pulled the pole out and the pole was bent,” England said in 2006. “And the bent part took me down to the ground. I fell on my back but I held the pole up, and I laid the pole down. And he got in his van and went on down the road.”
The pole was later photographed lying in the middle of the road, parallel to the lanes of traffic, which means that the two men had to pull it out very near the edge of the highway then turn it and carry it a short distance before setting it down in the center lane, to the left of the car. But why move it from the side of the road to the middle? Why not just set it down on the side of the road, where they already were?
My contention, of course, is that England never moved any pole because there was never a pole in his car. I think the pole was positioned in the middle of the road because that would make a better photo-op. In fact, one of the photos with this article shows a scratch that appears to have been made by the pole being dragged onto the road surface from the far side, opposite to where it had originally stood.
Some might say that no one saw the pole being dragged, but more significant is that not a single witness says they saw England’s cab hit by a pole. No one says they saw a cab swerving with a pole sticking out of the windshield. And no one says they saw two men struggling to remove a pole.
England said in 2006 that he was first told by the FBI to wait by his car but later was told by Arlington County police to leave the area.
“They told everybody to leave because there was going to be another plane coming. I said I wanted to stay with the car. So I wouldn’t move. So he actually pushed me down.”
For some reason, police showed no interest in interviewing England about what happened. Since he could not start his car, England says he started walking home, which brings us to this not-very-plausible story, included in England’s Survivors’ Fund account:
“Lloyd [sic] still keeps a torn dollar bill signed by a stranger and dated September 11, 2001. It marks a day he has struggled to survive for two years. As he made his way on foot up Route 395 he met a man who had been working at the Pentagon. Walking side by side they found a dollar bill lying in the road. They picked it up, tore it in half, each signed one half and traded with each other. Parting ways each took half of a torn dollar with a stranger’s name on it. Lloyde still keeps this tangible reminder of his experience on 9/11.”
Where was Lloyde?
If England’s tale isn’t unlikely enough for you yet, there’s more. One of the oddest things to emerge from the second CIT interview (the one shown in Lloyde England and His Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm) is the claim by England that his cab came to a stop not where all the photographs show but hundreds of feet to the north. (Route 27 is a north/south highway, and England is claiming his car was hit by the pole as he was driving south past the Pentagon, rather than later, when he had reached the bridge.) In fact, all the photographs we have, which come from different sources, show England’s cab stopped on or just a few feet south of the “bridge,” or overpass, that allows Columbia Pike to go under Route 27.
In England’s living room, Ranke showed him numerous photos of where his cab was when it came to a stop. But no matter what he was shown, England was adamant that he had been hundreds of feet farther north, near the alleged impact point. As Ranke notes in the video, England was aware by this time of the north of Citgo witnesses, who put the approaching plane on a path north of the official one that was irreconcilable with the “damage.”
Was he confused when he said he was so much farther north? Or was he being untruthful? Here’s a clue: Prior to going on camera in the 2008 interview, there is off-camera audio of England mentioning that someone he knows took pictures of his cab when it was stopped on the highway.
“He was up on the bridge,” England said.
And yet, he later insisted on camera that his car was nowhere near the bridge. Two incompatible stories: one told off camera and a different one on. (It’s hard to completely chalk this up to England coming to understand the implications of his location, since it is clear in The First Known Accomplice?, made two years earlier, that he claimed not to be on the bridge. He said at the time that he was “on solid ground.” CIT didn’t pursue this point in that first video, perhaps because its significance wasn’t yet clear. It is possible England just meant that when the pole impact happened he was still north of the bridge, but he certainly does not make this clear.)
The Shirley situation
One of the most peculiar aspects of Lloyde’s and Shirley’s story concerns where she worked in 2001. In both the 2006 and 2008 interviews, Lloyde says she worked for the FBI.
“The FBI interviewed me because my wife works for the FBI,” he said in 2006. “They assume I had been killed by looking at the car on the inside. They were not in a big hurry; that wasn’t that they weren’t looking for me, but they didn’t really see a need to try and find me because looking at the car they figured I hadn’t survived it.”
Shirley explains this also in the encounter with CIT in 2008: “The FBI thought he had been killed but I told them he was alive, and that’s when they came over here and talked to him. They said somebody told them that they took him away – he was dead.”
Lloyde even said in that same 2008 discussion that he can’t talk about what Shirley does for the FBI.
Ranke: So, how long has she worked for the FBI?
Lloyde: Oh, she’s worked for the FBI for a long time.
Ranke: What’s her position?
Lloyde: She don’t talk about it, I don’t talk about it.
Shirley was also mysterious about this when asked about what she did there.
Shirley: “No, I don’t talk.”
Ranke: What have they told you about what happened on 9/11?
Shirley: “No, they don’t talk to me about that. I don’t talk to them and they don’t, they don’t talk about stuff like that.”
Ranke: “You know, there’s questions about what happened.”
Shirley: “You know, I go to work and do my job and that’s it.”
But in 2010, the story changed. Lloyde suddenly had no problem talking about what Shirley did. He told Hill that she worked as a cleaner in the FBI building.
Hill: Isn’t your wife an FBI agent?
Lloyde: Uh no, my wife is a cleaner. She works at the FBI building. She is a cleaner. So I say she works at the FBI building, you could assume what you want to.
Why would both Lloyde and Shirley be mysterious about not being able to talk about her job if she was simply a cleaner? Why would the FBI think Lloyde was dead when there was no body and no damage to the driver’s seat? How would the FBI know that his wife was a cleaner in their building and yet not have any idea where they could find him?
This aspect of the story gets closer attention in a short video posted on YouTube by CIT in 2010 (I assume they posted this once they realized that England had told Hill something different than what he had said to them).
At one point in the CIT conversations with Lloyde and Shirley, she says she knows why the FBI didn’t take the taxi in as evidence but that she can’t talk about the reason. How would she know that? And what could the reason be that she would not be willing to talk about? And, why would the FBI not want to at least see the cab?
Ranke: What we’re most concerned about is why the government didn’t look into that [the cab].
England: Not a bit.
Ranke: Not a bit. What’s up with that?
Shirley: I know why they didn’t, but I’m not going to say.
Ranke: What do you mean? Why?
Shirley: I’m not going to say.
Ranke: Oh, come on.
She even appears to agree with Ranke when he says that he thinks the plane flew over the Pentagon.
Ranke: Well, we found out it didn’t hit the Pentagon and just kept going.
Ranke: Yeah what?
Shirley: Yeah. (laughing)
Ranke: Yeah what
Shirley: What you said. (still laughing)
Ranke: What did I say?
Shirley: I better go fix dinner.
Then there is the question of why England never drove his cab again. He tells Hill that he was able to start the car again after flipping a switch in the trunk. As far as we know, the damage was restricted to the windshield, the dashboard, and the front passenger seat (the hole in the back seat would hardly be noticed by anyone). Why not have repairs done and continue driving the cab? England talks about his struggle to survive financially after 9/11, although he did receive money from the Red Cross and the Survivors’ Fund. But he never repaired the car nor did he sell it. Instead, he acquired another Lincoln Town Car, this time a 1995 model. He keeps both (storing the damaged cab at his country property) and tells Hill that he’d like to sell “one of them.” This is odd since only one of the cars could still be driven.
So much of England’s story sounds like just that — a story. No matter how many times he repeats it, he includes the same embellishments and almost identical wording: the scene was “so quiet” … the stranger who helped with the pole “never said a word” … “My wife says, ‘I see him every day’” … “If anybody had been sitting in the front seat the pole would have gone right through them.” But when he is confronted with contradictions in his story, England just says he doesn’t remember or he doubles down, as he did with his adamant claim that his cab was actually hundreds of feet north of the bridge when it was hit.
The story he tells doesn’t match the other evidence we have, including the testimonies of numerous witnesses interviewed by CIT who put the approaching plane over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo gas station, far from the light poles. It is also contradicted by the anomalous “damage” to the taxi and the impossibility of the pole being knocked to the left by the plane’s right wing and somehow getting past the fuselage to hit the cab.
We have numerous statements by England that he does not believe the official story of what happened at the Pentagon. He even goes so far as to say that 9/11 was “an inside job,” that the hole in the Pentagon wasn’t big enough to fit a large plane, and that Flight 93 was shot down over Shanksville.8
And we have these cryptic comments that England said to CIT in 2008 when he thought he wasn’t being recorded:
“One thing about it you gotta understand. When people do things and get away with it, eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me, it’s going to be so big I can’t do nothing about it. So it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.”
It all sounds like he knows a lot more about this operation than he is willing to admit. But he also makes it clear to Hill that, while he thinks 9/11 was an inside job, he just happened to stumble into the middle of the event. He adds:
“No, I wasn’t supposed to be involved in 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. 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.”9
Regardless of whether you think England was a willing participant in the 9/11 black operation or not, it is simply impossible to see his account as being truthful and accurate. In fact, I would say that the impossibilities in his account do a great deal to expose the lie that was the 9/11 official story. They also expose how the Pentagon event was crafted to fool the world into thinking that a 757 hit five light poles and then the side of the Pentagon itself.
The impossibility of the story is a huge tool for the 9/11 Truth Movement, if its members are smart enough to recognize this and use it.
- How could pole #1 be knocked to the left (north) of the plane by the right wing?
- How could the pole have gotten past the fuselage, which would have been in the way as the plane crossed the highway?
- How could a car that had just been hit by a 30-foot pole swerve around on the road as the driver struggled to regain control without even a scratch being made to the hood?
- If the damaged dashboard shown in CIT photos was lower than the edge of the hood, how could the pole rest on the dashboard but not damage the hood?
- How could a pole of any length smash through the windshield and go through to the back seat without causing significant damage to the seat?
- How could the pole have bent the front seat towards the back without tearing its upholstery?
- Why would Lloyde even try to pull the extremely long and heavy pole out of the car in the first place?
- Why would he and the stranger remove the pole by standing in front of the cab, which would offer them much less leverage?
- Why did Lloyde refer to the man who helped as a “friend of mine” and later as a stranger?
- Why did he refer to the stranger as being “so quiet” and also describe the scene as soon as he got his car stopped as being “so quiet”?
- Why would Lloyde and the stranger pull the pole out and then swing it around in a completely different direction and then carry it over to in the middle of the road rather than leaving it on the side?
- Why didn’t the stranger help Lloyde when he fell under the pole?
- Why didn’t the stranger say anything to Lloyde?
- Why was there a clear scratch across the road that appeared to have been made by the pole being dragged into place?
- Why would anyone claim it was a short piece of pole #2 that hit the cab when there is not one shred of evidence to support this?
- Why did Lloyde say in his Survivors’ Fund account that it was an explosion that made him fall under the pole but later just say he fell because the bent end “swung down”?
- Why would he later stop mentioning an explosion at all?
- Why would he describe an explosion that sent rocks flying over the highway but later say “if” there was an explosion it was confined to the hole in the building?
- How could all of this have happened without any part of it being seen by even one person?
- Why would the FBI assume Lloyde was dead after seeing the damage to the interior of the car even though the driver’s seat was undamaged and there was no body in the car?
- Why did Lloyde say his wife worked for the FBI and that he couldn’t talk about what she did there and later say she worked as a cleaner in the FBI building?
- If Shirley was simply a cleaner, how would the FBI know her husband was the cab driver whose car was hit by a pole just the day before?
- Why would the FBI have no idea where to find Lloyde?
- Why would the FBI think Lloyde was dead?
- Why would Shirley say she knew why the FBI didn’t take the taxi in for examination but that she could not say why?
- Why did Lloyde claim he was nowhere near the bridge on camera but admit off camera that the neighbor taking close-up photos of the cab and pole was “on the bridge”?
- Why would Lloyde say the pole fell “onto” his car and that the stranger helped him lift it “off”?
- Why would Lloyde keep the car under a tarp and then, a decade later, say he’d like to sell one of his two cabs?
- Why do “truthers” who push a large-plane impact at the Pentagon ignore the many problems with Lloyde’s story and instead claim that CIT treated him unfairly?
- Given CIT’s game-changing investigation, why are they so viciously attacked by those who seem happier talking about what they agree with in the official story?
- England/Hill interview in 2010.
- For more on Hill, whose over-the-top manipulative tactics are enthusiastically endorsed by Pentagon-impact advocate David Chandler, read my article, “Why David Chandler’s renewed attack on CIT reveals the failings of his own Pentagon ‘methodology.’” Some may also remember Hill for having made a drunken 1 a.m. phone call to berate a WTC survivor.
- On a drawing England made showing the pole protruding from his cab he wrote: “40 mph, 40 feet skidded,” and to Hill he said he was going about 50 mph. Also, while I estimate the length of the pole England claims to have removed from his car at about 30 feet, other estimates put it at less. An employee of the Virginia Department of Transport told CIT that when it was all in one piece, the pole was 40 feet high and weighed 247 pounds.
- The first pole would have been hit by the plane’s right wing. Pole 2, which Chandler and Coste claim actually hit England’s cab, would have been hit by the left wing.
- NBC interview: starts five minutes into The First Known Accomplice?
- Same video, starting at 5:48.
- The drawing by England is used to claim it was a short piece because the pole he drew didn’t appear very long. But at the same time, it did extend beyond the front of the car, which the top piece would not. Basically, though, the childish drawing really can’t be relied on to tell us anything.
- He is explicit about saying 9/11 was an inside job in the Hill interview. It is in this interview that he also mentions his idea that Flight 93 was shot down.
- CIT interview in 2008.
When somebody tells me a story, then changes almost all the details as time goes on, it only confirms my total lack of trust in anything s/he says.
You would’ve thought 9/11 researchers would’ve added the Lloyde England fantasy to the very-long list of totally-incredible tales that we spend far too much time choosing to investigate for no advantage worth the time and trouble.
Mike, are you saying this article shouldn’t have been written?
