While Coste and Chandler claim it was the small piece at the far left of the frame that England was saying hit his cab, CIT video proves it was not.
They push 757 impact by falsely stating England never claimed long end of pole hit his cab: but he did – on camera!
April 28, 2019
This is the second of a two-part report on the Lloyde England story. I would strongly recommend reading Part 1 (which offers a detailed analysis of why England’s story simply does not stand up to scrutiny) before reading this article. In Part 2, I look at the attempts by a small group within the Truth Movement to con us into believing that the England story is entirely true and that it supports a large plane impact with the Pentagon.
Apparently [CIT] forgot to ask the key question(s): “Lloyd, [sic] how long was the pole? Give us an estimate. How long was the pole? Can you estimate that in feet? – Wayne Coste on the listserv of the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference, Jan. 6, 2017
How long do you think the pole was, approximately? – CIT’s Craig Ranke to England in Lloyde England and His Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm, 2008
I’d say the pole was 30 to 40 foot long. – Lloyde England, responding to Ranke
It was about 40 foot long. – Lloyde England to Jeff Hill, 2010
By Craig McKee
In their continuing mission to convince the 9/11 Truth Movement that the U.S. government is telling the truth about a 757 hitting the Pentagon, Wayne Coste and David Chandler are grossly and deliberately misrepresenting key parts of two interviews that taxi driver Lloyde England gave to Citizen Investigation Team more than a decade ago.
I don’t make these charges lightly.
The first interview was done in 2006 for the CIT video The First Known Accomplice? and the second in 2008 for Lloyde England and His Taxicab: The Eye of the Storm. Coste and Chandler are also ignoring a key piece of information from a 2010 interview that England gave to researcher Jeff Hill that contradicts their ongoing claims.
Furthermore, Coste has reproduced a deceptively edited statement that CIT co-founder Craig Ranke makes in Eye of the Storm to make it seem like Ranke believes the exact opposite of what he actually does. Readers of this article can evaluate the information being presented, watch the appropriate sections of the videos, and judge for themselves whether I am correct in stating that Coste and Chandler have engaged in deliberate deception.
Chandler falsely accuses CIT of putting words in England’s mouth.
I will also go through “Chapter 9” of Coste and Chandler’s slide presentation — this installment dealing with England. In this chapter, the two pro-impact advocates attempt to support their dishonest claim that England never said his cab was impaled by the long base of the first light pole alleged to have been hit by Flight 77 (this is the approximately 30-foot pole photographed on 9/11 lying in the middle of southbound Route 27, next to England’s cab, and known as pole 1). Instead, they claim that England must have been talking about an approximately 11-foot piece of the top of what is known as pole 2.
They invent this new theory because they need the pole-impact story to be physically plausible, which England’s account is not. And if what England says is not plausible, then their 757 impact claim falls apart. They would rather invent something out of thin air than permit that.
But in the interviews with CIT, Jeff Hill, and mainstream television, England does say it was the long section. Repeatedly.
He even points to the pole on a photograph provided by CIT in Eye of the Storm (30 minutes in). You’ll see a screen shot of this lower down. He says in 2006 audio pre-interviews and on-camera interviews in both 2006 and 2008 that it was the long end. In 2008 he estimates the length to be 30–40 feet. And in the Hill audio interview England says it was about 40 feet. Coste and Chandler simply ignore England’s definitive statements about the poles, perhaps in the hope that few will actually go through the video and audio to check their claims.
There is simply no room for even the slightest doubt about what England was saying. And his insistence that the long mast of the pole penetrated the cab is one of the many things that make England’s account — and the official story — impossible to believe.
To be clear, England never specifically says “pole 1,” but he does point to pole 1 in the photo he is shown. And he can’t mean any other pole, since the long end of the first pole is the only one that ended up anywhere near his cab. He says he and a silent stranger lifted the pole out of the car and put it down on the road, which can only be pole 1. I demonstrated this in my Part 1, “Staging the scene: Lloyde England’s tall Pentagon tale – Part 1 of 2.”
The long end of the pole doesn’t fit the evidence, however — as even Coste and Chandler concede. Yet they need an impact with the cab to have taken place. Why? Because their only interest where the Pentagon is concerned is to support the contention that a 757 hit the building. They must maintain the fiction that England is telling the whole truth. So they come up with a smaller piece of the pole that they can claim matches the observed damage and that would have been easier to remove from the cab’s windshield.
They are crafting the “evidence” to fit their desired conclusion. It’s all quite transparent when you really look closely at what they are doing. (As I have explained in past articles, Coste and Chandler are part of a group I call the “propaganda team” because of their suspicious and almost exclusive focus on what they agree with in the Pentagon official story. I list other members below when I refer to a 2016 paper that seven of them co-wrote.)
This is just one example of many we have seen in which Coste and Chandler take any strong evidence that contradicts the official claim of a 757 impact with the Pentagon as just another challenge to be overcome. And they will look for any way possible to attack and destroy it. When they come across a point in the Pentagon official story that is impossible to have happened they will try to “fix” it so it won’t undermine their — and the U.S. government’s — claim of a 757 impact.
This is the hole Coste and Chandler claim was made by the smaller piece of the pole.
England, meanwhile, sinks the credibility of his own account because it would have been impossible for the first pole, which would have been hit by the plane’s right wing as the plane crossed the highway, to have been knocked by that wing to the left — passing over, under, or through the fuselage. It is also impossible for a 200-pound pole to have embedded itself in the back seat of the taxi — after being hit by a 90-ton plane traveling 530 miles per hour — without making more than a very small hole in the upholstery (see my explanation of the anomalous “damage” to the taxi in Part 1). What’s more, that hole doesn’t even line up with the damage to the dashboard and to the top of the front passenger seat.
All of those physical impossibilities are bad news for the official story and bad news for Coste and Chandler.
The Coste/Chandler con
One thing these two have done to misrepresent the England evidence is to take a section of the 2008 interview he did with CIT that deals with WHERE England’s cab was on Route 27 when it was allegedly hit by the pole and try to make it about WHICH section of the pole he was talking about.
Here’s how they pulled that stunt. On Jan. 3, 2017, Coste wrote on the listserv of the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference, a group he was later expelled from for lying:
“I noted that nowhere in the CIT videos did I find an explicit statement by Lloyd [sic] about how far the pole stuck out of the windshield. Likewise there is nothing definitive in those videos about the size/diameter of the ‘pole’ suggesting it was 6-8 inches in diameter.” From the long video (Eye of the Storm) where CIT goes to the farm where Lloyd [sic] has stored the taxi – there is a segment where Craig [Ranke] points to “the pole that went through your windshield” and Lloyd [sic] doesn’t agree.”
This is false, deceptive, and very slippery. Knowing that both of his CIT interviews, England has estimated the length of the pole, Coste directs our attention to the fact that England never said how far the pole extended beyond the windshield. He also mentions that England never specified the diameter of the pole. But he avoids mentioning the length, which England has said was between 30 and 40 feet. He also implies that England disagrees with CIT about which pole was involved. But he does not. He disagrees about where his cab was when he says it was hit.
Here is the exchange Coste quotes in a written message to the teleconference in an attempt to back up his claim (it starts at 59:55 of Eye of the Storm):
England: Hold it hold it. See where the building is?
Ranke: Yeah.
England: See where the hole is?
Ranke: Yeah.
England: [unintelligible] in the picture.
Ranke: The pictures are taken right after each other, at the same time. It shows the pole. The most important point is that – here is your cab – right?
England: That’s not, that’s not [pointing to the white car in front].
Ranke: See your cab? See the grill? That’s you in the cap.
England: Yeah, I see it, I see it.
Ranke: Now here is the pole. That’s your pole. See the bend?
England: Yeah.
Ranke: That’s the pole you pulled out, right?
England: [no response, stares at the photo]
Ranke: There’s your cab. It can’t be any other pole. The lamp is down next to it. But see how it has the cobblestones [talking about the overpass stone wall].
Anyone who watches this segment of the CIT video — and I strongly urge everyone to watch it — will see clear as day that England is in no way quarreling about which part of the pole it was or how long that part was. He is saying that he was nowhere near the bridge that takes Route 27 over Columbia Pike, despite what all the photos show. Coste has to know this is what England is saying. But he pushes this false narrative anyway.
Note that Ranke points to the long end of pole 1 on the screen and says, “That’s your pole, right?” and England responds, “Yeah.” Then Ranke asks a second time, because he is trying to get England to see that the photo places him and his cab on the bridge: “That’s the pole you pulled out, right?” This time England says nothing and continues staring at the screen. He is clearly wrestling with the obvious contradiction in his story over the issue of where the car was, not about which pole it was.
England is refusing to acknowledge what the photos prove: his car was on the bridge. Off-camera, however, he told CIT that a photographer he knows, who took photos of the damaged cab, was “up on the bridge.” (You can hear this exchange 20 minutes into Eye of the Storm.)
The exchange goes on like this for quite a while as Ranke tries to show England that all the photographs, even the one provided by England’s acquaintance, which England said would prove his true location, show the cab just south of the bridge. But England just sticks to his story that he was well to the north of the bridge.
In Eye of the Storm, the first discussion about his cab’s location occurs between about 26 and 31 minutes in. At the 30-minutes mark, England points right at the long end of pole 1 in a photo (which we can also see) and says, “This shows the pole here…” The discussion about the location resumes 58 minutes into the video after they take a trip to see England’s 9/11 cab at his country property. England continues to claim he was well to the north of the bridge, now adding that he was actually north of the Pentagon heliport (from 1:05:00):
England points to the long mast of pole 1 and says, “This shows the pole here…”
“The car was right there at the Pentagon. Not at the bridge. The bridge is beyond the Pentagon… The bridge is further down the road. I was never down there… Actually the bridge is near Columbia Pike. I was nowhere near Columbia Pike. I was closer to the heliport, where the heliport used to be… I was between the heliport and what they call ‘H’ Road (Jefferson Davis Highway or Route 110).
England refuses to budge from his statement even though there were no downed poles in the area where he says his cab was hit. And England doesn’t sound confused about this; he’s adamant. He does seem unclear about how the angle of a photo can make it seem like the subject is in a different location in different photos (In the photo at the top of this article, he thinks the smoke being behind his car confirms that he was right next to the Pentagon, opposite the smoke cloud).
Chandler, of course, rushes to support Coste in his false claim that England did not agree it was the long end of the pole. I draw your attention to a recent interview Chandler did with one of his gushing supporters, JM Talboo, in which he repeats the same deceptive and false narrative (the section on England starts about an hour into the interview). And he adds some color of his own about England being manipulated by “fast-talking telemarketers.” The level of dishonesty in this “interview” is shameful and extreme.
Here is how Chandler explains to Talboo what happened between CIT and England:
“What they’re doing is they’re trying to get, they are trying to corner Lloyde England with a statement that they can use then to discount his testimony. So what they do is they try to, you can actually see it in one of their videos, Craig Ranke points at that big long pole, the base part of the first light pole, and says, see, that’s your pole, isn’t it? It has to be the one; it’s sitting right there. So Ranke, I don’t know if I’m quoting his exact words but that’s essentially what he says. And Lloyde’s response is silence. He’s just looking at him. And it’s Ranke who is trying to put these words in his mouth, and Lloyde England’s not buying it. And as Wayne Coste has pointed out, there is nowhere in any of CIT’s videos that Lloyde England unambiguously identifies that long 25-foot piece as the piece that, he’s not claiming that’s the piece that hit his car.”
This statement is outrageously deceptive and false. Ranke is not trying to put words in England’s mouth, he is trying to show England that all the photos put his cab on the bridge, even though England swears he was hundreds of feet to the north and directly opposite the hole in the Pentagon façade.
“They’re trying to get him to say something so they can accuse him of being a liar,” Chandler alleges.
Nonsense. Ranke and Marquis are not trying to get him to say anything. They are showing him photos of him and his car on the bridge, and he is denying that that’s where he was. They keep showing him photo after photo and he keeps denying. They show him the cobblestone wall at the side of the road on the bridge and he keeps denying. They go with him to see the site and he continues to deny that he was there.
Then, after going through all this, Chandler posits that maybe England did identify the long end of the pole after all. But if he did, he must have simply been mistaken.
“My point is this,” Chandler says. “Who cares if Lloyde might have misidentified the piece or not? That’s not the point.”
England (behind car) stands next to cab: no one reported seeing it hit by a pole or anyone removing a pole from the windshield.
It’s as if the possibility that England might not be telling the truth is something Chandler can’t even conceive of. If England says something that is impossible, he must be “mistaken.” It reminds me of how Frank Legge described the witnesses who described a flight path north of the Citgo gas station as having been simply mistaken about “an unimportant detail.”
So Chandler just eliminates this line of inquiry and takes the parts of England’s story that he thinks he can use to support his impact narrative. Then he misrepresents the parts that don’t.
The interview really becomes surreal when Talboo and Chandler start trying to analyze the CIT interview “style,” which Chandler seems obsessed with attacking at every opportunity:
Chandler: When you look at it it’s abundantly evident. Here they are in his home and they have their laptops set up on his dining room table and they’re pointing out stuff, and they are harassing him with a fast-talking sales pitch, and Lloyde England is this slow-talking, sort of, you know, elderly guy, you know. It’s like he’s being taken to the cleaners by a couple of guys who are trying to foist this narrative onto him.
Talboo: It’s like a couple of fast-talking telemarketers talking to an elderly person.
Chandler: That’s right. I’ve heard, I haven’t verified it, but I’ve heard that they were a couple of telemarketers, Craig and Aldo.
Talboo: Yeah, that’s right. I heard that, too. I heard that, too.
Chandler: Their behavior definitely seems to be of a marketing campaign. They have this scenario that they are trying to cram down everybody’s throat, and they’re trying to give reasons why, oh, this has to be it. It’s so, so blatantly biased, and pushy, and unscientific, and everything they’re doing, it’s a nightmare.
These remarks are embarrassing to read. Fast-talking telemarketers? A sales pitch? A marketing campaign? The hypocrisy in Chandler calling CIT “unscientific” here is epic.
Why didn’t Chandler and Talboo just say that Ranke and Marquis were silver-tongued city folk trying to use their highfalutin words and fancy talk to confuse a feeble and simple old man? (By the way, the interview between Ranke and England did not take place in England’s home, it took place at the home of CIT supporter Jeff Long, a member of DC911Truth who was living in Fairfax, VA, a suburb of Washington, D.C., at the time.)
Chandler continues:
“I mean it’s absolute slander, to try to take some guy and destroy his reputation. They’re basically accusing him of being kind of one of the collaborators with this whole thing. And hey, go to Truth and Shadows; Craig McKee is putting up a new one right now, a two-part thing, and he just put up a rehash of the whole accident thing again. It’s the same old thing.”
Chandler loves to throw around words like “slander” and “defamation” and “harassment.” He has accused me repeatedly of defaming him, but he can’t point to any actual defamation. And Ranke and Marquis did not slander anyone; they simply pointed out where England’s story did not add up. Ranke says right in the video that if England has been coerced into giving a false account, this would make him a victim. But regardless of whether his account was given willingly or not, it does not hold up.
As to his remarks about me, Chandler does not identify anything incorrect in the first of my two articles; he just calls it “the same old thing.” And I bet he will offer nothing of any substance to refute this one either (other than feigned “outrage”). That’s because what I’m saying is true, while what he is trying to push is absurd and deceptive. Either Chandler is deliberately misleading all of us or his hatred for CIT is so extreme that he can’t see reason.
A new Coste deception
Things get worse. On a mocking site Coste created to attack me and my Truth and Shadows site — he cleverly calls this one “Dump the Shadows” — Coste quotes Ranke from Eye of the Storm. But he takes out a critical part of the quote so it will appear to have the opposite meaning.
Coste begins the misquote of Ranke about two minutes in:
Ranke: “Researchers have questioned the account of Lloyde England for quite some time simply by observing the photos of the scene, primarily of his taxicab and the lack of damage to his hood of his car. If, in fact, a light pole did spear it after being hit by a 90-ton Boeing, the obvious question is: Why isn’t there any damage to his hood?”
Okay, so far so good. Then Ranke says (I have put the part of his statement that Coste quotes in red so you can clearly see what he cut out — and why):
“Previously, researchers had thought of different possible scenarios to explain this — one of them being that, well, perhaps the pole itself isn’t what speared the windshield and maybe it was the top smaller part or an arm of the pole that just went through the windshield all the way to the back seat, whereas nothing was sticking out over the hood at all.”
Coste removes the beginning of the quote to make it seem like Ranke is entertaining the possibility that it was a smaller piece that England is alleging hit his cab. He not only picks up Ranke’s comments in mid-sentence but starts with a capital letter as if he is quoting a complete sentence. So, the quote appears this way:
“… Well perhaps the pole itself isn’t what speared the windshield and maybe it was the top smaller part or an arm of the pole that went through the windshield all the way to the back seat, whereas nothing was sticking out over the hood at all.”
This is conscious, deliberate misrepresentation of what Ranke said. Obviously, Ranke isn’t undecided about whether England is talking about the “long end” of the pole. But Coste makes it seem that way. How can Coste’s deceptive tactic be any clearer than this?
Coste’s ‘Chapter 9’ is baseless
Coste: false claims about England.
This was great for Coste, who was then able to spam links to all the chapters in dozens and dozens of Facebook comments. He virtually stalked me on Facebook, attaching the same one or two comments dozens of times to anything I would post. I finally had to block him. When I posted Part 1 of this report, Coste called it “poor research masquerading as ‘truth’” and said it was “filled with strawmen arguments,” which he incorrectly defined as being “ridiculous claims that are easily disproved,” He added that, “A little fact-checking would have prevented these errors.” But he doesn’t tell us what those “errors” are. It’s all about spin with these Pentagon impact advocates.
Chandler has a similar approach. He urges people to look at their chapter 9 to get the real story about England rather than what I “characterize” as his story. Chandler loves to drop the hint that he has been misquoted or to hint that something I’ve produced is merely a “version” of his words rather than what he actually said or wrote. Like Coste, he doesn’t feel the need to support these insinuations.
There is humor in Coste naming Chapter 9 of his opus “Lloyd’s Taxicab: A comprehensive review of the Lloyd England accident scene.” Calling his review “comprehensive” is kind of like calling extremely cheap batteries “heavy duty.”
Chandler’s voice starts this nine-minute nugget of misdirection with this “narrator’s note”: “Lloyde England’s taxicab is evidence that the downing of the light poles was a real-time event that could not have been staged ahead of time, therefore a large plane really did fly into the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11. It was Wayne Coste’s excellent treatment of this topic that first motivated me to get involved with his project.”
I’ll bet it was.
The more Chandler digs his heels in and focuses on what he wants us to think is true in the official story, the more he damages his own credibility.
On the next slide, we get these words: “When treated as an accident scene using the physics of motion, the location of the taxi and debris supports Lloyd’s Survivors’ Fund statement.”
But the Fund statement itself doesn’t match the evidence or what England said. Chandler actually reads the statement and does not seem to notice that several things in it are directly contradicted by subsequent statements from England. Perhaps Chandler doesn’t know the evidence as well as he would have us believe. Or perhaps he doesn’t care what the evidence shows as long as he can spin it to support a 757 impact.
First, the Survivors’ Fund statement says the pole fell onto England’s car, which is not possible given that the pole is alleged to have penetrated the windshield without doing any damage to the hood or the rest of the car’s exterior. Second, the account says that a car stopped and a man helped England move the pole off the car. Again, it was not on the car.
It was also not a car that happened to stop but a van that was flagged down by England. And third, the account says the two men were moving the pole when they “heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion.” We never hear this claim from England in any of his interviews with CIT or Jeff Hill. He did mention witnessing an explosion at one point but never does he say it was while they were removing the pole. In the 2010 interview with Hill, he isn’t even sure there was an explosion.
Chandler goes on with this incredible statement: “In the rear seat, there are some holes consistent with the lower support arm being the impinging projectile.” On the slide we see the words: “Small holes in rear seat fabric.”
There are not “some holes,” there is ONE TINY HOLE! And to say it’s consistent with anything is absurd. If England played hockey you could say the hole is consistent with the butt end of his hockey stick poking a hole in the seat. Does that mean it was a hockey stick? When asked by CIT if there were any rips in the back seat from the pole, England actually says, no, which suggests the possibility that the very small hole had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.
On the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference, Coste gave an earlier version of his England presentation, and in response to a question from me, he said the “hole” in the back seat was “significant but not huge.” When I challenged the use of the word “significant,” he answered, “I’ve said the hole is significant because it’s a hole. It’s not a huge hole; it is what it is.”
This is how this “researcher” deals with evidence that contradicts the story he’s trying to sell. The hole looks in photos to be no more than two or three inches across. To suggest ANY part of a flying light pole made it is absurd.
Next in the video we hear about the authoritative-sounding: “Probable sequence of Lamp Post Dis-Integration.” Chandler tells us that it’s “not reasonable” to think that any part of pole 1 hit Lloyde’s taxi.
Oh really?
From the Honegger paper: In 2016, Chandler and his co-authors were sure it was the long end of the pole.
But in 2016, Chandler co-authored a 95-page critique of the research of Barbara Honegger in which it is explicitly stated that it was the long end of pole 1 that impaled England’s cab. (The other co-authors feature the propaganda team’s starting lineup: Ken Jenkins, John Wyndham, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Jonathan Cole, and Frank Legge. At this point, Coste hadn’t yet been called up to the big squad.) In this paper, these “scientists” had no problem claiming that England’s cab was hit by the long pole.
Wyndham, who has called CIT’s research of the England story “farcical,” was also perfectly comfortable saying it was the long end in his 2013 paper “The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues: A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman.” In Appendix C, Wyndham writes: “England stated that the pole, about 30 feet in length with the top portion and light fixture missing, pierced the windshield and lightly penetrated the back seat.”
I love the use of “lightly penetrated.”
Team members Legge and Warren Stutt, in their 2011 paper “Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon,” estimate the long end of pole 1, which they assert hit the cab, at 31 feet.
If the idea that it was the 30-foot mast was reasonable then, why isn’t it anymore? If the idea that two men (one of them nearly 70 years old) pulled a 200-pound pole out of the car from in front of the hood was believable in 2011 and 2013 and 2016, why isn’t it now? It reminds me of the five or so Pentagon flight paths that Coste has been “convinced” of at one time or another.
In 2018, Wyndham abandoned any pretense of using “the scientific method” when he commented on a 9/11 forum that Coste has “proved” that it was the small piece of pole 2: “Through his analysis of a series of photographs of the pole pieces for light poles #1 and #2, Coste proves that it was the much smaller lower lamp support arm of light pole #2 that entered the windshield.”
Again, how has he proved this? We never find out. This is obviously more public relations than science. We never learn what has changed since 2016 that makes it so certain now it was another piece of another pole. All we get in the Coste/Chandler video is that the piece that they claim is “consistent” with the lower support arm was obscured in some photos and then “discovered” by Coste.
From the Coste/Chandler video:
“The CIT assumption was that the large mast piece from lamp post number 1 was what Lloyde England described removing from his windshield. That would be unreasonable because the car could not have been in this position when it was hit. Also, it would have been too heavy for two men to have lifted without scratching the hood, and it did not match Lloyde England’s sketch. The physical evidence supports the statement in Lloyde’s Survivors’ Fund interview, so there is no reason to consider his testimony to be suspect.”
IT WAS NOT AN ASSUMPTION!!!! England said it clearly and repeatedly! I will provide additional proof of this below.
Coste and Chandler try to convince us that England’s use of words like “heavy” and “long” are just relative and could easily apply to the 11-foot lower support arm.
“Heavy is a relative term,” Chandler says in the video. “Anything that could cause a 69-year-old man to stumble or fall would involve some effort to get back up. We should not read too much into that single word.”
And Coste says that this shorter pole could be considered “long” in comparison to England’s own height. Spin, spin, spin.
What this duo does is start with an immovable conclusion: a 757 hit five light poles, and a piece of one of those plunged through the windshield of England’s cab. Then, they try to figure out which pole is most likely to have done that. Then they twist every nuance of the story to make it seem like it doesn’t contradict their conclusion.
On Coste’s website, where all the videos are available, we get this summary of the England segment: “Lloyd England’s taxicab is evidence that the downing of the light poles was a real-time event that could not have been staged ahead of time. This single piece of evidence therefore discredits any theory that eliminates a large plane flying along the path of the downed light poles.”
More outright deception. The taxi is evidence, all right, but it is evidence that the story told by Lloyde England doesn’t add up. But Chandler and Coste want so badly for it to be true. The claim that the England story discredits “any theory” other than theirs is just one more absurd thing they are pushing.
In the video, they even admit that the piece of the pole they claim hit the cab is “missing,” although they later show a piece on the highway that they suggest looks “consistent” with the support arm from pole 2. This is their idea of proving their case.