England’s story is clearly false but what bothers me most about it is something very few people ever discuss. A pole struck by a plane traveling over 500 mph is likely to be moving at a high rate of speed yes? England’s car was traveling toward the pole at 50+ mph right? So how did this pole not obliterate his whole car? I think just the physics of such an impact proves England’s story is impossible. If only there was an expert with physics who could use real science to test out the physics of this alleged impact we might just prove one way or the other if Lloyde is telling the truth or not. I contend that there is no possible scenario where a pole impacted at over 500 mph can hit a car going 50 mph towards it and leave the body work undamaged. It just isn’t possible physically. Even if under some freak circumstance the plane impacting the pole at 500+ mpg resulted in it gently falling over, as if pushed by a light breeze, the car was still going 50+ mph and would have had a massive kinetic impact. No way that car escapes without massive damage. And this assumes the plane impact essentially transferred almost no kinetic energy to the pole. In reality such an impact would have obliterated the pole and any pieces of it that struck the car would be like a bomb going off. The kinetic energy would be massive. Any real “scientist” like say “David Chandler” for example should be able to use physics and math combined with the scientific method to prove me wrong. I double dog dare you David. Prove me wrong – show us all how the physics of an impact like the one England says happened could under any scenario result in zero damage to the body of his car. Use science for once David, use science the way you claim you do. I say the physics of Lloyde England’s story don’t add up under even the most favorable possible conditions where the plane impact just gently toppled over the light pole and it had virtually zero momentum. We won’t even talk about the impossible physics of the swept back right wing clipping it and sending it flying left somehow.
For those of you who have forgotten what a 500+ mph impact is like watch this (Myth Busters) rocket sled smash an entire car to pieces and send it flying in two pieces over 200 feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA_YYca9wUM
Bastards cut the video short just before impact in the above link. Look at this one instead to see what a 500+ mph impact looks like. Action starts at 3:15 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WacZ7wlwta4 Slow motion replay starts at 4:30 mark. Now you tell me how his car survived with zero body damage?
You are absolutely right, Adam. Had the plane actually hit a pole, that pole would either have sliced the wing right off or it would have been catapulted into the cab with such tremendous force that it would have destroyed the car. As it is, we barely have a mark in the back seat, and that slight tear in the upholstery doesn’t even line up with the damage to the windshield and the front seat.
Sliced the wing in half, I posit.
I agree. A plane hitting five poles would never have made it cleanly to the building.
This is essentially an argument from imagination or incredulity.
I think you vastly overestimate thew size, mass, stiffness of a lamp post. Consider: A lamp post does not have to bear a lot of vertical load, and the most of lateral load it needs to resist is strong storm – 100 mph winds, give or take a bit. A plane’s wing however is strong enough to bear the weight of a plane – hundreds of tons – dynamically, and its leading edge must resist winds of 400 mph and more.
Furthermore, I believe (I have no evidence at hand now, and only remember this, but memory can be faulty) that lamp posts must consider the possibily of getting hit by vehicles, and as such they are designed to fail (bend and topple) at or near the ground at some threshold lateral impact force – probably just beyond the max. design wind load.
A plane on the other hand sure is designed to NOT be sliced in half upon hitting lighter obstacles (large birds come to mind).
When you hit an upright pole very near its top, you give it mostly rotational momentum, but not much lateral speed (you can do that experiment with any light lateral thing you have handy – a plastic tube or something – and a bat). If the pole then hits the ground first and bounces, all of that rotational momentum is passed on to the ground – there is not much velocity left then for an impact with, say, Mr. England’s cab.
You seem to have missed the part of my comment where I said: “Even if under some freak circumstance the plane impacting the pole at 500+ mpg resulted in it gently falling over, as if pushed by a light breeze, the car was still going 50+ mph and would have had a massive kinetic impact.”
Frankly I do not believe the gentle fall to the ground was possible but even allowing for that to be the case the pole still weighed over 200 pounds and his car would have hit it at 50+ mph. It is physically impossible for his car to escape body damage under even your proposed scenario where the pole gently falls and bounces off the ground. The energy of the impact at 50 mph would still have been massive. Throw a 200 lb spear at a car going 50 mph and see what happens. Use science and see what the results are. Calculate the kinetic energy. Go ahead I double dog dare you Erik.
The scenario where Lloyde’s car has no body damage is fiction, complete bullshit. It is not even physically possible. Maybe you can get Chandler to look at the physics of your unlikely scenario and see if even that is possible using… you know…science.
Adam Ruff: “You seem to have missed the part of my comment where I said: “Even if under some freak circumstance the plane impacting the pole at 500+ mpg resulted in it gently falling over, as if pushed by a light breeze…”
I did not so much miss that part as ignore it – you don’t know this is what happened. You essentially tell a just-so story there.
“the car was still going 50+ mph”
You don’t really know this. You go by Mr. England’s recollection – abd he could be mistaken by any amount.
“and would have had a massive kinetic impact.””
Argument from vivid imagination.
Can you quantify this “massive kinetic impact”? Of course not. What you say is meaningless because it does not align with anything that observably happened in reality.
Yes the massive kinetic impact could be easily calculated for this fictional scenario of Lloyde’s. Since I know England’s story is a lie though I am not going to do the calculations because my challenge is for you or anyone to find any scenario where a 200 lb pole could be knocked down by a plane and spear England’s windshield and NOT damage his hood. Come up with ANY scenario Erik ANY scenario that can show England was telling the truth. You can say the plane was going just fast enough to stay in the air and gently tapped the pole which then fell over perfectly and bounced of the ground just high enough to spear his windshield and you can top it off by even assuming Lloyde was traveling half the speed he claimed he was. So have the pole floating in mid air with ZERO kinetic energy from the plane impact, and have Lloyde hit it at 25 mph instead of 50 mph. Calculate the energies involved with that fantasy scenario tailored ridiculously in Lloyde’s favor under the best possible conditions and still the pole would have severely damaged his car and especially his hood.
The calculation is simple: We know the weight of the pole was almost exactly 200 lbs. So what is the kinetic energy of a 200 lb spear traveling at 25 mph? Surely you or David Chandler could calculate that using “science” right?
Lloyde is a damned liar and the impossible physics of his story prove it.
Adam Ruff wrote: “Come up with ANY scenario Erik ANY scenario that can show England was telling the truth. ”
Why do you shove the burden of proof on me? It’s your claim that the result is “impossible”. So you prove that.
What hit Lloyd’s car obviously was not the entire light pole – it was just the top part.
Now you run your calculations on the entire envelop of possible motions of plane, pole and car, and if you find that the observed result cannot be found in that mathematical envelop, then we can talk.
Of course you CAN’T do that calculation, and therefore you HAVE NOT done that calculation, and therefore your argument is one from IMAGINATION (or lack thereof).
It’s encouraging to know somebody else can also see through the appalling job CIT did (in THIS case at least), maligning Lloyde England, scurrilously accusing him of being a devious liar, and accusing him of being involved in mass murder.
The problem is those photos and videos of Lloyde and the cab on the bridge which give the impression that this is where they were when the pole went through the windscreen.
But the photos weren’t taken until 11 minutes after the impact. There was 11 minutes intervening for this stage to be set up and deceive the public.
Lloyde constantly repeated that HE WAS NOT ON THE BRIDGE WHEN THIS HAPPENED.
HE WAS OPPOSITE THE HELIPORT, NEXT TO THE CEMETERY WALL, 350 – 400 yards north of the bridge.
Yes he was! A very bad amateur video shows his cab right there, at 4 minutes post impact.
A total of 4 videos from 4 different viewpoints, show the tow truck moving Lloyde’s cab from the cemetery to the bridge where the taxi was left at 8 minutes post impact, ready for the photo session to come.
This means that the plane did not fly across the bridge, nor did it hit the pole which went through the windshield, and that the whole show was premeditated.
The light pole on the bridge has nothing to do with Lloyde England, and no plane ever knocked it down. It was all staged.
Lloyde stated that the plane flew across his car when he was north of the cemetery wall.
He also said that he “never saw the pole coming” … he “did not know where the pole came from”.
That pole was a pre-fabricated weapon used to impale the cab to order, in real time. Lloyde had no pre-knowledge of any of this, and he was not involved in any way in the scam. He was an unwitting victim manipulated to be at that spot exactly at that time.
The fact that there was an identical but undamaged Decoy Cab waiting on top of the bridge to fool onlookers there for the first 6 minutes until Lloyde’s cab arrived, is proof of this.
I really cannot understand what Adam Ruff is being so obtuse and aggressive about. He imagines I am “slandering” CIT as though they are beyond making errors.
Well I am merely pointing out their obvious mistakes in the Lloyde England story (although they did excellent work with other witnesses), and showing them how they missed out on the real scoop which solves this crime.
Lloyde was an honest eye witness to the North-of-Citgo flight path, in fact the first one that CIT interviewed, but they failed to catch on.
Lloyde was also the only person with physical evidence that proved what he claimed was true. David Chandler said that Llloyde and his cab should be respected as witnesses, and that is true.
But Chandler defends the government lie about the plane flying across the bridge, through 5 light poles on its way into the Pentagon. Chandler claims that Lloyde was “confused” when he consistently told people where this incident occurred. So Chandler does NOT respect Lloyde England at all.
Aldo Marquis claims Lloyde was so old and senile that he should not have been driving a cab.
I am the only person who defends Lloyde England on his own terms, and therefore I am the only one who ever bothered looking for the evidence which I knew must exist on the few videos which were taken at the Pentagon in the first few minutes.
“Seek and ye shall find.” And I found that evidence, which mouthy Adam futilely denies.
Lloyde England and his cab – as now seen on videos – PROVES 9/11 was faked by the Pentagon itself.
Why does “truther” Adam Ruff not want to know this?
This is a fantastic piece of in depth journalism Craig.
Okay, let me try again to submit a comment.(This time, using my other email address)
Fantastic piece of hard-hitting reporting Craig.
Thanks, Adam. But actually your first comment got through. But I’ll take both.
“In fact, one of the photos…shows that there was a scratch that appears to have been made by the pole being dragged onto the road surface from the far side, opposite to where it had originally stood. ”
Please elaborate. Start to finish. Where was the base pole, how was it moved, by whom, to where?
Winston, are these serious questions? Or are you taking the Coste approach, which is that if we don’t know every single detail about how the scene was staged that it must be as the official story said?
I don’t know who moved the pole. (did you really think there would be an answer to this?) I don’t know where it was before it was moved (because there are no photos of it being in another location and there are no witnesses we are aware of that saw it somewhere else). As to how it was moved, the scratch suggests that it was dragged. Don’t you agree? And it was dragged to the center lane, as shown in photos.
Craig, you are the one who states “…the pole being dragged onto the road surface from the far side…”
I’m asking you to elaborate on what that means. Build it out for us.
The scratch indicates that it was perpendicular to the lane, then it moved parallel to the lane.
My questions are all perfectly reasonable. If you don’t have an answer, say so.
You keep claiming “… the scene was staged…” Please lay it out for us. Surely you must have a theory.
The scratch doesn’t tell me which way the pole was facing before it was dragged into place. Maybe you can tell me why you think it was perpendicular to the road. And I didn’t say it was dragged, I said the scratch “appears to have been made by the pole being dragged.”
Do I “keep claiming” the scene was staged? Well, I certainly think it was. Just as I think we were deceived about the World Trade Center being brought down by planes. And just as I think we were in Shanksville. Deception was central to the 9/11 false flag, don’t you agree?
My focus is not on having theories beyond what the evidence shows me. But I do think the poles were already down before that morning, and I think pole 1, the pole that was used in the England deception, was only dragged into place at the time that the event took place (obviously, since there was traffic on that stretch of road a short time before). I don’t know who dragged it or precisely when it was dragged.
I have a question for you, Winston. You want me to present a theory of what exactly transpired. I would like to know whether you agree with me that the long pole that we’ve just been discussing is the same one England says was 30-40 feet long and was attached to the ground. Is he talking about this large pole, which could only be the first pole, the one alleged to have been hit by the right wing?
Winston you are using a disinformation technique here in my opinion: “14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.”
You are asking Craig to solve the crime completely and address the minutia on aspects that cannot possibly be known. You yourself could find information about where the pole was supposedly based but you want Craig to do all the work while you sit back and ask him to jump through all your hoops. The poles base is documented thoroughly, find it yourself, do your own work. As to the other parts of your disingenuous question “how was it moved” “By whom” and “to where” it is impossible to answer because no evidence exists regarding those questions. Only speculations could be made. So your question is an attempt to get Craig to speculate on something so you can then pounce on him and say ‘AHA!!! that is speculation! You are dishonest!”.
Disinformation techniques are used by dishonest people so if you are really an honest truther Winston why are you using disinformation techniques and trying to create a straw man to knock down? I also wonder why you do not find answers to your own questions like “where was the base pole” instead of asking Craig to spoon feed you information you can easily find yourself? Craig is busy fighting for the truth movement against a huge disinformation campaign with very little help from anyone. The least you can do is figure out the answers yourself to questions like this one and quit bothering him with BS like that. Bring your A-Game and ask pertinent questions that have a bearing on the subject before you bother Craig with them. For God’s sake at least attempt to answer some questions for yourself also. I am tired of jumping through endless hoops for people like yourself so I am sure Craig is tired of it too.
I have read many of your posts over the years Winston and you have never struck me as a truther at all. You always seem to be nit picking and sitting behind the scenes just to be an irritant. Maybe I am wrong and I just do not know your work towards 9/11 truth? Perhaps you could direct me to your body of work and answer some of my questions?
You are entirely mistaken about there being “no evidence”.
There have been numerous videos in the public domain for many years now, taken within 8 – 9 minutes of impact, which show exactly what happened, and how Lloyde England was telling the truth.
Lloyde England is therefore a hapless victim of a hate campaign against him, spearheaded by CIT unfortunately.
These videos were released under FOIA Request by the FBI, which obviously did not analyse them as thoroughly as I have recently done, or they would have destroyed this evidence which implicates them and the Pentagon.