Proof England was talking about the long mast
Let’s review England’s statements, which absolutely prove with 100% certainty that he was talking about the long end of the first pole hitting his cab, not a much smaller part of the top of the second pole. First we had this audio exchange from The First Known Accomplice? (Russell Pickering and Dylan Avery joined CIT for the interview):
Pickering: So which piece did you take out of the window?
England: “The long piece. The part that was from the ground [unintelligible] off the, off the ground. That went all the way through the car into the back seat. It was still sticking out across the hood.”
Ranke: So you lifted that out yourself?
England: I had help from a friend of mine.
Ranke: A friend of yours helped?
England: Yeah.
Pickering: So it’s the long piece?
England: Yeah, the long piece. See it’s the long piece. See the end on it?
Ranke (to someone in the room): Show him the end.
England: Yeah, this was the piece that was in the ground.
Ranke: And that was in your cab?
England: It went through. This is the part that went through. The bent part.
On camera, CIT co-founder Aldo Marquis gets him to confirm which part of the pole it was:
Marquis: Just to confirm, it was the large piece of the base of the pole.
England: Yeah, it’s the large, yeah, the large piece. It was sticking out across the hood.
In Eye of the Storm, Ranke shows him a photograph of the cab and the long pole lying on the road and asks England to clarify (which they’ve now done many times) which part of the pole it was:
Ranke: That’s the pole, right? (showing England the photograph)
England: (England looks at the photo) That’s right. That’s after we pulled it out.
Ranke: Doesn’t that pole, doesn’t that pole, I mean does that look, I mean, look how long it is!
England: I know it’s long. It was in the car. It came from out here and it stopped in the rear seat.
Ranke: It stopped in the rear seat.
England: If anyone had been on the right side on me, the pole would have went right through them.
Ranke: But you’re saying the top bent part, the top lighter end of the pole, the very top, right, was in the back seat? The bent part?
England: That’s right.
Ranke: Now that’s the lighter end of the pole
England: That’s right.
Ranke: So that means the heavier end…
England: Was out. Sticking out.
Ranke: Over the hood?
England: That’s right.
The long piece. The piece that was in the ground. The heavier end was sticking out. Again, the much shorter arm that Coste and Chandler are speculating actually hit the cab does not have a heavier end and a lighter end. Only the main part of the mast does.
England then explains that the reason this large pole did not damage the hood was that it entered the cab on a downward angle (his hand motion suggests about a 45-degree angle). This is an even less likely scenario because, had it entered this way, the pole would have obliterated the passenger seat and plunged right through the back seat and possibly through the floor. It would not have simply stopped “at” the back seat, as England describes.
With no sign the pole was held up by anything other than the dashboard, it would surely have fallen onto the hood and caused damage. And at such an angle it would have been impossible to remove by two men standing in front of the hood of the car, which is how England says they removed it in The First Known Accomplice?
The exchange in Eye of the Storm continues:
Ranke: The problem is, people wonder, how come the pole is so long, if the lighter end is inside, that means a lot of that big, long pole has got to be sticking out over.
England: That’s true.
Ranke: But what held it up?
England: The car, the dash. It went right through the dashboard.
Ranke: Through the dashboard.
England: The car, the car, It didn’t hit like this, it hit at a angle. Like it was driven down.
Ranke: But did it go through the floor of the car?
England: No, it stopped in the rear seat.
Ranke: It stopped. Did it rip the rear seat?
England: You can see it. The car’s still there. It did not rip the rear seat.
Ranke: We should go take a look.
Then, removing any possible doubt, Ranke asks him directly about the pole’s length (53 minutes in):
Ranke: So, you’re saying, how long do you think the pole was? Approximately?
England: It was sticking out, way over…
Ranke: No, I mean the whole pole.
England: I’d say the pole was about 30, 40 foot long. It was down on the ground like a telegram pole, sticking up. The base of it was in concrete.
Ranke: But the base, the bottom part, was outside?
England: Right.
Ranke: The top, bent part was inside.
England: Right.
Ranke: And the pole, you’re thinking, was maybe 30 to 40 feet long.
England: I would say that. And actually that can be confirmed by measuring the pole.
Ranke: Well, yeah, VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) says those poles are about 40 feet long.
England: Okay.
Ranke: But it was cut off at the top a little bit, so maybe it was a bit shorter.
England: No, it wasn’t cut off. That pole wasn’t cut off.
Ranke: Well, the top lamp part was cut off.
This last exchange seals the deal. There is simply no way he is talking about a short piece from another pole. England even estimates the portion of the pole that was inside the taxi at about “five feet,” leaving between 25 and 35 feet sticking out beyond the windshield. Again, this story is completely unbelievable, but it is still what England claims.
In the interview with Hill in 2010, England is just as specific about the size of the pole:
England: “I think the pole was about 40 foot long.”
There is simply no doubt about what England is saying. And for Coste and Chandler to say that England was having words put in his mouth or that he was trying to dispute a claim by Ranke that it was the long end, is simply a deliberate act of deception. If Coste and Chandler are honest about this, they will change their position as a result of this article. But I don’t think that will happen. They will stick to their story even though it is plainly false.
Expect Coste to repeat his false narrative at the propaganda team’s “conference” in Denver on May 4, which will put forward a single point of view: that a 757 hit the Pentagon. I don’t think this really is a conference; I think it’s going to be a show – a piece of propaganda theater.
And expect Coste, Chandler, and the rest of the team to continue their unrelenting attacks against Ranke and Marquis of CIT, who uncovered some of the most critical evidence we have proving that the government story of what happened at the Pentagon is a lie.
After 17 years, I think we should focus on challenging the official story, not propping up most of it. For some reason, these two don’t agree.
Part 1 of this report can be read here.
Deliberate deception.
There is just no room for this “maybe Coste and colleagues are merely mistaken or simply interpret the evidence differently” crap.
Good work as usual Craig.
Thanks, Adam.
No room at all. It is blatantly obvious that these two intend to mislead the movement about what England has said.
Tragically Craig, I can see that you are doing the same thing, I am certain without intentionally meaning to mislead the movement “about what England has said”, as Coste and Chandler are doing, but the effect is the same.
Many times in your quotes from CIT’s videos, you have deleted crucial parts of the testimony from Lloyde England which absolutely proves that he was NOT talking about that massive 30 foot pole.
As you accused Coste and Chandler of … “perhaps in the hope that few will actually go through the video and audio to check their claims.”
Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis created a Straw Pole Argument by showing Lloyde photos of a pole which never impacted his cab, on a bridge 400 yards from where this event occurred, then telling him, “THIS is the pole that went through your car”.
Lloyde was not internet savvy, he had never seen these photos before, and that pole did have a bend in it after all, as did the much smaller one that he pulled frmo his windshield … but he strenuously denied that it was THIS pole, by specifying,
IT DID NOT HAVE A END ON IT!
THAT pole was STILL IN THE GROUND, in concrete!
THAT pole was STANDING UP, LIKE A TELEGRAPH POLE!!
THAT pole was NOT CUT OFF!!
You have, just like CIT, as was intended by the perpetrators of 9/11 Pentagon who staged the Bridge-Cab-Pole scene, been thoroughly deceived by those glossy photos which were not taken until 11 minutes after the impact.
Turns out that was plenty of time for the Great Cab Switcheroo to be pulled off right there under everybody’s noses.
Very disappointing that you have refused to check the video evidence which proves your effort in compiling these two studies was an embarrassing waste of your precious time.
Here is a sample of the frames from a video showing LLOYDE’S CAB, Detective DON FORTUNATO’s CAR, and the TOW TRUCK, beside the cemetery wall, where Lloyde England many times testified that he was – at 9:42 a.m.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165884@N02/47747892461/in/dateposted-public/
And here are some frames from a video showing the WHITE VAN both arriving at the cemetery wall beside Lloyde’s cab, then leaving again about 90 seconds later after the Silent Stranger had helped Lloyde pull the pole out of the cab.
Also included is a composite image from a different video, showing the major players in this staged scene, all beside the cemetery wall at 9:42:00 a.m., prepping for the Bridge-Cab-Pole scene photo opp. to come from 9:48 a.m.
Operatives’ vehicles present on this image were driven by :
Detective Don Fortunato
Steve Riskus
Tow Truck driver & assistant
White Van driver & possibly assistants needed to help with the bridge scene
Pentagon Police Officer Aubrey Davis, Donald Rumsfeld’s bodyguard that day.
Yet still you are gunning for poor humble honest long-suffering hard-working cabbie Lloyde England! Have you no conscience at all Craig?
I believe you do, and can only hope that this information keeps you awake for many nights until you can unravel the snow job that CIT and those photos did on your head.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165884@N02/40781372133/in/dateposted-public/
I think you’re the one pulling the snow job. First, I see a dark vehicle but nothing that identifies it as Lloyde’s cab.
Second, you keep saying Lloyde is telling the whole truth but you don’t explain how they moved him and his cab with a tow truck without him being aware of it.
HEY YOU Having discovered 9-11 absurdity in 2014, aside from the Mark Phillips / Amy Goodman video, CIT was the first avenue I took in exploring 9-11. The lads seemed 100% genuine to me – as far as their motives for disclosing the LIES, and I think they did (do) a really fine job. I have re-watched saved videos & I don’t have to re-watch anything concerning this short / long pole thing, because I have a good memory, & I can hear in my head Craig Ranke asking Lloyde which part of the pole went thru the windshield. As for the Craig that writes this article, he is just as thorough. What is missing is LOGIC, in all capacities regarding the probability of the Official Story being REALITY. Also, Mr England forgot to mention that this ‘silent stranger / friend of his’, whatever, put Lloyde on his shoulders to REACH the LONG pole, and hence remove it, before Lloyde fell to the ground with the pole on top of him. Good thing Lloyde survived the day with nary a scratch. Same as something else…
Pardon?? “Silent Stranger put Lloyde on his shoulders to reach the pole”??
Lloyde showed exactly where the pole came to. He indicated several times, with his hand at the level of the front bumper, about 18 inches above the hood, that the pole extended to there. Those who believe that the pole in his windshield was ever 30 feet long, were not paying attention to Lloyde’s testimony. He never did say this. He drew the pole to scale, he demonstrated in person both on the 9/11 cab and the 1995 cab. The pole only extended from the back seat to the front of the car, and the upper end was about waist-high. Anything else is a figment of the collective imagination fomented by the official staged photos of the cab posed next to a downed light pole which we know was never hit by a plane.
And as Lloyde affirmed scores of times on CIT’s 2 videos, he was not on the bridge when it happened. He was opposite the Heliport, north of the Columbia Pike exit sign. He was a genuine northside witness who saw the plane fly across his car when he was 400 yards north of the bridge.
Working out HOW this could have happened, is the real key to this conundrum.
We know that England was inconsistent in his claims. His description in the video of how he pulled the pole out of the car does not match with his repeated statements that the pole was 30-40 feet long. He is very clear that it is the long mast of the pole that hit his cab.
Ruby, I am still waiting for you tell me about all the quotes I edited to remove proof that England was not describing the long section of pole 1. Please address this before posting anything else.
You wrote: “Craig McKee has deleted many key statements by Lloyde England from his video interviews. I hope this is a series of inadvertent omissions and not a deliberate ploy.”
Tell me about the “many key statements” that I deleted.
Sure, Craig. I don’t know whether you did the transcripts yourself, or copied from somewhere, but I have transcribed both videos myself, and there are many details missing in the passages you used in these two articles.
“The FIRST KNOWN ACCOMPLICE”
This 2006 CIT video begins with an audio interview with Lloyde, taken while they were setting up the cameras. A still image of the cab posed beside the huge Downed Pole# 1 on the bridge is overlaid. CIT point out features to Lloyde, but we will never know to exactly what they or Lloyde are referring in their discussion.
5:40
ALDO MARQUIS:
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.
LLOYDE :
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?
LLOYDE :
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 BECAUSE HE IS BEING SHOWN 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. ]
CRAIG :
Wow.
LLOYDE :
It went all the way through the car into the back seat.
Still sticking out across the hood.
CRAIG :
Did you lift that out yourself?
LLOYDE :
I had help. A friend of mine.
CRAIG:
Plenty of help?
SHIRLEY :
It’s the long piece, right?
LLOYDE :
Yeah this the long piece. This piece.
{LLOYDE NOW SMELLS A RAT.}
WAIT A MINUTE … LET’S JUST ….
See this the long piece.
SEE THE END ON IT?
RUSSELL PICKERING :
That was sticking up …
DYLAN AVERY
Show him the end.
{LLOYDE says it was NOT that long pole they are showing him.}
06:34
LLOYDE :
IT DIDN’T HAVE A END ON IT … THE POLE …
CRAIG typically interrupts Lloyde :
This end right here?
LLOYDE :
Yeah, this the BASE,
this the piece that was IN THE GROUND.
CRAIG :
Right. And that was in your cab? Sticking out of your cab?
06:40
LLOYDE :
NO – it WAS NOT … it DIDN’T …
it went through …
SHIRLEY :
The TOP PART …
LLOYDE :
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 of his cab at a location far from where it had been hit by the pole, 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 blinkered 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 everybody knew where he was, so he did not 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.
The BASE was IN CONCRETE.
It was STICKING UP LIKE A TELEGRAPH POLE.
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 to avoid their interview. This is the M.O. of a lynch mob.
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 apologized when it seemed he had cut someone off, and let them express themselves fully. When they gave testimony which appeared unlikely or even contradictory of their earlier recorded testimonies, he did not question it. He allowed them to plot their own position, and the flight path of the plane relative to it, on overhead maps, without.
But when Lloyde pointed out on an overhead map exactly where he had been, Craig scoffed at 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) on a drive by the cemetery wall where the cab had been, TWICE, Craig openly ridiculed Lloyde. He argued the point with Lloyde continuously.
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-of-Citgo witness.
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 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
ALDO :
When it hit you, you were in the middle of the Bridge, right?
LLOYDE :
[PUZZLED “What you talkin bout Willis” LOOK]
NO, I WASN’T ON THE BRIDGE!
ALDO :
Well it’s an overpass.
LLOYDE :
[SHAKES HEAD]
NO! I WASN’T ON NO OVERPASS. I was on flat ground.
ALDO :
Yeah well it’s on, but it’s an overpass.
LLOYDE :
[PUZZLED LOOK, SHAKES HEAD]
NO. NO. Light poles were …
ALDO :
And is the tunnel below you?
LLOYDE :
Light poles were like that over there but they were aluminium poles. And they bolted to the base.
BUT IT WAS SOLID GROUND.
Ruby, you have insinuated that I selectively edited the transcripts to give a false impression of what Lloyde said. But you have failed to show this. We know he claimed to have been farther north. We know the photos show him just past the bridge. You are blowing smoke here, and I think you hare doing this to add to the false criticism of CIT.
You are just as wrong as Coste and Chandler are when you say that England was denying it was the long end of pole 1 that he was talking about hitting his cab. I have shown that he said this repeatedly. Nothing you have countered with contradicts this. What is your game here?
Craig,
Here is a copy of Russell Pickering’s record of his interview done with Lloyde England before Aldo, Craig & Dylan interviewed him.
RUSSELL PICKERING interviewed LLOYDE ENGLAND in 2006 before CIT came out to Arlington.
Quote:
“For a split second he saw a plane and then a piece of the pole came through his window.
He described the plane as, “a big one like at the airport with 2 engines”.
He did not recall any markings and did not state that it was American Airlines.
He “wrassled” with the car and turned to avoid the other piece of the pole in the road. He was doing “around 50-55 mph”. He had a little driver’s pride when he said, “I didn’t skid the wheels”.
The car “cut off” and he got out.
He mentioned several times how quiet it was.
Then he said the people on the other side of the divider were “huddled up” and asked if he was OK.
After describing that he told me, “That hole was too small for the plane”.
He reiterated that even though he was “standing right there” he couldn’t explain what happened to the plane.
I asked if he saw the plane hit and he said, “I didn’t care about no plane I was trying to get my car pulled over”.
He was originally in the center southbound lane.”
1. Lloyde saw a twin-engine jet
2. for a split second
3. then a PIECE OF POLE came through the window.
4. He swerved to avoid another PIECE OF POLE on the road.
5. People across the divider asked if he was OK.
6. The hole was too small for the plane.
7. He was “STANDING RIGHT THERE” at the Pentagon, opposite the hole.
The ways that this tells us the truth of Lloyde’s account versus the Official Fauiry Tale, are the following.
Lloyde only saw the plane for a split second.
That is because the cemetery bank topped by trees, was to his right, obscuring his view of the approach of the plane.
If he had been approaching the bridge hundreds of yards further south, he may not have seen the plane at all, because it would have travelled behind him on the North-of-Citgo path.
It certainly could not have knocked down any light poles, and nor would a downed pole on the bridge have hit his cab.
See, this is the logical fallacy in CIT’s early work! They interviewed Lloyde, McGraw etc before they inderstood about the Northside path. So they falsely interpreted the evidence of those witnesses in light of the fake Official Story.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165884@N02/33886057658/in/dateposted-public/
3. Lloyde stated that A “PIECE OF POLE” came through his window.
This sure does not sound like a 30-foot, almost entire light pole.
Numerous times, Lloyde demonstrated the length of that PIECE OF POLE.
Telling his story to camera in 2006, LLoyde put his hand at the place above the front of the hood where this pole extended to, and said that it was “sticking out across the hood”.
He never said ti extended further than the front of the car.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165884@N02/33886059058/in/dateposted-public/
Later in the 2006 video, Russell Pickering tried to re-enact removing the pole from the windscreen.
Russell made expansive arm movements as he tried to estimate the dimensions of that enormous pole.
But Lloyde corrected Russell.
He said, again holding his hand just above the front of the hood,
“NO, it was DOWN THIS WAY”.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165884@N02/33886058238/in/dateposted-public/
In 2008, Lloyde gave his third physical demontration of exactly where the pole extended to. He very carefully and deliberately placed himself at the front of the hood of his damaged cab preserved on his country property, held his hand about 18 inches above the front of the hood, and told Craig Ranke,
“The pole went through, it went through OVER HERE, straight back”.
Lloyde then specified exactly where the pole entered the windshield, which is another point you have not got correct Craig. because you made a statement that the pole entered the windshield through the large hole in the centre of it.
Lloyde of course, was there, and knew that the pole speared the windshield right at the lower edge, making a 4-inch diameter hole in the glass before smashing through the dashboard, knocking the centre seatback into the rear, and ending up in the back seat. Both Lloyde and Craig unambiguously indicate the 4 inch hole on this photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165884@N02/33886058558/in/dateposted-public/
Lloyde knew that a 4-inch hole could only be made by a 4-inch pole.
He stated that it was about 5 feet from the rear seat to the dash, which is almost as far as the length of the hood; and therefore he had to know that there was no 30-foot x 6 – 8 inch diameter pole sticking out of his cab.
Of course, Lloyde also drew the pole in to scale on the car diagram which Russell Pickering drew for him. You suggest that this pole was drawn “obviously longer than the front of the car”, which is absurd. It is a sketch! If it is longer, then only by about 6 inches, not by 20 feet.
4. He swerved to avoid the other PIECE OF POLE ON THE ROAD.
Lloyde described two pieces of pole, neither of which “had a end on it”, because although he “never saw where the pole came from”, he was told by perps and therefore assumed, that the top of a light pole had its top cut off by the plane wing. He told Jeff Hill in 2010 that this piece of pole had been “carried on the plane’s wing” and then fallen down on his cab. Somebody obviously fed him this line, as he had no view of the pole before it went trhough his windshield.
He stated that the pole with the END ON IT, was still IN THE GROUND … “THAT POLE WAS NOT CUT OFF”. Only the top part was “cut off”.
Therer were TWO PIECES OF POLE laying on the road beside the cab on the bridge, obviously posed there. These were relocated from the cemetery site along with the cab.
Detective Don Fortunato confirms Lloyde’s statement.
from Fortunato’s testimony :
Don Fortunato, a plainclothes detective with the Arlington (Va.) Police Department, was walking into his office, when he heard a muffled explosion—construction, he thought. Then his radio started squawking news of a plane crash at the Pentagon.
“I grabbed my radio, ran to my car and pulled on my bulletproof vest and headed toward the thick, black smoke billowing out of the sky,” he said.
“Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by PIECES OF LAMPPOSTS.”
Further details could be gained from Fortunato if he was prepared to be interviewd and reveal the truth, because he was parked beside Lloyde England immediately after the pole hit the cab, beside the cemetery retaining wall. Fortunato saw the cab with the pole still poking through the windshield.
But, being a complicit operative, he is not going to admit this of course.
5. People across the divider asked if he was OK.
TONY TERRONEZ’ undisputed testimony 100% confirms Lloyde’s true story. The only point of differrence is that Tony Terronez says “rear windshield” instead of “front windshield”. But no other evidence exists for a car with the identical damage done to Lloyde’s cab.
Terronez was about 100 yards north fo teh Heliport, when the plane hit. He heard the pole smash through the windshield, and after a little time, he and the driver in front of him, went to the driver and asked him if he was OK. He describes the damage thus:
“And the next thing you know, I heard this big crash come from somewhere. It sounded like glass being shattered and I thought maybe, at first, it was one of my windows so I popped up to look but everything was fine.
“But when I looked to the car next to me I realized that something went through (the driver’s) rear windshield and shattered it. There was a hole where you could see that something went through it. …
“I and the guy in front of me went to the car next to me and asked the driver if he was all right and if he was OK to drive. He was in shock, you could tell. He just kept looking straight ahead. He didn’t even look back, he was so fixated on looking north. He didn’t want to look south at the Pentagon. And it took a couple of times for me and the other guy to say, Can you drive? Hello? Are you OK? Are you OK? And he said, Yeah, I think I can drive. We asked him again, Can you drive? and that time he was more sure and said, Yes, yes, I can drive.”
7. Lloyde was “STANDING RIGHT THERE” at the pentagon.
Lloyde was so close to the impact site that he could tell that the hole was too small for the plane to have entered, but there was no sign of it on the lawn. Lloyde did not believe the plane had hit the Pentagon, and nor did Shirley. The cemetery wall is right across from the Heliport, close to the impact site. Lloyde stated that from his car’s position, he looked south and to his left, at the fire in the Pentagon.
Had he been on the bridge at that time, he would have had to look north and to his right, and would have been much further away. The bridge is about 180 yards south of the south face of the building.
Time to retract your entire article, Craig. Lloyde clearly said “PIECE OF POLE.” 😉
I agree with Craig, that Lloyde England says on multiple occasions that it’s the upper end of the long vertical mast pole that entered his cab. He’s not referring to the shorter “arm pole” that supports the lamp.
So there’s no way that Lloyde’s statements support Coste & Chandler’s interpretation. At best, it’s possible that Lloyde was confused and unable to tell the difference between the mast pole and the arm pole.
Also, in ‘The Eye of the Storm’ at 53 minutes, England seems to be agreeing with Ranke that the entire 40 foot pole was lodged with its top end in his car. He disagrees that the top end of the pole was cut off.
But this needs to be considered in context of England’s other remarks. He indicates several times that it was just a piece of that 40 foot pole that was stuck in the car. In his sketch and in gesticulations near the car, it seems that he thinks the piece sticking out of the windshield didn’t extend much beyond the hood.
So maybe in ‘The Eye of the Storm’ at 53 minutes, England is trying to say that the top end of the pole was intact, but the bottom was cut off.
My feeling is that England comes across as very sincere and well-intentioned, but not particularly good at communicating his thoughts, nor at understanding what Ranke and Marquis are trying to ask him.
Ruby Gray’s idea that Lloyde and his cab were towed 300 yards from the actual scene of the crime, to join the fake tableau at the bridge, fits a lot of the pieces together. I’m intrigued.
Jerry, there is no reason to think England was confused about which pole he claimed to have removed from the car. The long end of pole 1 is clearly what he was talking about. It was right beside his car. He pointed right at it in the CIT video and said, “This shows the pole here…”
So I can’t agree with your feeling that he is sincere and well-intentioned.
Craig,
First of all, I am not saying that I know for a fact whether England was sincere and well-intentioned. I’m saying that he comes across that way, in his manner of speaking and his demeanor.
Figuring out what he’s trying to say is another thing. But as you say, he is adamant that he was by the heliport when his cab was hit by the lamp post. So if you accept that he’s wrong about that: it doesn’t matter if he’s a liar, or if he’s just incompetent and deranged. Either way, his testimony counts for nothing.
When you quote him saying “This shows the pole here…” pointing at the photograph — you’re referring to the ‘Eye of the Storm’ video at 30:00, right? The context was, that England was having an argument with Ranke, about where he was, and how to interpret the pictures.
Here’s how I’d transcribe that, with my notes of his gesticulations towards the map:
“You gotta understand, this does not show it.
This shows the pole, HERE. [that is, by the bridge].
It does not show anything down HERE. [that is, by the heliport].
I was not down HERE [by the bridge].”
In other words, he was stating that the picture with the pole, was not the same as his recollection of the true situation.