First of all, please stop posting the same link to the other discussion. We’ve seen it enough. Second, if there are videos or photographs that support what you are saying, please link us to those here. I’m unclear why you haven’t provided any photographic evidence of Lloyde’s cab being moved in your comments here.
That was my first visit to this site, so I am unsure how anything works and just what is possible or permitted.
Some hints on posting photos here would be helpful thanks!
It depends where the photos are coming from. If they have a URL, then you just need to include that in your comment. If they are on your computer, I would have to download a plugin to allow you to attach the images. Which would apply in this case?
My images are being progressively uploaded at LetsRollForums.com so I guess that means I just use the URL applicable to them?
And I also have some at FLICKR. Same deal then?
Thanks for your assistance.
Yes, you can share the URL from that site.
The pole was moved by numerous operatives who were already at the bridge site, while Lloyde and his cab were still at the cemetery site, as he explained to Craig (TWICE).
A tow truck and trailer moved Lloyde’s cab, disguised with a black tarp, to the bridge after Detective DON FORTUNATO pushed Lloyde to the ground to force him to leave.
The tow truck left the cemetery site at 9:43:12 a.m., and arrived at the bridge site about 20 seconds later, where a video shot from south of the overhead signs on the bridge, shows it doping a U-turn across the lanes, as a DECOY CAPITOL CAB SPEEDS SOUTH AWAY FROM THE BRIDGE.
Numerous videos show the WHITE VAN (a FORD ECONOLINE) as it arrived north of the cemetery wall; parked a few yards in front of Lloyde’s cab at the cemetery wall at 9:41 a.m.; leaving the cemetery wall at 9:42:36 a.m. and travelling south towards the bridge; approaching the bridge; and Ingersoll’s photos show it parked on the bridge at 9:45 a.m. onwards. This van, with closed in sides and darkened windows, could have concealed as many operatives as were needed to pull this great cab switch off.
However, the DECOY CAB had 2 occupants, who also doubtless played their parts.
A video shot from south of the overhead signs on the bridge, shows the tow truck pulling up to the bridge, doing a U-turn across the lanes, and then Lloyde’s cab side-on across the lanes.
Another video shows this tow truck, with unloaded trailer, exiting the bridge the wrong way off the northwest on-ramp, and MARK FARAM’s photo then shows the black tow truck exiting via the Columbia Pike exit road, without the trailer, which was unhitched and left there on the north side of the north-west cloverleaf, where it can be seen in many photos later that day, especially in the background of DSC_o420, of Lloyde and his cab re-posed on the bridge.
DONALD RUMSFELD and his Pentagon Police bodyguard AUBREY DAVIS (who was also the black man guarding Lloyde in the official bridge photos) were both videoed on the lawn as the tow truck exited, their glee unbounded, as they watched the truck leaving, DAVIS speaking into his radio, rather than tending to the badly burned lady on the stretcher.
All this is proven by many VIDEOS which have now been analysed to show that LLOYDE ENGLAND ALWAYS TOLD THE TRUTH.
He could not help it if people misunderstood him and got it all wrong, thanks to the official photos which he was barely even aware of.
PLEASE LEAVE LLOYDE ALONE!!
Why not focus on the many criminal operatives identified at work on this series of videos?
Start with Donald Rumsfeld; Detective Don Fortunato; Pentagon Police Officer (now Maryland Police Captain) Aubrey Davis; Steve Riskus; the White Van driver (who may have also have been Pentagon Police), the Capitol Cab Company and drivers who provided the decoy cab; the Tow Truck Company; the VDOT which provided the orange tongueless low loader trailer.
“(… glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another driver stopped and helped move the pole off of Lloyd’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion.”
I assume that explosion must have been of the air plane hitting the building.
But that happened only 2 or 3 seconds after the air plane had hit the pole.
In that short period of time there was no opportunity to stop both cars and to try to get the pole off of Lloyd’s car.
Indeed. In fact Lloyde’s swerving car wouldn’t have even come to a standstill before the plane hit the accounts department, if we are to believe the official myth. Unless there was a secondary explosion a bit later on?
Yes, assuming that he really did see an explosion (I don’t assume anything where Lloyde is concerned), it would have been a secondary explosion. And there were other explosions reported. There is the one supposedly photographed by Daryl Donley a few minutes after the alleged impact, and there is one that was recorded by a TV crew after 10 a.m.
If Lloyde really did see/hear an explosion it would have to have been a secondary one.
“As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion.”
There was a secondary fireball captured by Daryl Donley 3 to 4 minutes after he saw the plane impact.
Also captured live (~9:42 am )by both NBC and CBS cams atop the USA today building.
Could this be what Lloyde describes?
It is speculative to answer that. It is also an irrelevant side track to the question of Lloyde England’s story being true or false. Only Lloyde could answer that and since he is an obvious liar why do you even ask this question I wonder? Perhaps you want Craig to waste more of his valuable time on it Winston?
YES!!! Of course this is what Lloyde is decribing!
In fact, this has now been proven with cross-referenced videos (about 8 videos now identified) taken within the first 8 – 9 minutes of impact, from many different vantage points, with one video showing LLOYDE’S CAB EXACTLY WHERE HE SAID IT WAS, BESIDE THE CEMETERY WALL, WITH THE POLE STILL THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD, AND THE WHITE VAN PARKED A FEW YARDS AHEAD OF HIM, AT 4 MINUTES POST IMPACT.
My conclusion from reading this article is that Lloyde England’s testimony is worthless.
I have added a section 22 and two subfolders (22.1 and 22.2) for “Eyewitnesses.” The (first) doc under 22.1 *Lloyde Jenkens (the * means this is not in Griffin/Woodworth) links to Craig’s article here. I will try to make this open for comments. Please bear with me, I’m on a learning curve. Here is a link, by the way, for an online (searchable) version of the 9/11 Commission Report: https://books.google.de/books?id=TjKODEaahVQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=9/11+commission+report&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirrKbJw6rhAhWJmIsKHfTzC_UQ6AEIRTAF#v=snippet&q=%22April%20Gallop%22&f=false
It makes me cringe to read what otherwise genuine researchers write, when discussing LLOYDE ENGLAND.
All this Lloyde-hating has come about due to Craig Ranke & Aldo Marquis’ efforts.
They did a lot of good. They recorded much testimony we would never have had otherwise.
But as they were intended to do, they fell for the official photo & video images of Lloyde and his cab next to that impossible pole on the bridge, and thereby shot themselves in the foot, and where are they now?
CIT totally misread what Lloyde was telling them. He NEVER said that this happened on the bridge, but CIT did not listen. They were talking at crossed purposes the whole time with him, and missed the valuable clues that Lloyde was artlessly giving them, about how the Pentagon Plot was pulled off.
As Lloyde would say,
“WHO THEY CAUGHT?” with all their accusations against Lloyde.
No operatives’ names have been discovered, and no evidence incriminating Lloyde.
I have taken the other track entirely, and worked from the basis that LLOYDE ENGLAND TOLD THE TRUTH. ALL THE TIME. AS MUCH AS HE KNEW OF IT. He admitted there were many things about what happened that day which perplexed him.
False Truthers like David Chandler only “defend” Lloyde on the basis of those official bridge photos. That is just as deadly and dead-ended as CIT’s campaign against Lloyde.
My very detailed and well-supported treatise on Lloyde is being posted at LetsRollForums.com, with drayloads of previously unseen HARD EVIDENCE that has now been revealed on videos taken within the first 8 or 9 minutes of the impact, exonerating Lloyde absolutely, and IDENTIFIYING MANY OPERATIVES IN THIS PLOT.
Please read the GENUINE EVIDENCE on LLOYDE ENGLAND, here :
Unanswered Question #15
Question: Why would anyone claim it was a short piece of pole #2 that hit the cab when there is not one shred of evidence to support this?
Answer: Wayne Coste presented the evidence to the 9/11 and Other Deep State Teleconference on November 30, 2016. “Lloyd England’s Taxicab: A Comprehensive Review of the Accident Scene.” http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/911_MonthlyConference_Lloyd_Taxicab.pdf
But, Dwain, it wasn’t evidence. At best it was speculation. England says it was the long end of the pole, which could only be pole 1. All your friends said it was the long end in their critique of Barbara Honegger’s work. Then, suddenly, it’s the short end.
Why? Because Coste realized how absurd it is to claim England helped remove a 200-pound pole from his car. Instead of questioning whether England was being truthful, he just “fixed” the story so it fits with a large plane impact. This is what “debunkers” do, not 9/11 truthers.
True, what Wayne Coste presented was not evidence. He was so laughably wrong in his identification of the various pieces of light pole debris lying on the highway, and Chandler also swallowed this explanation in his fatally flawed attempt to “defend” Lloyde England according to the Official Fairy Tale rather than according to what Lloyde England actually stated.
In his presentation, where he spells Lloyde’s name incorrectly,
Lloyd England’s Taxicab: A Comprehensive Review of the Accident Scene
Prepared for the November 30, 2016 9/11 Truth and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference
Wayne H. Coste, PE Truth Outreach, Inc.,
Coste makes a huge blunder when he cannot distinguish a length of doubled-over electrical flex from a solid aluminium light pole component.
Lloyde England is damned just as surely by this kind of “defense” from False Truthers, as he was by the Official Photo Series, and by the atrocious attack from CIT.
Were any of the 5 light pole supposedly cut by the plane examined for physical evidence of this actually having happened? There should have been plane debris at the points of impact as well as on the poles themselves.
You would think so, and there is a photo and video footage of some keen FBI agents taking evidence samples of one of the poles near the Pentagon at about the same time the floors collapsed, but I doubt anything ever came of that.
From 25:35 on
How do you determine whether 5 poles were hit by the wing of a speeding 757? Is there a precedent for this?
It should have been easy to find (even microscopic) traces of the plane material on the poles, and bits from the impact lying around. The light poles are not even mentioned in the 9/11 Report.
At the 25:35 mark all we see is two men in white shirts next to a guard rail and two more sitting on the ground on the other side of the guard rail one wearing an FBI windbreaker. Nothing more, no pole is seen, Ruby appears to be fabricating the part where a “pole” is being examined. This is now strike two on Ruby’s so called vindicating evidence. Strike three isn’t far behind I bet.
Rather rude of you.
Coming from a person who is deceived by Aldo Marquis’ many libellous accusations against Lloyde England! It is not worth answering, but I will.
I posted this link which is the one I had handy at the time.
There are also photos of this somewhere, and more footage, which shows these guys investigating, I believe, the lamp (ergo, SAMPLE of light pole) which is on the edge of the road here.
The pole, I think #5, is across the guardrail on the lawn.
Try watching from 25:05 where you will clearly see this pole.
This has NOTHING to do with my “Lloyde England Vindicated” thread, but I was simply making a helpful comment to Michael Morrissey.
The 30 questions posed here have stumped many people over the years, seemingly insoluble only because of the flawed reporting done by CIT in this particular case.
I find that each question is readily answered when approached from the assumption of Lloyde’s own story being true in every respect, rather than from a basis of scorn, suspicion and slander.
The questions deserve comprehensive responses, and rather than overload this page with them, I have posted my answers on my thread “LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEO”, the address of which I dare not post again, but which is easy enough to find on this page.
Yes, your link is easy to find in several places. But I am troubled by your suggestion that the questions I have posed are only unanswered because of “flawed reporting.” I am counting on you providing us with photographic evidence that the cab was where England claimed it was. I haven’t seen that evidence yet. And I think there are lots of reasons to doubt England’s account based on his own statements.
I will also say that I am suspicious of people who make it their preoccupation to say over and over how CIT did something unethical. I think they did incredible research that few in the Truth Movement would have taken the trouble to do.
Craig I followed Ruby Grays link on the lets roll forum to finally reach the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBJGNyItD8o
About which Ruby says: “In the meantime, the amateur video shot on the bridge and released under FOIA request which shows the view from the bridge, pristine highway surfaces, a bent light pole, trees on the eastern side of Route 27 about opposite the Helipad (for reference), many other motorists on the bridge, and Lloyde England beginning to walk home, is this:”
I watched the video end to end and there is NOTHING in it that supports Lloyde England’s story in any way shape or form. The claim is made that Lloyde is seen beginning to walk home in this video but I do not see him anywhere in the video so that appears to be a false claim by Ruby. The claim is made we can see a “bent” light pole in this video and that claim also appears to be false. Tell me the time stamp on the video where it shows the bent pole if I am wrong Ruby?
Also the video is taken well after the explosion at the pentagon so England according to his own story would have already removed the pole from his cab. This video is essentially useless for analysis of England’s story. Red herring.
I have a strong suspicion that the deeper I look into Ruby’s claims about Lloyde’s vindication the more fabrications I will uncover from Ruby. I also foresee a lot of my time going to waste if I do the work necessary to prove Ruby is just another charlatan. So if Ruby wants to be taken seriously by me at least links and time references must be provided. I am not doing all the God damned leg work again to prove AGAIN that Lloyde is a liar and the official story is bullshit.
Post the links, post the time references for the videos that show the proof that vindicates Lloyde and we can talk about it otherwise I have better things to do.
So far I have spent many hundreds of hours meticulously analysing these videos, frame by frame. (My professional background is in Diagnostic Medical Imaging, meaning I have decades of training and experience in minutely scrutinising the tiniest out-of-place details in images. Even in retirement, this skill is proving very useful.)
When you have done the same, you will be qualified to declare that I have made errors.
But you would by then have discovered that what I am writing is correct.
Since I first saw this video you mention (about 18 months ago), the evidence I have discovered on this and several other videos, has revealed itself thick and fast.
These videos, only one of which is time-stamped, (FOX5NEWS), can all be cross-referenced to show several events occurring as seen from opposing viewpoints, which means that all of them can then be time-stamped. Like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, every tiny detail in the Lloyde England’s Cab plot can be slotted into place from the time that the White Van arrived near his cab beside the cemetery wall, until the towtruck left the cab on top of the bridge, unhitched it on the northwest cloverleaf, and drove west on Columbia Pike, 2 minutes before Jason Ingersoll even captured his first image of Lloyde’s cab on the bridge at 9:48 a.m., which is where CIT first came in.