I’m not convinced that he was making any claims at all, in this particular context, whether the pole in the picture was the same as the one he pulled from his car, or whether it wasn’t.
I think his point was, that the pole was shown in the wrong place. Elsewhere, he says it was a PIECE of a mast pole, that was lodged in his car. Not the entire pole, and not the lower part (which was STILL IN THE GROUND, in concrete, standing up, like a telegraph pole), but just the upper piece.
Have you looked at Ruby Gray’s flickr photos and his Let’s Roll forum posts? Ruby has found images showing vehicles at the cemetery retaining wall, that very well might be Lloyde’s taxicab, accompanied by a tow truck.
If the incident with the pole in the taxicab happened where Lloyde says it did, and his vehicle was subsequently towed, then maybe Lloyde was telling the truth after all. Eh?
Sadly, I know this line of reasoning is not going to get anywhere with Chandler & Coste. They’re going to go right on believing that the horizontal arm from Pole #2 landed in Lloyde’s car; and that he was confused and/or lying both about where the incident occurred, and which pole it was. As Ruby Gray says: Chandler & Coste are not honoring Lloyde as a truthful & accurate witness.
On the other hand: if you believe that Lloyde England was a liar, or crazy, then doesn’t the car “speak for itself”? It must have been hit by an arm pole, not a 40 foot mast pole, otherwise there would be damage to the hood.
Jerry,
I’m afraid you are very wrong. His testimony is anything but worthless. If his testimony is a lie then this is very important. He is used to support the official story. And he is used by Coste and Chandler to support a 757 impact.
You write:
No, he was saying he was in a different location. He did not say anything about the pole not being the way he remembered it. He said “This shows the pole here…” He did not say anything to raise doubt about his memory of the pole itself.
He does nothing of the kind. He never says it was the upper piece.
How do you figure? Did he ever say his cab was towed to another location within minutes of the event? How could he be telling the truth. Even if Ruby’s unproven claim is correct then England would have to be aware that the cab was moved. This is all a distraction.
How can you support Ruby’s claim that Lloyde was telling the whole truth? What can you actually show to back this when England says so much that can’t be true?
No one said he was crazy. And the car is one piece of evidence while his statements are also evidence. To conclude that what you have is nonsensical. If England lied about his car being hit by a long pole, why would you then assume it was actually a short pole?
You have not made any sense here.
Craig,
About the fact that England’s testimony was consistent with the car being hit by a PIECE of the 40 foot pole, and not the entire pole: if what I’ve already said doesn’t convince you, and what Ruby Gray said doesn’t convince you, and what Adam Syed said doesn’t convince you, and for that matter what Chandler & Coste said doesn’t convince you: there’s nothing left for me to say. We just don’t agree.
England says that he was accosted by a police officer and thrown to the ground shortly after he removed the pole from his car. Ruby Gray’s suggestion is that perhaps the cop also administered some sort of consciousness-altering drug, or perhaps just knocked England senseless.
Next, Gray’s idea is that England was loaded into a brown Jeep Cherokee and taken from the heliport to the overpass, to join his car which had just been towed. I’m sorry I didn’t spell Gray’s theory out in sufficient detail before.
I could offer an alternative suggestion, that maybe there was a Lloyde England look-alike on the scene. I think most JFK “Truthers” agree there was an Oswald look-alike involved in the JFK assassination? It could be the same thing here.
“If England lied about his car being hit by a long pole, why would you then assume it was a short pole?”
The damage was consistent with it being hit with some sort of pole. There was a hole in the windshield; the front seat was bent over; the frame of the back seat was also bent slightly; and there were two circular impressions of a pole end impressed in the back seat.
And yet, it could not have possibly been hit by a 40-foot-long pole flying from an airplane, otherwise there would have been some damage to the hood.
Therefore, the cab was hit by a short pole, QED. It doesn’t matter what England said. Unless you are entertaining some theory that the damage was carefully faked to look like the car was hit by a short pole.
Jerry, I’m afraid I don’t see anything coherent in what you are saying. Much is simply guesswork and some things are just badly drawn conclusions based on a misreading of the evidence. First, I never said it was the entire pole. Obviously it was not. But it was certainly the majority of the length of the full pole, and it was the piece attached to the ground, according to England.
What Coste and Chandler say does not convince me because it is based on a dishonest representation of England’s comments. It is also based on the idea that we should ignore the false statements England made and restrict ourselves to what they imagine might have made the observed damage. This is not how detection works. What Ruby says should not convince anyone, for reasons I’m not going into in this response.
Where do you get the idea that the “frame” of the back seat was bent? What does that mean? How can you possibly agree with the idea that there are two marks on the back seat that came from a small piece of a pole that is not close to the right size to make these marks? And why would there be marks like this from a pole going fast enough to penetrate a windshield? None of this makes any sense.
No, the cab was NOT hit by the small arm of the pole. And the damage was obviously staged.
Craig,
I can see we aren’t going to agree here, because I don’t see any obvious problems with Ruby Gray’s theory. But I will answer your questions.
There is a gap between the vertical and horizontal cushions of the back seat, which I take it to mean that the frame has been bent by impact. The two marks appear to be about 4 inches in diameter, which is about the same size as the lower hole in the windshield. It doesn’t take a lot of velocity for a moving pole to smash through a windshield, and such a pole would have lost more velocity in the process of bending the front seat.
So, I say the damage was caused by penetration of a pole approximately 4 inches diameter. Or at least, it was faked so as to appear that way.
I agree that the bottom part of the 40 foot long mast pole was much larger than 4 inches, but I don’t recall seeing any pictures that would show the diameter of the top of the mast pole. It seems credible to me that the upper part of the mast pole would taper down to four inches.
If indeed the cab was hit by a projectile near the heliport, I don’t think it was actually a lamp pole. I haven’t heard of any lamp poles that were hit near the heliport. Ruby Gray thinks it was a fake piece of a lamp pole, thrown from some sort of lamp pole cannon.
Seems crazy, but is it really so much crazier than everything else we know went on that day?
Of course I can’t prove that the damage was caused by a 4 inch pole penetrating the windshield. It might have been completely faked, as you say, which would make Lloyde a complete liar about every aspect of the incident. That’s a coherent interpretation, and might very well be correct.
But I don’t see anything incoherent about Gray’s theory either, and I don’t see what he’s done to deserve your accusation that he is “blowing smoke” or your insinuation that he has some hidden agenda.
where os the plane debris from the pole impact…should have almost torn off a wing?? and the poles seem very intact for such an impact, unless it “just” skimmed the poles, but they were torn off their bases. need to see the bases..how they were torn off and how bent they were…puts the plane very very low, at massive speed. Ground effect near impossible to deal with, and the blast from the engines,,, blow a car over??? Sound would have been deafening, no mention
Ground effect was essentially zero, as the plane had to be zero lift because of its very high velocity.
Lloyde did mention the extremely loud sound—then sudden quite.
The plane had advanced to full throttle while maintaining a dive. Albert Hemphill made this point, as he heard it “spooling up” in a dive.
It is true there really is no room for doubt about Chandler and Coste’s dishonesty. Great piece of work Craig, it is just amazing to me how much work you have put into this.
I would like to hear from some of the so called leaders in the truth movement about this. People like DRG should at the very least comment on this since the flagrant dishonesty and deception of Chandler and Coste is laid bare. Can you really be a “truther” if you refuse to confront someone who has been caught red handed telling lies about 9/11? Is DRG really a truther? Can he still be a truther if he does not address this directly? If DRG allows Chandler to be involved with the consensus panel after knowing full well he is a liar what does that say about him? Troubling questions to be sure.
Thank you Craig for your herculean efforts in the quest for 9/11 justice and truth. The truth movement owes you a tremendous debt whether they know it or not. It is time for others to step up now, take the gloves off, and confront Chandler and Coste the way We Are Change Los Angeles used to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4R9TkOSEW8
Get it on video too!
Thanks, Adam. I was a lot of work. I just hope that truthers are paying attention to what is being done to the movement by this group. I wish there were more truthers prepared to stand up and be heard about this.
grasping at straws. Every civil engineering student knows that lampposts are made to be frangible at the base. This is to prevent vehicles from folding themselves around these posts in the event of a collision. What happens is that the bolt studs have a cut to be aligned flush with the concrete base upon installation. https://www.novapole.com/product-details-62-frangible…
Even a medium jet is several thousand times heavier than the standard car and the leading edge slats and the receiving, conforming leading edge of the wing (hidden when the slats are retracted) https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg… are pieces milled out of solid aluminum and literally are stiff enough to protect the wing from penetration. I have seen a spinning car( on ice) take out just such a post and have seen the post take out two parked cars. What you are seeing is the random effects of the post’s collision with the car and the random placement of the post as the car started a beginning of a spin.
Ron, you have ignored the entire subject of my article.
Craig, I just read your article.
You have a real vendetta against Chandler. Are you incapable of disagreeing agreeably?
We know Chandler to be a serious minded researcher and one of the most valuable contributors to the Truth Movement. He deserves better than this slanderous diatribe.
Repeatedly attacking the credibility of a key person in the Truth Movement is something an infiltrator/disruptor would do. So I ask you to stop attacking Chandler and making yourself appear to be an infiltrator/disruptor. Adults can disagree agreeably as I just did for hours with a mutual friend.
From your article:
“Chandler, of course, rushes to support Coste in his false claim that England did not agree it was the long end of the pole. I draw your attention to a recent interview:”
Chandler response in Talboo interview 1:11:38 “And as Wayne Coste has pointed out, there is nowhere in any of CIT’s videos that Lloyd England unambiguously identifies that long 25-foot piece as the piece that, he’s not claiming that’s the piece that hit his car.”
Coste was wrong about England never saying that it was the long part of the pole, but as Chandler noted “Who cares?” The man was in shock (Wouldn’t you be if something crashed through your windshield, coming within inches of killing you?) so he didn’t remember what part of the pole it was. BFD.
You seize on a relatively unimportant detail and use it to slander and attack Chandler’s credibility.
Chandler continues “My point is this: Who cares whether Lloyd England might have misidentified the piece or not. That’s not the point. The point is, we can account for what happened just based on the physical evidence.”
“Further, Coste has reproduced a deceptively edited statement that CIT co-founder Craig Ranke makes in Eye of the Storm to make it seem like Ranke believes the exact opposite of what he does. Readers of this article can watch the appropriate sections of the videos and judge for themselves whether I am correct in stating that Coste and Chandler have engaged in deliberate deception.”
You have taken something Coste wrote and included Chandler in your charge of “deliberate deception.” That is itself a deliberate deception – and slander.
Chris,
When I read things like this from you I really am at a loss for how to start. But let’s start with hypocrisy. You talk about “disagreeing agreeably”? And then you say I’m acting like an infiltrator. Bad start. You unleash the most vicious attacks against CIT, and that’s okay. Chandler calls CIT “scum” and “a nightmare” but that’s not the behavior of an infiltrator? He calls me a “propagandist” whose article about Chandler’s attack on CIT was “trash.” I guess if you agree with the opinion then the standard changes.
You call my article a “slanderous diatribe.” Let’s look at the definition of “slander”: it is “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” First, it’s not slander because it’s not spoken (and, for that matter, diatribe is also verbal). But we’ll leave that aside. More importantly, I have not said anything false in the article. If you claim I have, please point that out now. If I have not made false statements about him, then it isn’t slander (or libel, which is for written statements). You all seem to mistake strong criticism for defamation. They are not the same thing.
You want me to treat David Chandler with reverence because he’s a “respected” researcher? He was when he dealt with the towers, but he is not over the Pentagon. He has made the choice to risk his credibility by taking this position. I wish he wouldn’t. Surely, you must wish he would take the focus off this subject for the good of the movement. Have you told him? Have you urged him to back off his false statements about Lloyde England?
I have no vendetta. I don’t care about Chandler one way or the other. Nothing would make me happier than never hearing his or Coste’s name again. But I can’t get away from them because they are everywhere. And most of that time is spent pushing a part of the official story instead of challenging the story. How many more years should this go on? Do you want to be having this discussion with me in 10 years? I sure don’t.
As to our mutual friend, didn’t you say she did things that an infiltrator would do? (“The problem is. [sic] You and [mutual friend] are doing what infiltrators/disruptors would do. I have discussed this point with [mutual friend] and we are still friends.”) I’m so glad for you that you have such a tolerant friend. I’m not sure I would be as forgiving as she is.
Next, let’s go over your considerable distortion of what I wrote.
First, Coste was not “wrong”; he was dishonest. Surely you know the difference. He said something he knew to be untrue. And then Chandler did the same. The way to confirm that their comments were dishonest is to watch their reaction to this article. If they change their position on what England said after seeing this, then we can make a better case that they were just wrong. But if they don’t, then they are simply lying.
Your suggestion that England was in shock and therefore got this “unimportant” detail wrong is approaching dishonesty as well. How would someone get a detail like that wrong over and over? And how would you know this, anyway? Did you use the “scientific method” to determine this? I’m just wondering because we hear so much about how you are all using that. I think I know what it is: you want people to believe England so you can’t consider that he might have been lying.
Chris, you seem to love to claim that something I’ve said is wrong and then accuse me of lying about it. You’ve done this again here. When I write this: “Readers of this article can watch the appropriate sections of the videos and judge for themselves whether I am correct in stating that Coste and Chandler have engaged in deliberate deception,” I am obviously making a broad statement about what they are saying about England’s position. The clue is in my mention of “the videos,” which have nothing to do with Coste deceptively editing Ranke’s comment. If you cared about the truth you would join me in condemning Coste for this, but you shift the focus over to a false claim that I was blaming Chandler for the editing of the quote.
Here is your chance: why not condemn Coste for manipulating a quote in most dishonest fashion? Will you do this? Will you call on both of them to stop claiming that England never says it was the long end of the pole when he obviously did?
Your group is saying that England’s story is true and that he told it honestly, although there is one thing you think he was mistaken about: that it was pole 1 he was claiming hit. And this just happens to be the one thing that proves his story false. For 15 years, you all maintained that his cab was hit by pole 1 and that he and the silent stranger were capable of removing it. Now, because Coste speculates that it was pole 2, you think it’s impossible that it was pole 1.
In fact, it is impossible that pole 1 hit the cab, for many reasons. For one, Pole 1 can’t work for you because the pole could not have gotten past the fuselage. But that fact never bothered any of you before. You only acknowledge it couldn’t be pole 1 once you have another version of the story that protects your conclusion of a 757 on the official path. Very convenient.
Now, your pals claim Coste has “proved” it was pole 2. Do you think he has proved it? Please tell me how. Please explain how you know England was telling the truth to the best of his ability. Please tell me how he could refer to the long pole sitting next to his cab on numerous occasions when he really meant it was a piece that was 11 feet long.
You are doing what Coste and Chandler always do: you are doing everything you can to fix the flaws in the official story so that you protect the part of the story that you have put all your focus on. You say I slander Chandler. Please list the false statements I have made about him. If you can’t think of any, then stop making that charge.
Craig
McKee “you say I’m acting like an infiltrator”
No, I said that you are doing what an infiltrator would do, which is true.
McKee “You unleash the most vicious attacks against CIT”
Please, there was nothing vicious about my rebuttals. You are grossly misrepresenting what I said.
McKee “You call my article a “slanderous diatribe.” Let’s look at the definition of “slander”: it is “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” First, it’s not slander because it’s not spoken”
Thank you for the semantics correction.
McKee “I have not said anything false in the article. If you claim I have, please point that out now.”
Yes you have. “First, Coste was not “wrong”; he was dishonest. Surely you know the difference. He said something he knew to be untrue. And then Chandler did the same.”
You know that Coste and Chandler don’t believe that England ever unambiguously said that it was the 25 to 30 foot pole that went thru his windshield. Therefore they were not being dishonest. But you are being dishonest when you accused them of being dishonest.
McKee “most of that time is spent pushing a part of the official story instead of challenging the story”
Chandler, as much or more than anyone, has challenged the official story. He chooses not to challenge the impact at the Pentagon because that is what the evidence shows, your denial notwithstanding.
McKee “Your suggestion that England was in shock and therefore got this “unimportant” detail wrong is approaching dishonesty as well. How would someone get a detail like that wrong over and over? And how would you know this, anyway?”
Dishonest? Please, I stated the obvious. He was in shock.
McKee “Chris, you seem to love to claim that something I’ve said is wrong and then accuse me of lying about it.”
Really? When?
McKee “I am obviously making a broad statement about what they are saying about England’s position.’
In this article you are talking about a specific instance and saying that Coste and Chandler are deliberately misrepresenting key parts of two interviews.
McKee “you shift the focus over to a false claim that I was blaming Chandler for the editing of the quote.”
You did liable Chandler with your lie about Coste misstating Ranke’s statement.
“Here is your chance: why not condemn Coste for manipulating a quote in most dishonest fashion? Will you do this? Will you call on both of them to stop claiming that England never says it was the long end of the pole when he obviously did?”
I am calling you out for doing what you are accusing Coste and Chandler of doing, as you are doing it.
Chris, reading your mangling of the truth is painful. (I have put Sarns’s comments in italics below)
No, I said that you are doing what an infiltrator would do, which is true.
“Acting” and “doing” mean exactly the same thing.
Please, there was nothing vicious about my rebuttals. You are grossly misrepresenting what I said.
Look, you’ve been attacking CIT for more than a decade, calling them “frauds” and more. You’ve been working behind the scenes to undermine them all that time, causing much more chaos than any value you bring. Do I have to dig up a bunch of your quotes? Now you regularly accuse me of lying. Will you deny this later also and claim I am “grossly misrepresenting” you?
Thank you for the semantics correction.
You need a lot more correcting. You use slander wrong, you use diatribe wrong, you use libel wrong (and spell it wrong). I have not slandered or libeled anyone. You obviously don’t really care what words actually mean, do you? To libel someone, the statement must be false and must damage that person’s reputation. That does not mean that you disagree with my statement; it has to be false!
You know that Coste and Chandler don’t believe that England ever unambiguously said that it was the 25 to 30 foot pole that went thru his windshield. Therefore they were not being dishonest. But you are being dishonest when you accused them of being dishonest.
He says the pole was 30-40 feet. Too ambiguous for you? He says it was the part attached to the ground. Too ambiguous for you? He says it was the long end of the pole. He says the lighter bent part was inside the cab and the heavier bottom part stuck out. Is all this too ambiguous for you? His story obviously does not add up. It is untrue. But you are so driven to make it true to protect your favorite part of the official story that you’ll put blinders on your eyes and talk about what Coste and Chandler “believe.” Can say I “believe” I’m the president of the United States without that being a dishonest statement? I have shown conclusively that England was talking about the long end of pole 1. They know this; therefore they are lying about it. Now you are lying as well when you support their claims that England did not identify the pole.
The use of “unambiguously” is a disinformation tactic. Create an impossible standard and claim it was not met. Look for loopholes so you can claim there is a tiny “ambiguity.” Any person acting in good faith will have no choice but to admit that England is very clear about which pole he means. You people are doing everything you can to cover for his fabrication of this story.
Do I have to go over the many statements England made about which pole it was? Have you even watched the CIT videos, Chris? I suspect you haven’t. From my article, once again:
Pickering: So which piece did you take out of the window?
England: “The long piece. The part that was from the ground [unintelligible] off the, off the ground. That went all the way through the car into the back seat. It was still sticking out across the hood.”
Ranke: So you lifted that out yourself?
England: I had help from a friend of mine.
Ranke: A friend of yours helped?
England: Yeah.
Pickering: So it’s the long piece?
England: Yeah, the long piece. See it’s the long piece. See the end on it?
Ranke (to someone in the room): Show him the end.
England: Yeah, this was the piece that was in the ground.
Ranke: And that was in your cab?
England: It went through. This is the part that went through. The bent part.
CIT co-founder Aldo Marquis had already asked him in their first interview to confirm which part of the pole it was:
Marquis: Just to confirm, it was the large piece of the base of the pole.
England: Yeah, it’s the large, yeah, the large piece. It was sticking out across the hood.
In Eye of the Storm, Ranke shows him a photograph of the cab and the long pole lying on the road and asks England to clarify (which they’ve now done many times) which part of the pole it was:
Ranke: That’s the pole, right? (showing England the photograph)
England: (England looks at the photo) That’s right. That’s after we pulled it out.
Ranke: Doesn’t that pole, doesn’t that pole, I mean does that look, I mean, look how long it is!
England: I know it’s long. It was in the car. It came from out here and it stopped in the rear seat.
Ranke: It stopped in the rear seat.
England: If anyone had been on the right side on me, the pole would have went right through them.
Ranke: But you’re saying the top bent part, the top lighter end of the pole, the very top, right, was in the back seat? The bent part?
England: That’s right.
Ranke: Now that’s the lighter end of the pole
England: That’s right.
Ranke: So that means the heavier end…
England: Was out. Sticking out.
Ranke: Over the hood?
England: That’s right.
The long piece. The piece that was in the ground. The heavier end was sticking out. Again, the much shorter arm that Coste and Chandler are speculating actually hit the cab does not have a heavier end and a lighter end. Only the main part of the mast does.
The exchange in Eye of the Storm continues:
Ranke: The problem is, people wonder, how come the pole is so long, if the lighter end is inside, that means a lot of that big, long pole has got to be sticking out over.
England: That’s true.
Ranke: But what held it up?
England: The car, the dash. It went right through the dashboard.
Ranke: Through the dashboard.
England: The car, the car, It didn’t hit like this, it hit at a angle. Like it was driven down.
Ranke: But did it go through the floor of the car?
England: No, it stopped in the rear seat.
Ranke: It stopped. Did it rip the rear seat?
England: You can see it. The car’s still there. It did not rip the rear seat.
Ranke: We should go take a look.
Then, removing any possible doubt, Ranke asks him directly about the pole’s length (53 minutes in):
Ranke: So, you’re saying, how long do you think the pole was? Approximately?
England: It was sticking out, way over…
Ranke: No, I mean the whole pole.
England: I’d say the pole was about 30, 40 foot long. It was down on the ground like a telegram pole, sticking up. The base of it was in concrete.
Ranke: But the base, the bottom part, was outside?
England: Right.
Ranke: The top, bent part was inside.
England: Right.
Ranke: And the pole, you’re thinking, was maybe 30 to 40 feet long.
England: I would say that. And actually that can be confirmed by measuring the pole.
Ranke: Well, yeah, VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) says those poles are about 40 feet long.
England: Okay.
Ranke: But it was cut off at the top a little bit, so maybe it was a bit shorter.
England: No, it wasn’t cut off. That pole wasn’t cut off.
Ranke: Well, the top lamp part was cut off.
Is that still too “ambiguous” for you and your authoritative “research” buddies? If Chandler and Coste honestly believe England never clarified which pole it was then they are utterly irresponsible. If they are saying this despite knowing the truth, then they are liars. Which is it?
Chandler, as much or more than anyone, has challenged the official story. He chooses not to challenge the impact at the Pentagon because that is what the evidence shows, your denial notwithstanding.
More disingenuous crap from you. You know very well that it’s not about “not challenging” an impact, it’s about pushing an impact. The point is that he has spent years, and will spend years more, telling us what he thinks is TRUE in the official story of the Pentagon while barely mentioning what is false. This appears to be obvious to everyone except you and your propaganda team.
Dishonest? Please, I stated the obvious. He was in shock.
How do you know he was in shock, doctor? Is that your conclusion because it’s convenient for you to say he was confused? Pathetic. But it seems that you are conceding here that he did claim it was the long end of pole 1. Won’t your bosses in the group rap your knuckles for this?
You did liable Chandler with your lie about Coste misstating Ranke’s statement.
Show me the libelous statement about Chandler relating to Coste’s distortion. I guess if you just double down you think you can con people into thinking what you’re saying is true. Now you repeat that I’m lying. I explained why you had misinterpreted that paragraph. I pointed out how the reference to videos made it clear I was making a general statement and not blaming Chandler for Coste’s distorting of Ranke’s statement.
You are behaving very dishonestly here. If you continue to do this, or to accuse me of lying with no basis for doing so, I will remove you from here. Then you’ll be true to twist everything somewhere else.
I am calling you out for doing what you are accusing Coste and Chandler of doing, as you are doing it.
Is there something wrong with you? Did he not take the beginning of the statement (even the beginning of the sentence) away so that it sounded like he was saying something different? Is that a good practice as long as people can figure out from later comments what the person actually meant? Is that your idea of reasonable and honest communication?
Sarns’s comments in italics, followed by my responses:
After discussing this with Coste, I discovered that he was not wrong. I was wrong when I said that. Also: I discussed this with Chandler and he has seen all the videos.
You “discovered” he was not wrong? Please explain what you discovered that you didn’t know before? And the fact that Chandler has seen all the videos confirms that he, like Coste and like you, is utterly dishonest about Lloyde England. How can you call yourselves truthers with a straight face?
Coste offered a reward for anyone who could show where England unambiguously said that it was the long end of the pole (25 to 30 ft) that went thru his windshield. You have not claimed that reward because there is no case where that happened.