Why did they never wonder about the 11 minutes that had preceded that first Ingersoll image? They were in the box seat to crack the crime, 11 years ago. But they just didn’t listen. It’s a good thing they were not medical doctors. Their patients would all have died waiting for their condition to be diagnosed correctly.
So far, there are 11 pages on my thread, which is amply illustrated with still images captured from the frame-by-frame videos. This is the only way to see much of what I have found.
These videos were obtained via FOIA requests.
Do you imagine, if the details I am describing were crystal clear and professionally filmed, that the FBI would EVER have released them?
The reason that they are now able to be analysed like this, revealing actual identifiable perpetrators at work, is that most of the videos were pretty bad amateur stuff. Nobody else is going to be as meticulous as me, nor spend the hours I have done, looking for these proofs that 9/11 Pentagon was a self-inflicted wound.
After all those many years of hating on Lloyde England, who have CIT, or you or anyone else, been able to identify as an accomplice in this plot?
What evidence has EVER been produced showing ANYONE actually participating in any of the 9/11 scenarios?
I admire the persistence shown by all who continue to comment on this topic, but you all need to get out of the dead-end CIT “It’s all Lloyde’s fault” rut and start investigating the real criminals here, and the manner in which they pulled off the sleight of hand with the poles on the bridge.
I have now pointed out numerous operatives on video, in the act of perpetrating the crime at the Pentagon, insofar as it pertains to Lloyde England and his cab.
14,000 views of my thread means there are many people who are very interested in what I am disclosing there and keeping tabs on its progress, but apart from a couple of comments from regular posters there, nobody is saying anything. Must have guilty consciences I guess. After all, I have named several of the operatives whose faces are clearly identified in the records, and whose personal testimonies also incriminate them.
Craig Ranke asked his viewers to let CIT know if anybody could identify the 3 “suits” surrounding Lloyde England on the bridge, so that they could contact them and interview them.
After all these years, nobody has EVER come up with any suggestions, right?
But I have proven that the guy in the blue shirt is DETECTIVE DON FORTUNATO of Arlington Police, the officer who pushed Lloyde to the ground rather than helping him.
And the black guy on the bridge was PENTAGON POLICE OFFICER AUBREY DAVIS, who was DONALD RUMSFELD’S BODYGUARD that morning.
Rather interesting that Rumsfeld could spare his bodyguard to attend a fairly minor traffic incident on the most auspicious day in America’s history, isn’t it?
He is now POLICE CAPTAIN AUBREY DAVIS of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency in Clinton, Maryland. This Agency was set up post-2002 to monitor terrorist action at the Pentagon. They solicit information from the public about suspicious activity noticed, and terrorists at work. Hmmm, the fox is in charge of this henhouse for sure!!
Of course it is your call whether you read any more of what I have discovered and written, but if you would drop the attitude and the irrational Lloyde-hating bias, you would discover it would not be wasted time.
Au contraire, you have wasted how many years??? of your life so far, spinning your wheels on the Lloyde-is-a-Liar track. Nobody who fell for CIT’s lapse of logical thinking re Lloyde and all connected with him, has EVER reached any kind of conclusion.
I make no secret of the fact that I admire and respect the bulk of CIT’s work.
But they were psy-opped by the staged cab – pole scene and the Jason Ingersoll Collection, as they were intended to be, and they just went nowhere after this. THEY should have been the ones to discover all that I am finding out, way back in 2006 – 2008.
This is the way forward, with abundant proof from numerous independent video sources, if only you could be bothered to open your mind and learn something new.
When I can work out how to insert images here, I shall do so. But there are hundreds of them, and it would not be right to flood this page with them, nor possible even. That is why I suggest that anyone interested in what I have said, should consult my thread, where the illustrated progression of events can be followed.
I see nothing in your posts that points to Lloyde England being vindicated. I see a lot of attempts to sidetrack the discussion. I see an attempt at establishing your credibility with your x-ray background but that is about it. Just curious are you a radiologist? Are you an x-ray tech?
“X-Ray tech” may have been a common term in the 1960’s. I qualified as a Medical Diagnostic Radiographer in 1976.
So far you have done nothing but scoff and sling mud.
I watched your phone interview with Craig Ranke, and mistook you for a serious truther. Apparently you are but a CIT groupie.
I admit that I am impressed by most of CIT’s work, but they totally lost it when dealing with Lloyde England, purely because of the official photo & video series which began 11 minutes after the impact, which as they KNOW, was a sleight-of-hand exercise contrived purely for the purpose of deceiving the world.
They resorted to slander, libel, mocking, harrassing, insulting, and that was just when they were being polite. On forums, they completely descended into filthy hateful diatribes and got themselves banned left right and centre. Aldo’s vile, arrogant outburst that got him banned at LetsRollForums is still posted there in its entirety. Several other forums maintain similar records of the depths to which both Aldo & Craig stooped when discussing Lloyde and other eye witnesses whom they discarded in the same trash can with Lloyde.
I don’t get it. Many of their presentations are clear-headed, logical, well-composed masterpieces. How did they abandon all pretense at civility, impartiality, logic, critical thinking, truly investigative reporting in regard to Lloyde England and others, when they are capable of so much better? They afforded all their other North-of-Citgo witnesses common respect and courtesy even when some details of their stories did not fit, but drew an arbitrary line across the bridge, beyond which they treated witnesses with nothing but reprehensible and even actionable scorn.
The fact that Joel Sucherman is seen on video on top of the bridge for several minutes, shows that CIT was not blessed with good judgement in his case, and there are many other similar instances of lapse of discernment.
You, like so many, have been seduced by CIT’s very subjective, illogical, and even slanderous reporting on Lloyde England.
I am nothing like Wayne Coste. As I have pointed out here, his skills are so inferior that he has identified a length of electrical flex as “two aluminium lamp support arms” in his risible attempt to “defend” Lloyde England and to prove that the plane hit those light poles.
Why are you so angry with me?
All I am proving is that LLOYDE ENGLAND is the solid gold proof that the Pentagon 9/11 event was totally staged by insiders right there on site. Hasn’t everybody been wanting some REAL proof for the past 17 1/2 years? There has been a lot of hot air, but nothing in the way of prima facie evidence before now.
The official photos of Lloyde began at 11 minutes post impact.
I have provided the video and photo evidence of Lloyde’s cab, exactly where he always said it was, and evidence of how they moved the cab to the bridge for that photo session, between the moment of impact and 8 minutes later.
Who else has EVER discovered video evidence of any 9/11 perpetrators in the act?
That you are so incensed and scathing of the evidence I have presented on multiple independently-filmed videos which you choose to mock rather than study, speaks volumes to me about your true motives.
Show me some EVIDENCE for 9/11 being a black operation. Yes, CIT found numerous northside witnesses. But you have nothing except verbal testimony.
But I have shown YOU the VIDEOS proving that Lloyde England, Joel Sucherman, Vin Narayanan, Stephen McGraw, Steve Riskus, Don Fortunato, etc etc were ALL genuine northside witnesses. I have shown that the “Stranger in the White Van” existed and was videoed and photographed almost continuously from the time he drove up to the cemetery wall at about 3 1/2 minutes post impact, until after he left the bridge 12 minutes later.
And you refuse to even consider this?
Why do you not want to hear this true evidence?
You prefer to wallow in the baseless sludge of CIT’s hate campaign against Lloyde England and numerous other genuine witnesses they interviewed and spurned, rather than moving on and identifying actual criminal operatives.
What is up with that?
I just tried posting a couple of photos from my Flickr page for your edification, but they have not appeared.
I will try again here, with a still from that video, where Lloyde England is seen walking out behind the fire truck, on the northbound lanes, about 50 yards south of where his cab was left on the bridge.
He is wearing the blue shirt and cap, and his brown jacket slung over his right shoulder, exactly as seen in that famous photo of him leaving his cab behind on the deserted bridge, which was taken just seconds before this footage.
Well, at least the links to my images are appearing. Maybe someone will explain what I am doing wrong here.
Here is a composite image, showing Lloyde England’s cab surrounded by operatives, beside the cemetery wall, between 4 minutes 14 – 20 seconds post impact.
It is captured from frames between 02:39 – 02:45 on this video :
I looked at that photo and no way you can tell that is Lloyde. You cannot see a blue shirt or cap or his brown jacket slung over his shoulder. All you can see in that image is a blurry, indistinct figure. The rest you just made up in your own head. Strike three, you’re out.
Hello again Adam,
Please do not misunderstand about the “bent pole” I mentioned, way back I think on the first page of my thread at LetsRollForums. I left the thread untouched for nearly a year, and started posting again about last December, with 11 pages of posts now.
I am in no way suggesting that any plane hit a pole whether on the official flight path or anywhere else.
In that video, there are several seconds of footage where the pole on the left side of Route 27, north of the fire truck, the one closest to the Columbia Pike exit road, looks slightly bent. I have not found any still photos which support this impression though. However, I have found a photo of a lamp laying on the ground close to this pole, in a Steve Riskus photo.
The reason that this was interesting to me, is that numerous witnesses claimed having seen poles which were bent or cut off only at the top, while the rest of the pole remained standing up in the ground – which was also claimed by Lloyde England.
Darius Prather drew on an overhead map, that this area is where there was a damaged pole, near the cemetery.
This “bent” pole is close to the “Robert Turcios” overhead sign, which Sean Boger claimed was clipped by a part of the plane; Turcios claimed that the plane “lifted up a little bit to get over it”; and Vin Narayanan stated that he was close to an overhead sign which was “clipped” by the plane. Note that he was not on the bridge! He was speaking of a sign further north on Route 27, so either Turcios’ sign (which does not extend over the northbound lanes though) or the Columbia Pike exit sign, north of which is where Lloyde was driving when his cab was hit.
My point in mentioning this at all, is that IF, and only if, this pole or any other was actually bent, then I suggest that this was effected by the same means which was used to impale Lloyde’s cab.
As for finding “fabrications” in my work, well let me assure you that I just don’t have that good an imagination.
I watched this video many times before the evidence jumped out at me, a piece at a time. And it was all corroborated by numerous other videos which also happened to cover the same time frame during which Lloyde’s cab was moved from the cemetery to the bridge, the first 8 minutes from impact.
You want time stamps.
Well I have determined, within a couple of seconds, that this video began at 9:40:40 a.m.
At 00:34, the camera operator’s little boy says, “There! It’s coming!”
The father says, “Just look up in that sky. There’s something else coming down.”
This would be the C-130, thus accurately identifying this to 3 minutes 30 seconds post impact.
At 00:49, Joel Sucherman is standing next to his car watching the C-130, speaking on his cellphone, as he testified.
At 01:46, the little boy says, “Look! I can see planes!”
This would be the fighter jets flying over, at 9:42:26 a.m.
At 02:36, the driver gets out of his car, and there are just 2 frames (as he is removing his fingers from the lens) showing both the Decoy Cab positioned on the bridge (left of the red Honda), and the tow truck and trailer driving towards it. (Just left of the blue sedan.)
Over the next few seconds, the black tow truck and black-covered trailer can be seen approaching, then turning right across the bridge lanes. This is from about 02:40 – 50.
The operator then turns around 270 degrees, and happens to catch several seconds of the black Decoy Cab speeding away from the bridge, from 02:57, which is 9:43:37 a.m.
At 03:31, APTN journalist Eugenio Hernandez Rodriguez asks Camera guy, “Can I use it?” There follows quite a tussle as he commandeers the camera.
At 04:40, 9:45:20 a.m., Camera Guy asks,
“Was it a plane?”
“Yep, I saw it coming down.”
Camera Guy says,
“I THOUGHT we seen it from back here.”
This is proof that the plane did not fly across the bridge, as he could not possibly have missed seeing it if it had only been 6 car lengths in front of him. The plane was obviously so far north, over the crest of the bridge, that he barely saw it.
There are some short breaks in filming after this, so the time cannot be determined precisely.
At 05:02, the lanes of traffic have cleared. The camera pans around to the north, then briefly across the top of the bridge where we now see Lloyde’s cab for a few frames … and there is “MIKE”, taking photos of it. He is the neighbour of Lloyde’s who was “up on the bridge” and gave 2 photos to Craig. However he must have taken more than that, as the Fire Dept wagon is not there in this scene, which it was in the photos given to Craig Ranke. “Mike” is seen on Jason Ingersoll’s photo DSC_0419 at 9:55 a.m., where he is standing behind the police car above the brown jeep, the middle one of 3 guys in white T-shirts.
05:03 – the camera pans southwest, and we see the red wagon parked on the shsoulder, which was in Ingersoll’s DSC_0418 taken at 9:54 a.m.
At 06:24, there are several frames of Lloyde behind the fire truck, walking south away from the bridge after leaving his cab behind.
At 06:28, the fire truck is traveling north, and this is where you can see the “bent light pole” just in front of the south end of the concrete wall.
There are several other interesting details on this video. But there are also numerous other videos which capture the Great Cab Switch from opposing vantage points, and verify everything I have written.
Because I did not make this up.
Don’t shoot the messenger!
I just studied this evidence conscientiously, and honestly reported on what I have found.
Today, I posted again on my thread, some enhanced images from the Gatecam # 2 video, where it seems that a half-hearted (whistleblower??) attempt was made to conceal the images of a 757 plane flying across the sky above the level of the Pentagon roof, about 2 or 3 seconds prior to impact.
This is consistent with the testimony of several flyover witnesses, who saw the plane on the other side of the Pentagon, before they heard and saw the explosion. By this delay, they were convinced that the plane they saw, then somehow caused the explosion.
Here is the sequence of images, for interest’s sake :
It may seem off topic here, but this was practically the same view which Lloyde England had of the plane, and certainly the same view that Steve Riskus had, as he confirmed to an Italian researcher who created this composite image, which it strongly resembles :
I read somewhere that posts are held up if they contain more than 2 links, I think, so this post probably will get chewed up by the system.
But you demanded images and time stamps and proof that I am not just mashing my gums, and apparently you cannot be bothered to read my comprehensive thread, where all this is laid out logically.
I can indeed be bothered to read your comprehensive thread. How do you think I uncover disinformation in the first place? How do you think I uncovered the fact that Judy Wood is completely full of shit years ago? I read her claims, looked at her photos, analyzed it all and came to my conclusions.
I have already identified three things you have claimed that are just not true above. I don’t need to spend too much more time on you because I see a pattern of deception, or to be kind to you, a pattern of errors in your analysis. Lets just say I find your analysis skills lacking in spite of your nebulous claims of analyzing x-rays. Are you a radiologist?
Just because you post lengthy diatribes does not mean that what you are saying in them is true. Arabesque used to post huge lengthy screeds with hundreds of links and guess what? When you look into those links they did not support what he/she/it was saying or they were just links to virtually no evidence whatsoever, dead ends. Arabesque made his/her/it’s reputation for so long because most people do not click the links, scrutinize the claims, or challenge what is apparently a thorough body of work. I do click the links, scrutinize the claims, and challenge the claims.
So far I am not impressed at all with your work on the Lloyde England innocence project. I have been doing this a long time and I have seen your type come and go. In fact you and Wayne Coste have a similar approach, you both sling huge amounts of confusing crap at the wall and bank on the fact that most people will not take the considerable time and effort to untangle the mess you create. I untangled a few of Coste’s false claims and that is enough to ruin his credibility in my book. I do not need to waste my whole life painstakingly dissecting each of his myriad false claims because the task would literally never end. Like Wayne I get the distinct impression that you will NEVER quit and I get the impression that your motive has nothing to do with seeking the truth.
I am satisfied that you cannot present any hard concise evidence that Lloyde England is telling the truth. I am not going to wade through your maze of links and rabbit trails forever either. If you have evidence he is telling the truth present it in a concise, readable/viewable, brief fashion and people will look at it and consider it. Right now I have much better things to do.
Yes, I agree that CIT did incredible work, in the main.
But how they could possibly have failed to understand …
knowing already that the plane did not fly over the bridge and therefore the poles were not hit by any plane, proving the OFT false …
… that Lloyde England was actually telling them the TRUTH!
After all, he said way back in 2006, “NO, I WASN’T ON THE BRIDGE!!”
How much more of a clue did CIT need to start investigating the process by which this scene was staged, right then!! But they blundered on for years, accusing Lloyde of lying, and not even trying to understand his testimony.
They just rode roughshod over Lloyde’s personal testimony, yet accepted everything stated by almost everybody else.
They also relegated anybody claiming to have been on the bridge, and everyone who claimed to have been anywhere near Lloyde, to the trash bin, purely because they knew the bridge scene was staged, and the plane flew across the cemetery instead.
How illogical is this?
They accused Father Stephen McGraw of being a liar, because (a) he said that the plane flew over the top of his car, (b) that Lloyde’s cab was a few feet away from his own, and (c) because he first appeared on photos taken by Mark Faram, about 15 minutes after the impact.
However McGraw claimed he crossed the road immediately and waited on the lawn for the first victims to be brought out.
CIT illogically located McGraw’s position according to the Official Flight Path, near the place where Lloyde’s cab was first photographed 11 minutes post impact. They placed him under the Official Flight Path, and then called him a liar, rather than under the Northside Flight Path they knew to be true, in which case they would have known he was opposite the heliport as he had claimed.
Being under the OFP on the bridge means McGraw would have had to walk about 400 yards to reach the triage site on the lawn, which he does not say, rather than just crossing the lanes of the highway.
They should have placed McGraw’s car “a few feet away” from where Lloyde’s cab ACTUALLY was, right where Lloyde showed them, beside the concrete retaining wall by the cemetery. Then, they would have seen that McGraw had only to get out of his car and cross the lanes, to be right there at the triage site which would be set up within a few more minutes.
I will try again to upload an image from my Flickr album, showing the single frame in a sequence of out-of-focus frames in this video,
where Father Stephen McGraw was standing beside the lawn at 3 minutes 25 seconds post impact (calculated to within a few seconds).
JOEL SUCHERMAN also told CIT where he was, on the bridge. Admittedly, he was a terrible judge of distance, because the impact site was actually about 400 yards from his car, whereas he estimated less than 100 yards I think. And like so many Washingtonians he could not distinguish Route 27 from Route 110 or I-395, but his testimony was basically true. He physically showed how he saw the plane flying across his windshield, moving his hand quite slowly.
That suggests the plane was far away from him, crossing the highway on the Northside Flight Path, certainly not across the bridge. A more distant object will apear to be moving more slowly than to a close observer.
But CIT irrationally placed Sucherman (and others) under the OFFICIAL flight path, then pronounced them all liars because their stories could not possibly match the OFT (except for Mike Walters and Peter Kopf, who both claimed that they saw the plane flying over the bridge).
If CIT had located these witnesses, Lloyde England included, relative to where they KNEW the plane flew, then they would have achieved so much more than they did.
Sucherman also made a mistake about the trees. He said there were no trees, and that he had a good view of the Pentagon. Yes he did, but the unobstructed view he had was of the south wall of the Pentagon, not the west wall. When looking at the Pentagon from the same elevation, it is difficult to tell where one wall ends and the next begins. That is a forgivable error.
The video I mentioned earlier, shows JOEL SUCHERMAN right there on the bridge for several minutes, in and out of his car, watching the event, talking on his cellphone, just as he said.
This segment of the video reveals the camera operator and his little boy commenting on the C-130 flying in, by which it is possible to identify the actual time that this event happened. Sucherman also mentioned seeing this. That is because he was right there, and he was not lying.
CIT and their followers have been claiming for years that Sucherman was not even on the bridge. But Yes he was, and here he is. About 6 – 8 car lengths south of the overhead signs on the bridge, between at least 01:04 – 02:50 on this video:
How CIT never got sued for slander and defamation over many of the baseless accusations they made, I don’t know. Maybe they did.
CIT’s credibility is intact. Yours… not so much.
Try again Adam.
Lloyde retrieves jacket, farewells cab and sets off in the direction of home.
How anyone can insist that these 2 admittedly blurry photos are not of the same man, is mystifying.
APTN TV journalist Eugenio Hernandez took the footage of Lloyde walking out from behind the fire truck, but he was hampered by a poor quality video camera at the time. Had he known that you were going to be critiquing his work, surely he would have taken some close-ups for you.
Anyway, we are blessed to have this footage at all, which also shows so many other pertinent details from 9/11 that we would otherwise not be able to verify.
Everybody agrees that the man farewelling the Capitol Cab on the bridge, is Lloyde England. No question about that.
The identical figure in the lower image is therefore also Lloyde England, a couple of minutes later.
What is the controvesy here?
Why are you arguing the point about Lloyde going home?
“And, given that we can see clearly that no pole penetrated the back seat (the tiny hole not being large enough to accommodate the end of the pole even if it did line up), then we have to ask the question, what kept the pole from touching the hood if it wasn’t embedded in some part of the car?”
The back seat upholstery has two identical circular impressions on it, made by the pole which smashed through the windshield.
This is such an obvious thing to look for, but nobody ever did.
This tells us the exact size of the pole which impaled Lloyde’s cab.
Craig Ranke was right there in the back seat photographing the damage, but never thought to measure these perfect renditions of the pole’s diameter and wall thickness.
The fact that these impressions are perfectly circular, proves that it was not a lightpole which made them. The top of a VDOT light pole is 6 inches diameter, and this is the small end. These circles are only about 4 inches across. The downed light pole ends were deformed, crushed, jagged and splayed. How anyone could ever have imagined that Lloyde thought a pole like this was inside his cab, is absurd.
The entry hole is the small hole right at the base of the windcscreen, and again, this is only about 4 inches in diameter.
The length of the pole was demonstrated by Lloyde England.
CIT just did not listen to Lloyde, who was telling them the truth.
The pole was “long” compared with Lloyde, but as he repeatedly told them, it was NOT the pole lying on the road, because the pole in his cab DIDN’T HAVE AN END ON IT. That end was still STANDING UP IN THE GROUND, IN CONCRETE. THAT end of the pole WASN’T CUT OFF.
Something was done to alter Lloyde’s perception and memories of that day.
While Shirley sensibly said, “They could have moved your cab,” Lloyde said, “They didn’t”. He was unaware that his cab was moved from the place where the pole hit it.The reason he thought it was part of a light pole that did the damage, is that this is what he was told to think.
Lloyde never said that it was the 30 foot pole which impaled his cab.
He was telling Craig how long the pole in his cab was, when Craig typically interrupted him, and said,
“NO the POLE, the WHOLE POLE?”
Of course, Lloyde answered honestly, that a VDOT light pole is about 40 feet long.
This is far from saying that there was a 40 foot pole inside his cab. That would be twice as long as his cab, and he obviously knew that the pole extended only from the back seat to the windshield (which he said was about 5 feet), and then out to the front bumper.
Detective Fortunato stated, “The windshield was smashed out by PIECES of POLE apparently”. Fortunato was right there beside Lloyde’s cab, so he saw the pole through the windshield. You could call and ask him about this, but I doubt he will admit it. That of course, would implicate him. But I am sure he knows he has already been implicated by that video which shows his car there at the cemetery wall, along with the tow truck and trailer, the stranger’s White Van, the brown Jeep, and Steve Riskus’ car.
Operatives all. All except their victim, Lloyde England.
Your analysis of the impressions on the upholstery is almost entirely speculative, makes assumptions, and does not prove anything of any investigative value at all. In fact there is no way you could know that the marks you circled in the photograph are damage from 9/11 or from years and years of people getting in and out of his cab. These wear marks are not “perfectly circular” either and even if they were it doesn’t “prove it wasn’t a light pole”. Complete fantasy on your part. Strike 4.
In which parallel universe are these two identical impressions on Lloyde England’s cab back seat, NOT “perfectly circular”???
The first (lower) impression was made with such force that it dented the trunk wall behind, as revealed in the substantial gap and deformity between horizontal and vertical cushions.
It also tore the upholstery fabric.
As the front seat sprang forwards again, it lifted the pole up so that its second impact was higher on the back seat.
I have been getting into cars, and watching other people get into cars, for 60 years, yet NEVER seen any person make pronounced “wear marks” such as these.
This is forensic evidence just as conclusive and damning as fingerprints.
Whatever made these imprssions was perfectly circular, smooth, hollow, thin-walled metal …
travelling at high speed with great force …
in a well-rehearsed, premeditated event …
… a neatly cut, circular POLE propelled with precision at high velocity.
These impressions line up perfectly with the hole through the windshield, the damage to the dashboard, and the tear in the upholstery of the central front seat-back.
LOL your suggestive marks you added to the photo are roughly circular but the actual marks on the seat from the original photo are not. Who do you think you are trying to kid here? Even if the marks were roughly circular it doesn’t prove the marks were caused on 9/11. Don’t you understand that? Obviously not. Your screeds are chalk full of completely speculative remarks and suggestions as to how to interpret items of evidence. You are literally trying to lead people, in court I would say “Objection! Leading!”
I think you meant to say, “chock full”, which is also incorrect anyway.
If you carefully examine the untouched photos of the back seat, you WILL see PERFECTLY CIRCULAR IMPRINTS THERE, MADE BY A CIRCUL;AR POLE ABOUT 4” DIAMETER.
If you really want to see “speculative remarks”, then you need to re-watch Investigangsta Aldo’s absurd misrepresentation of everything that Lloyde England told him. It is tragic the way he editorialised his way through Lloyde’s story.
Would anyone care to summarize what has been said here? What are the points of agreement and disagreement?
My earlier conclusion, based on Craig’s article, was that Jenkins’ testimony is worthless.
Obviously there is disagreement about that, but that still means the testimony is worthless.
If the testimony is worthless, why talk about it?
Michael, did you mean England’s testimony?
Yes. You seem to have established that what he has had is not reliable, and/or subject to different interpretations, so why spend any more time on it?
What he has said, I mean.
Hello again Michael,
Who is “Jenkins”? You previously mentioned “Lloyd Jenkins”.
I assume you mean, “Lloyde England”.
No, Lloyde England’s testimony is not worthless at all.
In fact, it is the pivotal testimony that proves the “attack on the Pentagon” was a self-inflicted wound, perpetrated as the pretext for the “war on terror”.
The trouble for the past 17 years is that nobody has really listened to what Lloyde was telling them. They have all been hoodwinked by the photo series taken by military photographer Jason Ingersoll, and others, of Lloyde England and his cab posed beside an enormous downed light pole on the Columbia Pike overpass. The official story is that it was this 30+ – foot pole which was hit by the 757 jet as it flew across the bridge, and which went crashing through Lloyde’s windscreen.
This story is clearly impossible.
The official position is that it is true, and that it proves the trajectory taken by AA77 as it flew into the Pentagon. So essential is this concept to their story, that they have created the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial on the lawn in front of the impact site, with this trajectory being set in stone. The concrete paving topped by benches commemorating the victims, has strong linear features purporting to trace the path and dimensions of the 757.
Many dispute the bridge – pole – cab scene, for many excellent reasons, insisting it was staged. To find the truth of this, Citizen Investigation Team went to Virginia in 2006 and 2008, to interview Lloyde England himself. They produced 2 videos of these interviews. “The First Knnown Accomplice?” and “The Eye of the Storm”.
The testimony given by Lloyde in these videos is valuable, and we would not have all this evidence without Aldo & Craig’s hard work.
CIT, per evidence gained from many other witnesses they interviewed, knew that the bridge scene HAD to have been staged. Their position was heavily influenced by the photographic and video record of Lloyde and his cab on the bridge. They therefore assumed that Lloyde was a Big Fat Liar, and embarked on what amounted to an extensive internet defamation campaign. They indulged in wild speculation about Lloyde’s “motives” for being an accomplice in this military deception, and there was a furious storm of Lloyde-hating indulged in on many forums for some years.