There is tons of proof! I have shown this already! Coste will never give anyone his “reward” because he is not an honest person. Do you just listen to Wayne or are you a real researcher who looks at evidence yourself?
Although England referred to it as the “long end” sometimes, he did not mean the base of the light pole.
Huh? He did not mean the base of the pole? He said the part attached to the ground; what would you call that? How is that “ambiguous”? Talk about demanding an “unambiguous” statement from England: you hear “long end” and turn that into a 12-foot section of the top of another pole. Where is your unambiguous statement from England that it was that? There is none. You just take his inconsistent comments and ignore the possibility that he wasn’t being truthful. Is this the “scientific method” that you people keep telling us about?
You assume that he is lying. But you have no reason for thinking this – other than your wish to deny a 757 impact.”
I do not “assume” he is lying. I have gone through everything he said and it is obvious. You are so blind that all you care about is pushing a major part of the official story. Maybe you and Chandler could both get jobs at Popular Mechanics. They would love both of you.
This whole discussion of what England said or what others have said about it is a red herring because it has nothing to do with the actual evidence.
“Blah, blah, blah,” Sarns said, adding that “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”
“Further, Coste has reproduced a deceptively edited statement that CIT co-founder Craig Ranke makes in Eye of the Storm to make it seem like Ranke believes the exact opposite of what he does. Readers of this article can watch the appropriate sections of the videos and judge for themselves whether I am correct in stating that Coste and Chandler have engaged in deliberate deception.”
Craig,
You took Coste’s comment out of context while accusing him of taking Ranke’s comment out of context.
From Coste’s article:
The Fine Print
Examples of what doesn’t qualify as a “clear and unambiguous” statement are:
Craig Ranke: … Well perhaps the [large 25-30 foot piece] pole itself isn’t what speared the windshield – and maybe it was the top smaller part, or an arm of the pole, that went through the windshield all the way to the back seat. Whereas nothing was sticking out over the hood at all [editors not: where did this assertion of measurements about what would stick out of the hood come from?].
You leave off the next sentence which clearly points out that Ranke does not agree with the above assumption.
Ranke continues: So naturally this could be a fair consideration. But this assumption was made without ever having spoken with Lloyd England direct to find out about what he said. And when you analyzed all his previous accounts, it seemed to be he was, in fact, talking about the long part of the pole that actually speared the windshield of his cab.
So your accusation that Coste has misrepresented what Ranke believes is false and it is you that has misrepresented what Coste said.
Dear God. It’s like arguing with someone who moves the goalposts around faster than the eye can follow. It’s very simple: Ranke starts by mentioning what some researchers think. Coste takes that part out and creates a new beginning to the sentence that leaves the impression that Ranke thinks this. This is then tempered by what he says later, BUT THIS DOESN’T CHANGE THAT COSTE CHANGED THE CONTEXT! THAT’S THE POINT!
If you cannot admit that this is deceptive, you are not dealing in good faith. Anyone with a brain can see this. The fact that lower down there are comments that seem to contradict what Coste started with does not fix the original problem.
Chris Sarns is not a person you can have a rational conversation with. He is not here to discuss he is here to disrupt, confuse, and distort as much as he can. No point engaging with him at all. He is just throwing slop at the wall knowing very few people will do the work necessary to expose his lies and distortions. He is a poison pill, nothing more. He has zero credibility. For all I know Ruby Grey is his sock puppet or vice versa. I suspect many of those commenting in this thread are sock puppets. In fact I strongly suspect it. Look Craig you and myself and a few others really know the pentagon subject well enough to discuss it in depth. Most truthers do not know the evidence well at all. So when “new” people come along and start spouting off about how Lloyd England is truthful it raises immediate red flags for me. When people start claiming a plane hit the pentagon I know right away they are either really ignorant of the evidence or they are liars.
Notice how Ruby will not address your question about how Lloyd could NOT know his cab was moved by a tow truck? Ruby has no answer for that so what happens? He disappears and then “new” identities show up and take his exact same position. The timing is so telling and so is the disappearing act. It looks like an organized effort by a team of disinformationists to me. Take note of this disinformation tactic #6 taken from the 25 rules of disinformation:
6: Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning – simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
In fairness, I must say that Ruby has left more comments that have not been approved. This is because I wanted to decide how to approach the tsunami of material that my last two posts have been flooded with by this person. More than 26,000 words worth. This is over the top.
As Adam has said, I want to know how England can be telling the whole truth, as Ruby claims, and yet somehow witness his cab being moved several hundred feet without knowing that this has happened. How could he possibly be telling the truth if his car ended up far way, on the bridge? Why would he tell CIT off camera that the photographer was “up on the bridge”?
And I have yet to see a video that proves anything that Ruby claims. If I am not shown video that proves the cab was moved then I am going to consider all of this material to be disinformation. I find the support for Coste and Chandler’s bogus claim that England was talking about a 12-foot piece of pole hit the cab to be extremely suspicious. And the whole idea that Ruby throws some “praise” at CIT just seems insincere.
If this person does not want their material removed from these posts then I need answers to the questions above.
I am not somebody “new” to Pentagon 911 research. I have been posting on this topic since 2002.
Ruby Gray’s idea is the first good new idea I’ve seen since CIT came along in 2007.
http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm
http://www.911-strike.com/PlaneBomb.htm
Jerry, how did England get from the cemetery to the bridge without realizing it? How was his car transported by a tow truck without him realizing it? If you have no answer for this, then you have no reason to call this theory “good” or “new.”
Craig,
I already tried to answer this question, in my earlier message posted May 7.
I wrote:
“England says that he was accosted by a police officer and thrown to the ground shortly after he removed the pole from his car. Ruby Gray’s suggestion is that perhaps the cop also administered some sort of consciousness-altering drug, or perhaps just knocked England senseless.
Next, Gray’s idea is that England was loaded into a brown Jeep Cherokee and taken from the heliport to the overpass, to join his car which had just been towed. I’m sorry I didn’t spell Gray’s theory out in sufficient detail before.
I could offer an alternative suggestion, that maybe there was a Lloyde England look-alike on the scene. I think most JFK “Truthers” agree there was an Oswald look-alike involved in the JFK assassination? It could be the same thing here.”
It’s not an entirely satisfactory answer. But if this (or something like it) is what really happened, it explains a lot of otherwise inexplicable or enigmatic eyewitness testimony. That’s why I call it a “good” idea.
As to your request above for “proof” that the cab was towed, I don’t think Ruby’s videos are up to that standard. Unfortunately, the images are very low resolution. In my opinion, the best you can say is that the evidence is consistent with his scenario.
Is this idea “new”? I never heard of anyone suggesting it before, have you?
Jerry,
Seriously, what value does any of this have? It’s a far-fetched fantasy that involves some truly unbelievable elements. If Ruby argued that Lloyde was complicit in the alleged moving of his cab, that would be more credible. But to claim that he was 100% honest but he ended up at a different location makes no sense. How can you conclude that this scenario is consistent with the evidence?
There is no evidence whatsoever to support any of those speculations Jerry so they are without a doubt useless.
Craig, at the risk of alienating you I will tell you that I have zero motivation to slog through this article. I was able to conclude from Part I that England’s testimony was worthless, and I was not convinced by Ruby to the contrary. But that’s it. What matters is the (lack of) physical evidence. We have only seen photos of cut poles, but no sign whatsoever of plane debris. Arguments over England’s testimony are of no interest. No wonder Griffin has not voiced an opinion. An opinion about opinions about the opinion of one supposed “witness”? I certainly do not have one and will not waste any more time trying to form one.
Michael, you have just condemned the article after admitting you have no intention of reading it. I can tell you haven’t read it because you’ve missed the entire point being made. I showed clearly in the article that I am NOT talking about “arguments” over England’s testimony. I am talking about “truthers” deliberately lying about that testimony. You don’t think that matters. You think that’s a trivial dispute over “opinions.”
What do you mean about Griffin not voicing an opinion? You mean about England? I’m sure he has.
Although I’m still unclear on why you felt the need to attack me for writing something that is true and that I think is important, you are free to do as you wish. If you don’t want to read it, then don’t. If you want to condemn it without reading it, then by all means do. But this does not speak well of you.
Chandler did not lie. He was just repeating what he had heard from Coste and you are just searching for anything you can find to discredit Chandler.
Attack the point and not the person. And the point is that Coste, for all his faults, has done some brilliant research and analysis. Among other things, his conclusion that the piece that hit England’s taxi could not have come from pole #1 because it took time for the England to react and bring the Taxi to a stop. In all these years, no one else has thought of that.
England’s testimony is obviously incorrect but you do not know for certain if he is lying or just confused. But that is just a red herring to avoid looking at the evidence objectively.
How do you know he did not lie? How do you know he was just repeating what Coste told him? Even if that is true, it is irresponsible on his part to condemn CIT’s evidence without having even looked at the videos in question himself.
Attack the point and not the person, coming from the person who calls CIT a fraud? Of course people thought of the stopping distance. But those people understood that England was claiming it was pole 1 that hit his cab, so they were pointing out how pole 1 could not have done what was claimed. You people simply assume he was being honest but was mistaken. But you have no reason for thinking this – other than your wish to support a 757 impact.
Your “red herring” comment makes no sense. In what way have I failed to be objective? What does this have to do with anything?
McKee “How do you know he [Chandler] did not lie? How do you know he was just repeating what Coste told him?”
After discussing this with Coste, I discovered that he was not wrong. I was wrong when I said that.
Also: I discussed this with Chandler and he has seen all the videos.
Coste offered a reward for anyone who could show where England unambiguously said that it was the long end of the pole (25 to 30 ft) that went thru his windshield. You have not claimed that reward because there is no case where that happened.
Although England referred to it as the “long end” sometimes, he did not mean the base of the light pole. In the 2006 interview, England indicated that the piece of the pole was just a little past the hood of the taxi. https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165884@N02/33886059058/in/dateposted-public/
Furthermore, his sketch shows an 11 to 12 ft piece, not a 25 to 30 ft piece.
McKee “But those people understood that England was claiming it was pole 1 that hit his cab”
England never claimed that pole #1 hit his taxi. That was Ranke’s suggestion.
McKee “Of course people thought of the stopping distance.”
I doubt that. No one ever mentioned it. If anyone had mentioned it, the discussion about pole #1 would have stopped.
McKee “You people simply assume he was being honest but was mistaken. But you have no reason for thinking this – other than your wish to support a 757 impact.”
You assume that he is lying. But you have no reason for thinking this – other than your wish to deny a 757 impact.”
McKee “Your “red herring” comment makes no sense. In what way have I failed to be objective? What does this have to do with anything?”
This whole discussion of what England said or what others have said about it is a red herring because it has nothing to do with the actual evidence.
Wrong, Chris.
It is ENGLAND’s testimony which is demonstrably TRUE.
But not the Government verion of Lloyde’s story, and also not the edited version of his testimony presented here. Craig McKee has deleted many key statements by Lloyde England from his video interviews. I hope this is a series of inadvertent omissions and not a deliberate ploy.
He has also failed to research the preliminary interview of Lloyde England done by Russell Pickering, pre- the “First Known Accomplice” interviews, which is early confirmation that Lloyde was NOT ON THE BRIDGE when a pole came crashing through his cab.
The many statements to this effect by Lloyde, on both CIT videos, were NOT the result of him “hearing about CIT’s work with the North Side witnesses” as they supposed, because Lloyde himself WAS a north-side witness. He was beside the cemetery when he saw the plane for a “split second” before the pole hit the cab.
Had he been on the bridge (which he was not) and had the plane flown across the bridge (which it did not), then Lloyde would have had a long few seconds of seeing the plane hurtling towards him as he approached the bridge.
But because the cemetery bank topped by many trees was to his right, he could not possibly have seen the plane until it appeared directly above and in front of him, crossing Route 27 much further north than the bridge.
As Lloyde England was nowhere near the bridge when the pole hit his cab (as numerous videos prove), which IS Lloyde’s TRUE story told from Day 1, any and all attempts to identify any of the 5 downed light poles as the culprit for damaging his cab – or not – are futile and redundant.
Ruby, you have insinuated that I have cut out parts of the interviews to hide that England said it was not the long end of the pole. Please back this statement up before writing anything else here.
You say I have failed to research the pre-interview. In what sense? What proof does he offer that he was not on the bridge that we didn’t get in all the other interviews? Please tell me what is said in the Pickering part of the interview that confirms England’s claim that he was not on the bridge.
Answer Craig’s question: How could Lloyd not know it if his cab were loaded onto a tow truck and moved to a new location? How could he not know Ruby?