Contrarily, False Truthers such as David Chandler and Wayne Coste inexplicably support the Official Fairy Tale in almost all respects, while disingenuously claiming to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Where Lloyde and the poles are concerned, the False Truther Brigade uses “physics” to rationalise how the plane knocked down the 5 light poles, and how part of one of those light poles did indeed spear the cab. They claim that Lloyde England’s vehement protestations about not having been anywhere near the bridge when the pole came crashing through his windscreen, is due to Lloyde being “elderly” (he was exactly the same age as Donald Rumsfeld), which they claim explains his “CONFUSION” about his location when the pole hit the cab.
Lloyde England had been driving Capitol Cabs in Washington since 1959. Clearly, he was very familiar with the area. The condescending accusation that he was “CONFUSED” about where he was at this critical moment in his life, is despicable.
So in fact, False Truthers “RESPECT Lloyde England as a witness”, and “DEFEND” him, only on the basis that he was LYING.
Because if he was telling the truth, then they would have no case to defend at all. The plane would not have flown over the bridge, thus there would be no need to jump through hoops, falsely identifying lengths of cable as “aluminium light pole lamp support arms” in the attempt to prove that the plane hit those poles.
On the other hand, CIT and their followers, all CONDEMN Lloyde England on the ASSUMPTION that he was “lying”.
This is fatally flawed logic.
CIT KNOWS that the bridge scene was staged.
They KNOW the plane did not knock down those poles, because it never flew across the bridge.
Therefore they KNOW that Pole # 1 did not smash Lloyde’s windshield.
When all their other North-of-Citgo witnesses showed Craig and Aldo where they were when the plane went over them, and when they told their stories, CIT believed them.
But when LLOYDE did the same thing, CIT cruelly dismissed him as a LIAR and a SENILE OLD MAN WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DRIVING A CAB. Their comments led to widespread character assassination, and baseless speculation which achieved absolutely nothing except driving their investigation into a deep hole.
Fortunately, Lloyde England was above all that and took no notice of them.
He KNEW where he was. He did not need their approval, although he was very disappointed that they had not told the truth that he so generously told them.
Lloyde was later phone interviewed by disinformationist JEFF HILL, who conducted a malicious vendetta against CIT. Lloyde very graciously repeated the same story he had always told, with a few more details. But because Hill’s “interviewing” style is incoherent, vacuous and subjective, he never broached the actual question of Lloyde’s location when the pole hit the cab, or any other pesky pertinent details. He merely insinuated that CIT were evil people and that his mission was to discredit them, taking Lloyde’s side without ever ascertaining what that entailed.
So, the problem is this :
Purely because of the photos which show Lloyde, his cab and that downed pole on the bridge, everybody ASSUMED that this is where Lloyde was when the windscreen was smashed.
False Truthers excuse Lloyde as “CONFUSED” because he always claimed that it never happened on the bridge.
CIT call Lloyde a “COMPLICIT LIAR” because (they only imagine) Lloyde “changed his story when he heard about the North-of-Citgo witnesses’ evidence”.
Jeff Hill ignored Lloyde’s own testimony completely, and ASSUMED that the Official Fairy Tale was true.
So far, apart from Lloyde’s wife Shirley, nobody but myself has ever taken Lloyde’s side, and told HIS TRUE STORY.
It is the photos on the bridge that caused all this trouble.
Even though CIT knew the scene was staged for effect, they never investigated Lloyde’s own testimony to get to the bottom of how this was pulled off.
They just said,
“Well look, here you are with your cab on the bridge, so you must be lying … tell us how they damaged your cab. How did they persuade you to go along with their plot?”
But I could understand what Lloyde was telling them. The only “confusion” was when they presented him with the staged bridge photos which he had never even seen before. He knew that he had been somewhere else entirely. When shown the photos, and being told that “THIS is the pole that went through your windshield” on “The First Known Accomplice?”, Lloyde stumbles over his answers. He is bewildered. He knows it was a bent piece of pole that he removed from the cab, and that there was another piece of pole lying on the road that he had to swerve around. He knows that the rest of the pole, the big lower section of the pole with the END ON IT, was “NOT CUT OFF”; it was STILL STANDING UP IN THE GROUND, IN CONCRETE, because the pole in his cab only extended to the front bumper of the cab, and “IT DIDN’T HAVE A END ON IT”.
This is where Craig & Aldo totally lost the plot. They just never understood what Lloyde was saying here. They were working at crossed purposes; Lloyde knew where he was and what size the piece of pole was, and he showed CIT exactly this.
But CIT “knew” that it was the long pole with the base on it, that was supposed to have hit the cab, and they could not get their heads around the obvious psy-op here.
Lloyde knew that “photos” were taken of the cab beside the cemetery wall after the cab was hit by the pole, as he showed Craig when they drove past, twice. But Craig just ridiculed Lloyde.
Lloyde was telling them, the whole time, that he did not believe the Official Fairy Tale. He told them he wasn;’t where the pictures showdd him to be.
And although there was 11 minutes missing from the photographic record, CIT failed to follow through on this, and therefore failed to get anywhere at all.
For the past 10 years, CIT’s investigation has gone nowhere, unfortunately. They got everything wrong, and they maligned the man who was actually their most significant witness.
So mine is the ONLY research which has ever uncovered exactly what happened to Lloyde and his cab on 9/11 at the Pentagon.
I have found the missing minutes, and the missing evidence that Lloyde was telling the truth.
Lloyde’s testimony is SOLID GOLD.
The staging of the bridge – cab – pole scene took place within the first 8 minutes after the impact on the Pentagon.
Lloyde’s cab was impaled 400 yards further north of the bridge, then transported to the scene by tow truck and trailer which were right there, after the Silent Stranger in the White Van helped remove the pole from the windshield.
This is the proof for premeditation of the Pentagon military deception that CIT were looking for.
ALL of Lloyde’s true testimony has now been uncovered on numerous videos.
Craig McKee is to be commended for re-opening interest in this case which is the lynchpin for the faking of the pretext for the “war on terror.”
But Craig, please do study everything I have published thus far (more to come), and think twice before posting more in the vein of what you have written in Part 1, as the newly-discovered evidence totally exonerates Lloyde England, supports his story, and implicates numerous identified operatives. That is more than can be said for anybody else’s work, surely?
Who else has ever been caught in the act on video and publicly named for their part in staging 9/11?
lt would also be good to know the history of the “light poles” narrative. They are not mentioned in the 9/11 Report.
Sorry, I wrote “Jenkins” above instead of “England.”
I think the more important question is why there was (apparently) no direct physical evidence of a plane hitting the poles. I can’t help being reminded of UA 175 cutting into the South Tower and showing only little puffs of smoke after the plane had already disappeared into the building. Likewise the wings of the plane cut the 5 light poles cleanly, leaving no debris on the ground or traces on the poles, which were apparently not examined for same. (Where are they now, in China?) I know that some will claim that dozens of photos show debris on the ground probably from the impact with the poles. How credible is this?
I really don’t understand this comment Michael.
After the overhwelming evidence I have contributed showing exactly this, that no plane hit any poles, but that the Lloyde England – Cab – Bridge scene was totally premeditated and micro-managed to fake the impression that the plane flew over the bridge!!
What can possibly be more important than this?
That Lloyde England’s TRUE STORY, which is that HE WAS NOT ON THE BRIDGE WHEN A POLE HIT HIS CAB – but that the Pentagon Perpetrators set him up in real time in full view of motorists, TV cameras, fire and medical responders, to create the illusion that an actual light pole was hit by AA77 – has now been revealed with rock-solid on-the-spot video evidence from numerous independent sources and vantage points!!
The wings of the plane never flew across the bridge, therefore the poles were not cut by plane wings. Think “jaws of life”.
I agree that the debris on the ground is not credible. Especially the fresh green leaves from the tree that was supposedly hit by the engine which allegedly scoopedout a section from the top branches. We have all seen examples of the exhaust from a jet engine. It is powerful enough to blast a heavy vehicle over and over. Yet these leaves supposedly just fell straight down onto the ground? I suggest a machine gun could have very easily made that scooped-out shape in the top of the tree, and THAT would make leaves fall to the ground directly beneath the tree.
Where do you suppose the Pentagon might get a machine gun from? Right, no shortage of guns and operators there. I do not know how they would have faked the damage to the generator trailer, but there are many things I do not know about the capabilities of the military.
I just know they had the motive, the money, the machinery and the muscle to fake the entire Pentagon event.
Lloyde’s TRUE STORY proves they DID fake it.
Thanks, Ruby. I am sorry to seem obtuse. The truth is that I have just not invested the energy required to follow the minutiae of this argument. I would like to know if Craig and others who are immersed in the details agree with you, and if so, perhaps the whole thing (the light poles) can be laid out simply and clearly enough that even people like me can understand it. It should also become clearer (to people like me) what exactly are the points of disagreement, since there obviously are some. As I’ve said, my take on Craig’s article is simply that England’s testimony is so full of problems that it cannot be relied on as strong evidence of anything. You obviously disagree with that, but I am not the one who should be arguing with you, and I am not. I would like Craig and anyone else who agrees or disagrees with you to say so. This is what I do not understand.
Hello again MIchael,
Thanks for your refreshingly civil response which is so unlike Adam Ruff’s nastiness.
It is such a mystery to me how, now that videos have been analysed showing that Lloyde England always told the truth, those who are fans of CIT (and I am one, on most of their stuff) snarl and snap at the messenger, without stopping to consider the significance of this evidence. This is surely what has been missing all these years, isn’t it? But they still don’t want to know.
Wayne Coste’s slideshow has some useful facts and figures in it, as far as the length of the pole which actually went through Lloyde’s windscreen. He is correct that it was about 12 feet long, just as Lloyde drew on that sketch. (Actually, it was RUSSELL PICKERING who drew the sketch of the car; Lloyde just drew in the pole.)
On Page 40, he shows a frame from CIT’s video, “The Eye of the Storm” where Craig Ranke is haranguing Lloyde and trying to force him to “admit” to being on the bridge when his cab was damaged, or to “admit” to having helped to damage the car.
But Lloyde remains unflustered and cool in the face of Ranke’s increasing frustration and strident accusations. You can see Lloyde’s finger pointing to the cemetery wall area, as he shows Ranke where he was when the pole came trhough the cab.
Here is where everybody has it wrong.
As Lloyde consistently stated, he KNEW WHERE HE WAS.
He was opposite the Heliport, by the cemetery, 400 yards north of the bridge, when the plane flew across his car, and the pole hit the cab.
Therefore, it could never have been the downed light pole on the bridge which hit the cab.
And the plane could not have flown over the bridge.
So the plane MUST have flown on the northside flightpath, as CIT has shown with so much eye witness testimony.
Therefore the 5 downed light poles had to have been knocked over by some other means unknown.
The Jason Ingersoll photos of the cab on the bridge did not start till 9:48 a.m., 11 minutes after the impact, and Lloyde did not appear until a few minutes later there.
Ranke & Marquis were blinded by these misleading photos.
They knew that the 40-foot light pole could not have gone through the windscreen, and they ASSUMED that Lloyde was telling them it was that pole.
They just ASSUMED that Lloyde had been on the bridge the whole time.
Therefore they accused Lloyde of being a liar and “The First-Known Accomplice” in the Pentagon Plot.
They never even tried to find any evidence for the truth of what Lloyde had told them since their first interviews with him in 2006 – that IT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON THE BRIDGE.
Wayne Coste and David Chandler claim to be Truthers, and say that we should respect all the witnesses’ testimony as evidence.
But they too, ASSUME that Lloyde was on the bridge when the pole hit the cab.
They refuse to accept what Lloyde had said about being at the cemetery site when the pole hit.
They put this down to Lloyde being “confused” about where he was, even though he was a Washington cab driver for 42 years.
So they really do not repsect Lloyde England’s testimony at all!
They are so desperate to support the official story about the plane flying over the bridge and hitting 5 poles. Reason? Who can tell?
At least they are reasonable enough to know that it could not possibly have been the 40-foot pole which went through the windshield, for numerous obvious reasons.
They correctly point out that Lloyde does NOT agree with them when they point out the 40 foot pole, and say, “This is what hit your cab”.
In effect, the Jason Ingersoll photos, and CIT’s videos, have created a “Straw Pole Argument”.
Coste points out the 2 smaller lengths of pole in the background of Lloyde’s cab, and I agree, these are the 2 pieces of pole that Lloyde described in his testimony to Russell Pickering. One piece went trhough his windshield, and the other piece was lying on the road, so he had to swerve to go around it.
Where I disagree here, is the origin of these pieces of pole. They do not belong to the poles downed on the bridge at all. They are too regular, too small in diameter, and not crushed at the end like all the light poles where they were cut off.
Nor are they flattened in cross-section like the lamp support arms. I suggest that these poles were fabricated for this purpose.
So what was happening in the intervening 11 minutes from impact?
Fortunately, although CIT claims that there was never anybody who ever saw the pole through the cab windscreen, and no photos ever taken of it, they were wrong, because there is a video which shows the cab beside the cemetery wall with a pole through it, at 4 minutes post impact, that is, 7 minutes before the first Jason Ingersoll photo.
Therefore, Lloyde England was telling the truth.
IT DID NOT HAPPEN ON THE BRIDGE.
Then, there are several videos showing how the cab was transported to the bridge. That trip only takes about 25 seconds, which is exactly what we can see as we follow its progress on 4 separate videos.
This is all new information. The only other person who has ever suggested before that this may have been what happened, was Shirley, Lloyde’s wife.
She was correct. Lloyde England was not a liar.
It is not Lloyde Engalnd’s story wghich is full of problems.
It was the misleading official photos, which were meant to deceive.
And it is CIT’s treatment of Lloyde, and their failure to comprehend what he was telling them, based on those photos, that has been the problem.
Now, Craig McKee has written this article, which is good in that it has oppened the discussion again. But it merely parrots all CIT’s former flawed arguyments and innuendo, and even does not do that accuratetly. There are numerous mistakes in what he claims here.
And Adam Ruff has jumped at me like a Rottweiler, as though I am trying to support the government story, or to tell lies, who knows what he thinks or why he is behaving like this if he is really interested in the truth.
Neither of them, nor CIT, has ever investigated ANY of Lloyde England’s true story. They have only drawn false conclusions based on a series of images taken on the bridge, which they KNOW were taken for the purpose of deception.
It all boils down to this.
Lloyde was not on the bridge when the plane flew over.
Therefore the 5 downed poles were staged, nd the plane did not fly across the brodge or hit the Pentagon.
Video taken at 9:41 a.m. of Lloyde’s cab with a pole diagonally through his windscreen, trumps photos of the cab on the bridge next to an impossibly large pole at 9:48 a.m.
If Craig McKee and Adam Ruff truly care about the truth here, then may I suggest they locate and interview these people who were directly involved with staging this black operation :
Police Captain Aubrey Davis
Detective Don Fortunato
The towing company that moved Lloyde’s cab
The driver and passenger in the Capitol Cabs decoy cab
The Silent Stranger in the White Van
The military personnel responsible for the pole which speared Lloyde’s cab.
Lloyde’s story is a stinking lie. You have not presented ANY solid evidence showing Lloyde is telling the truth let alone “overwhelming evidence”. Nothing you said so far stands up to scrutiny.
Nothing you have said to me so far presents any evidence at all.
I didn’t want to overwhelm Craig McKee’s blog with wads of my own work.
But having waded through many hours of his previous blogs, where many other posters have done exactly that yet contributed nothing but mind-numbing semantics, I decided, What the hey.
Truth is what this blog is about, is it not?
And when it comes to Lloyde England’s TRUE STORY, he is entitled to his Right of Reply against the whole world of haters. Nobody else defends him, so I feel I must.
“The FIRST KNOWN ACCOMPLICE”
This 2006 CIT video begins with an audio interview with Lloyde, taken while they were setting up the cameras. Still images of the cab posed beside the huge Downed Pole# 1 on the bridge are overlaid on the audio. CIT point out features to Lloyde, but we will never know to exactly what they or Lloyde are referring in their discussion.
[Aldo begins by confidently asserting his own preconceived false assumption that Pole # 1 hit the cab; in fact, Lloyde tells him that the pole DID NOT HAVE A BASE ON IT. Therefore, it could NOT possibly have been Pole # 1.]
“INVESTIGANGSTA ALDO :
“We didn’t want to leave this issue up for debate, or rely on media reports. We decided to pay Lloyde a visit and clear this up once and for all.
Here are some audio excerpts from the pre-interview in his living room, where he confidently asserts it was the long BASE of the pole that pierced his windshield :
RUSSELL PICKERING :
There’s this piece. Let’s look at this picture. And see there was a piece here, a piece here, and a piece here.
The lamp was knocked off the pole.
RUSSELL PICKERING :
Right, here’s the lamp. And then so which piece did you take out of the window?
The long piece. The part … was from the ground … but not … from the … off the … ground.
CIT’s STRAW POLE ARGUMENT ~
LLOYDE’S CONFUSION IS OBVIOUS AS HE IS BEING PRESENTED WITH A PHOTO HE HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, OF A SCENE WHICH HE KNOWS IS NOT WHERE IT HAPPENED, WITH A GIGANTIC POLE WHICH WAS NEVER IN HIS CAB.
It went all the way through the car into the back seat.
Still sticking out across the hood.
Did you lift that out yourself?
I had help. A friend of mine.
Plenty of help?
It’s the long piece, right?
Yeah this the long piece. This piece.
[LLOYDE SPOTS THE OBVIOUS MISTAKE.]
WAIT A MINUTE … LET’S JUST ….
See this the long piece.
SEE THE END ON IT?
RUSSELL PICKERING :
That was sticking up …
Show him the end.
[LLOYDE says it was NOT that long pole they are showing him.]
IT DIDN’T HAVE A END ON IT … THE POLE …
CRAIG typically interrupts Lloyde :
This end right here?
Yeah, this the BASE,
this the piece that was IN THE GROUND.
Right. And that was in your cab? Sticking out of your cab?
NO – it WAS NOT … it DIDN’T …
it went through …
The TOP PART …
It went through. THIS the part that went through. The bent part.
Lloyde was clearly confused here, but only because he was presented with photos he had not seen before, and was being told by 4 strangers in his own house, that THIS IMPOSSIBLE POLE was the one that went through his cab.
The interviewers – Aldo Marquis, Craig Ranke, Russell Pickering and Dylan Avery – were familiar with the official story, whereas Lloyde was not. All he knew is where he was when the pole hit his cab (north of the Columbia Pike overhead sign opposite the Heliport, NOT on the bridge), and how long that bent pole was that went through the 4” diameter hole in his windscreen (it extended only from the back seat to the front of the hood).
CIT were blinded by the photos of the cab beside Pole # 1 on top of the bridge. There were no other pictures at that time. They had never previously heard Lloyde tell his full story describing where he was when the pole hit.
Lloyde however, thought it was self-evident that everybody knew where he was, so he did not need to make a point of stating it.
In the above interview, Lloyde is absolutely clear. He states that it was NOT that large pole, because THAT pole had a BASE on it, whereas his bent pole DIDN’T HAVE A END ON IT.
He reiterates that the pole with the BASE on it, was STILL IN THE GROUND. It WAS NOT CUT OFF. IT WAS STILL STANDING UP, IN CONCRETE.
This was a tragic case of 4 inexperienced, unqualified interviewers ganging up on an unsuspecting and innocent man, determined to make him “confess” to their own preconceived idea of what happened to HIM.
On a forum, Aldo stressed that they deliberately surprised him at his home, so that he would have no chance of avoiding their interview. This is the M.O. of a lynch mob, not of journalists with integrity.
Craig often interrupted Lloyde and Shirley mid-sentence, so we will never know what gems they were about to reveal. He did not make this mistake on later interviews. With other eyewitnesses, Craig was much more polite. He apologised if it seemed he had cut someone off, and let them express themselves fully. When they gave testimony which appeared unlikely or contradictory, he did not question it. He allowed them to plot their own position, and the flightpath of the plane relative to it, on overhead maps.
But when Lloyde pointed out on an overhead map exactly where he had been when the pole hit, Craig derided him. He harangued Lloyde and argued with him, becoming increasingly frustrated and strident when Lloyde would not “confess”.
When Lloyde took Craig and another guy (?? Christopher Taylor, camera operator) in 2008 on a drive by the cemetery wall where the cab was hit by the pole, TWICE, Craig openly ridiculed Lloyde. He argued the point with Lloyde continuously for ages.
Lloyde never altered his story. He consistently, calmly and patiently affirmed that he was north of the Columbia Pike exit road when the plane flew over his car, making him a critical North-side witness. His constant refrain was, “I KNOW WHERE I WAS.” Of course he did.
He did NOT “change his story after becoming aware of the north side witnesses” that CIT had found, as they falsely claimed.
At the end of the “First Known Accomplice” video in 2006, Lloyde very positively stated that he was NOT on the bridge.
But Investigangsta Aldo was not listening. His mind was made up, and he was going to make Lloyde look like a confused old fool who should not be driving a cab, because he had seen the photos on the bridge and therefore he knew better than the taxi driver who had a 12 foot pole smash through his windscreen.
18:07 The EYE of the STORM
When it hit you, you were in the middle of the bridge, right?
[PUZZLED “What you talkin bout Willis” LOOK]
NO, I WASN’T ON THE BRIDGE!
Well it’s an overpass.
NO! I WASN’T ON NO OVERPASS. I was on flat ground.
Yeah well it’s on, but it’s an overpass.
[PUZZLED LOOK, SHAKES HEAD]
NO. NO. Light poles were …
And is the tunnel below you?
Light poles were like that over there but they were aluminium poles. And they bolted to the base.
BUT IT WAS SOLID GROUND.
“INVESTIGANGSTA ALDO :
“Isn’t it interesting how Lloyde’s story supports the official flight path, while being irreconcilable with the eye-witness flight path?
Yet he seems to support conspiracy theories by questioning what happened to the plane.
And he reads David Icke books to boot. He must be on our side, right?
“Lloyde’s story doesn’t even hold up to scrutiny by itself, but is a proven farce in light of the testimony by Robert Turcios, Chadwick Brooks, and William Lagasse.
It is physically impossible for them to be simultaneously true.
“In essence, it boils down to this. You cannot believe the official story, and these 3 witnesses, at the same time. It’s frighteningly simple.
“But if Robert, Chadwick and William are accepted as telling the truth, 9/11 has been proven to be an inside job.
“This should be enough information to shake the foundations of everything you have accepted as true about 9/11.
But this was a very complex operation and we have more information to come.”
The only thing that is a “proven farce” is Aldo and Craig’s amateur and aggressive interrogations of Lloyde England, their misrepresentations of what he told them, their presuppositions about what “really happened”, and their unfounded conclusion that Lloyde was “The First Known Accomplice” in the mass murder of 9/11.
The fact is that Lloyde England was always their first and most compelling North-of-Citgo witness, the only one with physical evidence to prove his story.
And now of course, the video evidence proving his story true from beginning to end, has been discovered.
When CIT made their 2006 video, their only other north-side witnesses were Sgt William Lagasse, Sgt Chadwick Brooks, and Robert Turcios.
Investigangsta Aldo claims that Lloyde’s testimony cannot possibly be reconciled with theirs.
But Aldo is dead wrong. Their 4 testimonies all align perfectly, consolidating the North-of-Citgo flightpath, and therefore the flyover.
LLOYDE said the plane flew across his car when he was north of the Columbia Pike exit sign. That puts the plane on the North of Citgo flightpath.
The pole crashed through Lloyde’s windshield, and there was “glass everywhere” as he skidded to a halt.
Fortunately, there was an actual 9/11 accomplice (Steve Riskus) driving down Route 27 just behind Lloyde England, whose job it was to take photos of the area, avoiding Lloyde’s cab to make it appear that he had never been there. But his second photo shows shattered windscreen glass and black skid marks on the road, just north of the Columbia Pike exit sign. Totally consistent with Lloyde England’s account.
Lloyde was clearly convinced that the plane could not have fitted in the tiny hole which he saw in the Pentagon. He also stated that there was “no debris left”. He said, “Where did the plane go??” Although he admitted that the plane was so low that it would have been difficult for it to get up and over the Pentagon, obviously this is what he and Shirley both believed it had done. As did “Mike” who was “up on the bridge”, and took photos of the cab. This makes Lloyde a flyover witness, even if he does not outright claim to have seen the plane fly over the Pentagon.
But ROBERT TURCIOS did see the plane “LIFT UP TO GET OVER THE EXIT SIGN”. Turcios is another North-side witness. He saw the plane swoop UP, and almost immediately saw the explosion, but admits he could not see the impact site due to topography. He did not see the plane swoop down again, and had obviously never previously disconnected the explosion from the plane in his memory of the event. But he saw the plane lift up, and Lloyde knew that to get over the 73-foot Pentagon, it had to have lifted up. So their testimonies agree 100%.
Chadwick Brooks drew a flightpath that exactly aligned with Lloyde’s testimony about where the plane flew. Lloyde only saw the plane for an instant because it was behind the cemetery wall and trees beside him until it crossed the highway, just as Brooks drew on the map.
William Lagasse drew a flightpath identical with Brooks’. Again this aligns 100% with Lloyde’s testimony.
Lagasse is therefore a solid gold witness for the North-of-Citgo flightpath. Every North-sider absolutely accepts Lagasse’s authoritative testimony as unimpeachable.
Except for the other half of his testimony, which everybody resolutely ignores as worthless lies.
CIT included this other half in their video, but snidely mocked it by overlaying photos of the downed poles and cab on the bridge, over Lagasse’s testimony.
Lagasse very forcefully stated,
“NOTHING HAPPENED ON THE BRIDGE. PERIOD. I CAN’T MAKE IT ANY PLAINER THAN THAT.”
He also said, indicating the locations on the same overhead map on which he drew the north-side flightpath,
“THIS IS WHERE THE TAXI WAS. OVER HERE. [Beside the cemetery wall.]
“NOT over here.” [On the bridge.]
“I NEVER HEARD of anything happening on the bridge. EVER. EVER.”
So, Sgt Lagasse’s valuable eyewitness testimony 100% corroborates Lloyde England’s testimony, both as to the flightpath, and as to Lloyde’s true location when the pole went through his windshield.
Sgt William Lagasse
Sgt Chadwick Brooks
Robert Turcios …
ALL 3 corroborate Lloyde England’s true story.
NOT the government story, and NOT CIT”s insupportable fable about Lloyde England.
THREE STRIKES … INVESTIGANGSTA IS OUT.
And there are many other eye witnesses who support Lloyde’s TRUE STORY, not the distorted, libellous, denigrating, defamatory fiction that CIT published. One of those testimonies is from Father Stephen McGraw, another valuable north-side eyewitness defamed and slandered by CIT.
So Aldo is totally discredited as far as Lloyde England is concerned.
CIT did some excellent work. But they let themselves down by refusing to correct their egregious defamation of Lloyde England and numerous other genuine north-side witnesses.
Wayne Coste apparently reads this blog, because he sent me this in reply to what I wrote above: http://www.hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/LE.pdf.
I don’t know where to pursue this dialogue — here or on one of Craig’s 3 Facebook pages.
I will repeat what I have said above: What this (and every) discussion needs is a forum where all participants can contribute to discussion of every specific point of contention. Someone has to go to the (considerable) trouble of laying this out clearly. phpBB.com is a free software that could be used for this, but you need to supply the host.
P.S. to my comment above.
Wayne Coste claims that the “lamp support arm” in front of the cab, is the pole that England pulled out of the windshield,
but I contend that it was the pole to the right of and behind the cab.
Lamp support arms are flattened for strength and lightness, whereas those other 2 poles are circular in cross section, just like the impressions on the back seat, where Lloyde says the pole hit.
The 2 pieces of pole lying there would have been transported from the cemetery site to the bridge, on the trailer beside the cab.
Let’s not forget that Sergeant William Lagasse stated that he saw “poles” at the cemetery site, and confirmed that this is where Lloyde’s cab was impaled by a pole. He very adamantly stated,
“NOTHING HAPPENED ON THE BRIDGE. PERIOD!!”
Other witnesses also claimed to have seen “poles” or “a piece of pole” near the cemetery, such as Father Stephen McGraw and Darius Prather, both of whom were interviewed by CIT.
I notice you make a lot of statements of fact that are not supported by any evidence and are not really facts Ruby. You also take small pieces of evidence and vastly overstate what they may mean or grossly exaggerate what they show or say while putting your personal spin on it. For example you post an extremely blurry screen capture of a person and you claim it is Lloyde England and you claim you can see his cap and his jacket etc etc when in reality you cannot see anything clearly enough to even determine who it is let alone what they are wearing. You are just straight out fabricating your own evidence. I do not think you have proved anything about Lloyde England. In fact I think all you have proved is that you are very confused and terrible at analyzing evidence or you are intentionally trying to confuse the issue using the Arabesque technique of pumping out lots of material to create the appearance of a real investigative effort. I will assume for now that you are just confused and really bad at investigating. If you are doing this intentionally and knowingly then from the bottom of my heart I say go to hell.
Ah, you’re such a hater.
What is your problem?
Don’t you WANT to see real proof that 9/11 at the Pentagon was staged?
CIT were never going to get anywhere once they got off on this “Lloyde is a liar” trip of theirs. Everyone who jumped on that bandwagon is as bogged in the mire as they are. Such a shame they let themselves down with the way they attacked genuine northside witnesses such as Lloyde England.
Unlike yourself, I have indeed provided much solid evidence.
Basing your stance purely on hating Lloyde England is no way to solve this crime.
You have done little more than talk a lot. You have provided exactly zero evidence Lloyde is telling the truth.
My problem is I do not like disinformationists. I think they are traitors. I think people can see for themselves what you really are so I am going to move on to bigger and better things.
I have already gone to the (considerable) trouble of compiling a substantial bank of evidence on my thread “Lloyde England Vindicated with New Evidence on Photos and Video” at LetsRollForums dot com.
The format is ideally suited to discussion of this topic, and you are very welcome to post there.
What you call “evidence” is not evidence at all. When you introduce your own speculation into the equation it is no longer evidence you are talking about Ruby, at that point it becomes your theory about something and nothing more. You are confused if you think just proclaiming something to be iron clad evidence makes it so. It doesn’t make it so. BTW you are the one being nasty here Ruby by smearing the work of CIT and the work of many of us who REALLY investigated the pentagon. So your attempt to paint me as the bad guy here is a fail. You started slandering CIT and lying about evidence and making snotty remarks so you are the nasty one, the hateful one, the one who is trying to cover-up the truth about 9/11. Oh also just for the record X-ray techs do NOT read the x-rays doctors of Radiology do so your attempt to paint yourself as some kind of photo/video analysis expert is a great big fail. You are no expert. I on the other hand do have specific expertise in the video and photography field since I have been doing video and photography for over 30 years.
As I said, I am not some mere “X-Ray tech” as you suppose.
I have never smeared or slandered CIT. I give full credit where it is due.
I am pointing out how they smeared and slandered and demonised many of their own genuine witnesses. I am not the first to have seen this.
Why they did it, I cannot tell. Their work with so many witnesses was exemplary and I am greatly impressed by it.
But put those intentionally misleading, staged Jason Ingersoll photos in front of them, and all logic goes out the window.
How illogical is it that they positioned lots of witnesses erroneously beneath the FAKE OFFICIAL FLIGHT PATH, compared their testimonies to THIS FAKE location, then pronounced because there was no possible way that could work, that therefore those witnesses were LYING??
That is fatally flawed thinking. They should have ignored the bridge photos which they knew to be staged, then located all those witnesses beneath the North-of-Citgo flightpath, and all their imagined anomalies would have vanished.
THEY are the ones who indulged in SPECULATION and innuendo, and false accusations. Literally they libelled and slandered many witnesses, while arbitrarily taking others’ words at face value.
That is not impartial, objective journalism. It is a travesty of journalism.
I have never been “nasty” while sharing what I have found, which IS the evidence they were hoping to find. I have appealed to them to correspond and discuss these new findings, but they are hiding in some hole apparently. I think there is probably a good reason for their silence. They made loathsome and actionable accusations against many people for years, and maybe somebody eventually called them on it.
CIT’s behaviour on many forums is what got them banned, not the substance of their Northside work. Their own outrageous treatment of e.g. Lloyde England, Stephen McGraw, Joel Sucherman, Vin Narayanan, and others who they wrongly condemned as liars and operatives, and falsely claimed were “probably not even there”, made them odious to many readers. Their very own fault. They were wrong in these instances. They just did not do their job properly. Admittedly they improved their technique as they went along, but they never spotted their own early mistakes nor did they ever apologise for any of them.
Below are some quotes from your own good self. By your own admission, I do qualify as someone who is passionate about truth and justice.
“March 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm
“A truther is indeed someone who finds and tells the truth no matter who likes it or not. It isn’t an issue when a truther changes his or her stance when some new information comes along in fact they should change when they are shown to be wrong.
“If you are a real truther then stand up like one and support the NOC evidence strongly and openly. Follow the implications of the evidence and say it loud and clear that the pentagon itself staged the crime scene on 9/11 thereby proving insider involvement in the crimes of 9/11. If you don’t do that you are NOT a truther.”
I am truly standing up and being counted as one who supports the NOC evidence. I do it strongly and openly.
I have followed the implications of the evidence, which goes so much further than CIT managed to get. They are the ones who should have found this evidence, 13 years ago already. They wasted all this time. I have named Pentagon workers and others, from Donald Rumsfeld on down, who are revealed on video as complicit and actually in the act of participating in the Pentagon staged event.
Why don’t you call Captain Aubrey Davis of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency in Clinton, Maryland, and ask him why he abandoned his job as bodyguard to Donald Rumsfeld on the morning of 9/11, to go and supervise unimportant cab driver Lloyde England after a minor traffic incident on the bridge?
Ask him how he knew to even go there.
Ask him how he and Rumsfeld and the other security detail minions managed to walk the 600 yards from Rumsfeld’s office on the east side of the Pentagon, down 2 flights of stairs, and appear on the west side lawn in less than 3 minutes 50 seconds after the impact.
Then call Detective Don Fortunato of Arlington Police, and question him about why he did not reveal the fact that he was actually parked beside Lloyde England’s cab next to the cemetery wall while the pole was still impaled through the windshield.
Ask why he didn’t mention having pushed Lloyde, the innocent 69-year-old victim, to the ground when he wouldn’t leave his cab.
Then ask how he coincidentally also appeared with Lloyde England and Aubrey Davis on the bridge within 5 minutes, for the official photo opportunity.
These are two of the operatives that CIT asked people to identify from the Jason Ingersoll photos. Nobody ever did.
I have identified them. It wasn’t that hard, even from the other side of the planet. CIT were right there in Arlington. If they were as good as you think, they would have done this themselves in 2006. Maybe all those perps would be behind bars by now instead of enjoying the benefits of job promotions and positions of power and influence.
All I am trying to do here is correct CIT’s glaring errors so they can rework some of their flawed material and bring it into line with their North side evidence, based solely on witnesses’ locations in relation to the actual flight path rather than on an impossible hybrid of the true and fake flight paths.
They missed out on including so many due to their irrational prejudice caused by the Jason Ingersoll photos, and by Aldo Marquis’ own arrogance and immaturity. Craig is generally much more controlled, intelligent and articulate. He is the better investigator and interviewer, but even he was influenced by Aldo’s off-the-wall irrational suppositions, sometimes aggressive filthy language and subjective conclusions, as can still be seen on numerous forums where his gutter self came to the fore at times. I found this incredibly disappointing, but I have been trying to give them the opportunity to back down from their self-stultifying Lloyde-hating campaign that ran their investigation into ignominy.
There is a HUGE logic problem with your claim that Lloyde was NOT where the photos say he was. HUGE logic problem. Obviously you missed it. But let’s just indulge your fantasy for a moment. Show me the evidence you have that Lloyd’s car was NOT where the photos show it to be (on the bridge). I don’t want your screeds I want to see the hard evidence you have. Talk is cheap, let’s see the evidence. Show it.
I see a lot of talking but no evidence. I see a lot of attempts at sidetracking but no evidence. I also see a lot of insulting comments about CIT but no evidence they are wrong. I also notice how cryptic you are about your X-Ray background and how it supposedly makes you an expert at analyzing photos and video. So if you are more than an x-ray tech but not a doctor of radiology what are you exactly? What exactly is your expertise? My wife who is an x-ray tech would like to know as well.
Your wife is an “xray tech”??? Do you live in a backward third-world country?
This profession has moved on hugely in the many decades since ever anyone in my country was derogatorily referred to as an “xray tech”.
I have not missed any “logic problems”.
In fact, I have solved the logic problems that stumped Aldo, Craig, Russell, Dylan and all their cohorts and followers for the past 13 years.
Here is one of CIT’s maps showing where they located numerous witnesses, relative to the Official Flight Path over the bridge.
CIT’s FLAWED SPECULATION on WITNESS POSITIONS
Because they started off on the flawed premise that these witnesses’ testimonies ought to agree with the Official Flight Path, they failed absolutely. Why could they never see their own fatal lapse of logical thinking here?
They should have
(a) plotted in all wintesses according to the NORTHSIDE FLIGHTPATH
(b) double-checked by searching for evidence placing the witnesses at their true locations.
CIT’s video presentation “The USA TODAY Parade” canned many potentially valuable Northside witnesses because of CIT’s inexplicable faux pas in locating them.
One of these, Gannett reporter Mary Ann Owens, said the plane flew across her car.
So CIT speculated that ON THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT PATH, the plane should have come from behind her, diagonally across the road, and that therefore her story made no sense.
But Mary Ann Owens took photographs proving her location in the stalled traffic.
She was actually much further north than CIT claimed, and therefore the plane flew across her car on the northside flightpath.
Mary Ann Owens
CIT did a vicious hatchet job on Father Stephen McGraw, the priest who was famously photographed and videoed
praying with burn victims on the lawn opposite the Heliport.
Because the earliest that this was verified was 15 minutes after impact, CIT SPECULATED wildly, vilifying McGraw’s personality, motives and integrity, and created absurd scenarios to explain his imagined absence from the scene for the first 15 minutes.
However, scrutiny of an early video has now discovered a single frame which clearly proves that McGraw was there on the lawn, less than 4 minutes after impact. He never said that he had walked hundreds of yards to get to the Triage site from the bridge where CIT wrongly located him. He said he got out of his car and walked across to the lawn opposite the Heliport, where he waited for victims to be brought out.
This has now been proven true.
Father Stephen McGraw
So here is a revised map such as CIT themselves ought to have produced, 13 years ago.
Their work finding many North-of-Citgo witnesses was so solid that they never should have made fools of themselves by producing any presentations including the Official Flight Path. Much less ought they to have located ANY witnesses relative to a flight path they knew to be false.
When the witness testimony, photo and videographic records and Northside Flight Path are entered on the map, then we discover that these people are revealed as genuine Northside witnesses.
CIT did themselves a huge disservice by maligning so many honest North-of-Citgo witnesses, and they indulged in a campaign of spiteful malicious SPECULATION of these people which continues to this day.
CIT stymied their own investigation, and discredited their good work in the eyes of many, by this shameful segment of their research.
That has been fixed now.
Thanks Craig, I have them now.
Also, I wonder if you could check the spam file? I posted another piece above including info on the true locations of Joel Sucherman and Vin Narayanan, but it had 2 links to images in it, and this one has not appeared here.
Additional Unanswered Questions
31. How many photographs or videos are there that show Lloyde at the bridge? I’ve only found 4 photos that depict a black man that resembles Lloyde. Only one shows his face, the other three show him from the back.
32. The one that shows his face does not match the photos that we have of Lloyde England from the interviews. The look-a-like man’s nose if curved while Lloyde’s is flat and the look-a-like nose protrudes past between his eyes, while Lloyde’s does not. That one photograph was taken by Navy photographer, Jason Ingersoll DSC_0421. I urge you to take the time to analyze that photo.
I don’t believe that a plane hit the pentagon and I believe the poles were staged. I suspect that Lloyde was recruited to participate in a terror drill prior to 9/11 and was required to sign a confidentiality agreement. So, the drill went live.
I do believe that Lloyde parked the car North of the bridge and could have seen a decoy plane fly by. He clearly knows that no plane hit the Pentagon. I believe him when he claims over and over again that he was not on the bridge. I believe that Lloyde, along with all the other potential witnesses were evacuated during the scare of the 2nd incoming plane. At that point the taxi was moved up to the bridge, the poles were staged and the look-a-like agent came to the bridge to pose as if he was Lloyde. Nobody was allowed to interview the look-a-like man. Only certain people were allowed to photograph the scene.
Lloyde clearly would have loved to divulge the truth but his or his loved ones life’s would be put at risk. He needs to be exonerated and admired for trying to squeeze in the truth between the lines.
Hello, I was the 9/11 grassroots organizer for 9/11 2002-presenty in Alaska. I have been targeted in the FBI’s renewed Cointepro operations for many years, a victim of endless crimes committed by the government. I have came into contact with many individuals that were also targeted for their activism on various fronts and am searching for others that have met the same fate in the US. Most civilians targeted in this program refer to themselves as targeted individuals and say they are victims of gang stalking, in fact this is just a duplication of the FBI Cointelpro illegal stalking/ assassination program that ran for three decades till exposed in the 1970’s. It has been combines with the unethical human experimentation that has been carried out and constantly exposed for over a century in the US. Please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org is you are a victim. https://www.targeted.one