By the way do you have any other sock puppets Ruby? What 9/11 truth groups are you associated with? Who knows you personally that is a well known member of the truth movement? I would like to know if you have ever actually been in the truth movement at all. Lots of people know me personally, I use my real name, I participate in truth actions with other truthers, I can prove I have been involved for years. Can you prove your involvement with the truth movement? Can you use your real name? What videos are you in of truth actions? Who can vouch for you as a real truther? Can anyone? Does anyone know you? I double dog dare you to prove you have EVER been a truther.
As far as I am concerned you are nothing more than a sock puppet used by an operative in the NSA’s Q Group until you can show one shred of evidence you are a real truther.
RUFF : Answer Craig’s question: How could Lloyd not know it if his cab were loaded onto a tow truck and moved to a new location? How could he not know Ruby?
A: As Craig told you already, he blocked my detailed responses to his requests for me to answer his questions.
But Lloyde could not know his cab had been moved by a tow truck and trailer, if the perpetrators of this premeditated psy-op punctiliously planned it this way, ensuring that Lloyde had :
(a) been “RUN OFF FROM” his cab on a pretext of “more planes coming”
(b) been rendered unconscious and/or insensible but suggestible, by a third party
(c) been physically removed from the cab in an unidentified vehicle without his knowledge or permission
(d) gotten up off the ground elsewhere, “WONDERING WHAT JUST HAPPENED”
(e) been detained by complicit operative/s at another location while this was occurring
(f) his attention diverted for 10 minutes by a staged fireworks spectacle
(g) been bypassed by his disguised cab during its relocation
(h) been prevented from either walking home or trying to return to his cab while the bridge scene was being staged behind his back
(i) been collected by a very senior operative who deposited him near his cab again and guarded him for the few minutes required for the photo opp, at a mystifyingly different location, after the illusion was complete.
All the above are directly or indirectly attested to by Lloyde England, Shirley England, Ingersoll photographs, and numerous videos taken prior to Lloyde’s cab first appearing on the bridge at 11 minutes post impact at 9:48 a.m.
RUFF : By the way do you have any other sock puppets Ruby?
A: I have no idea what this means. But I gather it is asked with hostile and derogatory intent.
RUFF : What 9/11 truth groups are you associated with?
A: None.
RUFF : Who knows you personally that is a well known member of the truth movement?
A: Nobody.
RUFF : I would like to know if you have ever actually been in the truth movement at all.
A: What you see is all there is. Nobody I know in my country is remotely interested in the 9/11 truth movement, nor in what I think, believe or write. This is all my own work. It would be nice to have a friend or foe to toss ideas around with, but I’m the Lone Ranger here.
RUFF : Lots of people know me personally, I use my real name, I participate in truth actions with other truthers, I can prove I have been involved for years.
A: I am happy for you but I have never heard of you before except for your interview with Craig Ranke. As you have been deeply involved for so long, surely you are the one who should have solved this crime already? But all I see is re-hashing of dead-end 2006 material.
I gave you some leads to help you out of your rut. Have you interviewed Detective Don Fortunato, Donald Rumsfeld, the two motorcycle cops, Steve Riskus, Police Captain Aubrey Davis, William Lagasse, Jerri Davis, Father Stephen McGraw, Aziz elHallou, Sean Boger, Tony Terronez, yet? And of course, the one with the eagle’s eye view of the entire show from several different angles from start to finish, Christopher Landis. Oops, he died right after being interviewed by Craig Ranke, allowing him to film in the VDOT vehicles yard, and giving him the Jason Ingersoll Collection.
All these people (and more) orchestrated, saw, were in a position to see, or testified to Lloyde England’s cab beside the cemetery wall with a piece of pole through the windscreen.
But CIT never thought to ask any of them about this. You could get the scoop here and move this stalled investigation forwards at last. Do be aware that 4 of them are complicit operatives who will lie to you.
RUFF : Can you prove your involvement with the truth movement?
A: It is all on my “Lloyde England Vindicated” thread, except for much information that I have not posted there yet.
RUFF : Can you use your real name?
A: Yes.
RUFF : What videos are you in of truth actions?
A: None. There is no such thing where I live.
RUFF : Who can vouch for you as a real truther?
A: Not applicable where I live.
RUFF : Can anyone?
A: Nope.
RUFF : Does anyone know you?
A: Many people know me.
RUFF : I double dog dare you to prove you have EVER been a truther.
A: How old are you, six?? According to YOUR definition as posted here previously, YOU proved I am a “real truther”. But I have always been passionate about truth, justice & their relationship to the falsely accused and the underdog. Just ask my mother.
RUFF : As far as I am concerned you are nothing more than a sock puppet used by an operative in the NSA’s Q Group until you can show one shred of evidence you are a real truther.
A: What are you talking about???
Hi Ruby,
A “Sock Puppet” is a false Internet identity. Adam Ruff accused me of being your “Sock Puppet” above, but actually I’ve met many luminaries of the 911 truth movement, including Aldo Marquis, Jim Hoffman, Webster Tarpley, Carol Brouillet, and David Ray Griffin. Some of them might even remember me, it’s been a long time since I’ve been involved.
Dismissing someone as a “Sock Puppet” is an ad hominem slur, useful in a debate when you’ve run out of actual arguments. Craig and Adam can only say now that your theory is “unbelievable” — as if it’s somehow less unbelievable than the idea that the US government would fake crash a 757 complete with five fake downed lamp poles and fake eyewitnesses.
And none of us have taken the time to review all the video evidence you say you’ve found.
Jerry, you are now playing games. First, I have said more than the theory is just “unbelievable.” It is not my job to prove Ruby’s theory to be impossible; it is up to Ruby to make a case for it. This has not been done. And you seem to require no proof of anything Ruby says. No matter how unlikely the scenario is, you are prepared to give it credence. Lloyde and his cab were transported hundreds of feet without Lloyde knowing it? I don’t see how. You compare this to the official story – a false comparison.
I don’t think you have anything of value to offer on this subject.
Right, I get it now. Thanks, Jerry for the info. It is surreal the way I am accused of all this when I have never had anything to do with anybody in the Truth Movement, not even being American.
I have previously told Craig McKee that I am not trying to hijack his site by loading it with my own material, but he and Adam Ruff continually ask me for more proof, hence my detailed responses.
But then my posts are withheld, and I am threatened with having previous posts removed if I do not provide more evidence. It’s all very Catch-22.
It is a shame, as Lloyde England does deserve to have one solitary voice standing up for him in this world, on his own terms, and certainly not on the plea-bargain basis of Coste, Chandler et al. Even accused chainsaw murderers have a right of reply in a court of law with legal representation, eye witness testimony, corroborating statements from attending police officers, character references, video evidence, alibis, investigation of all details of the alleged crime, forensic examination of the physical evidence, and a jury of their peers.
But Lloyde England was subjected to outrageous defamation and persecution by a kangaroo court that decided he was being totally honest when he (only allegedly) claimed a ridiculous 40-foot x 8-inch pole speared his windscreen (which has a 4-inch hole in it that was clearly caused by a 4-inch pole), but totally lying when he stated about 100 times that he was not at a certain location at the time of the alleged event, which the prosecutors state, did not even happen.
The priest and the Pentagon police sergeant and various eye witnesses all testified that Lloyde’s statement re his location was correct, but this kangaroo court also discarded their testimony.
If this is what “being a real truther” involves, then I am well out of it apparently.
I doubt this post will see the light of day on this blog, but it and all my other suppressed posts will certainly be published on my LetsRollForums thread, where genuine discussion rather than baseless allegations and good-ole-boys backslapping is encouraged.
Ruby,
You make an outrageously false statement in your comment. You state that this “kangaroo court” decided that England was being honest about a long pole piercing his windshield. Where do you get the idea that I or Adam or CIT is saying that the cab was hit by the long end of a pole? Surely, by now, you know that we don’t think any pole hit his cab. It’s funny that Wayne Coste made the same bogus claim.
You really have a nerve coming here and making all kinds of accusations about defamation and persecution while you claim that England started in one location and ended up hundreds of feet to the south, next to his moved cab, without knowing it. You have offered nothing to support the idea that he could be honest and still have changed locations so drastically.
It seems to me that your role is just to discredit CIT while appearing to challenge the official story. Meanwhile, you rush to the defense of the “witness” who is most crucial to that official story.
Hi Craig,
The primary evidence in favor of Ruby Gray’s scenario is eyewitness testimony: not only Lloyde England himself, but several others. And in addition to that, there is significant video evidence — not as high resolution as one might like, but it does exist.
Thanks for the space you’ve provided for this. But I can see that you’re getting tired of it. If I have anything further to say, I’ll say it at my own site, or perhaps at Ruby’s thread at Let’s Roll.
Regards,
-Jerry
As I suspected Ruby you can in no way whatsoever establish that you are a truther or have ever been one nor can you establish any reasonably believable scenario where Lloyd would not notice his cab was moved. Oh you speculate plenty but none of it is backed with any evidence. I find your research to be very poor and lacking credibility due to the total lack of supporting evidence.
I will decline your invitation to become aggravated by your smarmy and arrogant remarks. You can ACT like you have figured something out here but you haven’t, it is all a facade just like so many disinformationists I have seen in the past. You have nothing. I am no longer interested in speaking to you or debunking your speculations because that is all they are is guesses, bad ones. Lastly I will also decline your suggestion that I give up on the “dead end” pentagon evidence. I am very confident that not only isn’t it a dead end but it is the evidence that will put the noose around the neck of some of the perps. I know that scares you and your Q-group buddies but you should have declined to participate in the failed cover-up attempt of 9/11. Now you guys are in deep doodoo.
Come up with some tangible evidence and maybe I will speak to you again. For now I think you are a disinformation operative and in my book that is somewhere beneath vermin and lice.
You are right, Craig, of course. I’m sorry and will not say anything else unless and until I have read the article.
I tried again to read the article but I cannot. There is no physical evidence that any object at all, much less an airplane, hit those poles. The same is true of the Pentagon itself, except for a couple of photos of objects being picked up near the supposed point of impact that cannot be conclusively linked to Flight 77. This whole discussion is unnecessary. It is entirely up to those supporting the official story to convince us that the light poles were hit by a plane. If the official story were true, this would not be a problem. The same goes for the entire 9/11 myth.
I think Craig et al. have been sucked into wasting their energy on a non-existent problem. England’s testimony is not a problem. The lack of physical evidence of a plane hitting the poles, or the Pentagon, is not a problem either. Not for us anyway. It is only a problem for those who say these things happened. They must produce convincing evidence that these things happened. They have not. If they want to believe it anyway, what is the point in trying to stop them, or more uselessly still, trying to prove that they don’t believe it themselves and are lying about it?
So let them have their conference — I think it’s in Denver. Let them do their best. I need nothing more than a child’s common sense to know that if an airplane hit 5 light poles and then crashed into a building, there would be abundant physical evidence of these facts, and producing that evidence would not be a “problem.” Since it is a “problem,” it is also obvious that the only real “problem” is the story itself. It is false.
Again, you have condemned my article as a waste of time without reading it. We don’t need further updates of failed attempts to read the piece. If you ever do read it, then let us know. Otherwise, further comment isn’t helpful.
Do you have any other sock puppets Michael? What 9/11 truth groups are you associated with? Who knows you personally that is a well known member of the truth movement? I would like to know seriously.
I did not (mean to) “condemn” your article. I’m (instinctively) on your side, and I didn’t mean to criticize it. The details of this firestorm are simply too much for me. I tried listening to Honeggar’s 2+ hour video refuting Chandler/Coste this morning, with a similar take-away. There are just far too many details for a normal human being (assuming I am one) to assimilate, even if s/he wants to, and I don’t think they are necessary. You don’t have to accept Honeggar’s alternative theory of what happened (the second plane) to agree with the main point, which is that the official story is false, and that Chandler/Coste are wrong to support it.
Michael,
Usually when I find an analysis of a situation that I don’t feel the need to read or watch, I just don’t read it or watch it. But it seems that you are suggesting it’s not necessary for anyone to read or watch it. I don’t get that. I think I have done the most complete analysis of the Lloyde England evidence yet, with the fantastic research by CIT as the basis for what I did. They went out into the field and gathered the essential evidence. Then they made videos that show the evidence and that examine its implications. They have also run a forum that has brought much more to light on this and many other 9/11 subjects. I just took what they did (along with the Hill audio interview) and connected the dots in the way I thought the evidence suggested I do. It’s there for anyone who would like to know precisely why England’s account is not factual and how Coste and Chandler’s characterization of it is not factual.
There was a conference this weekend in Denver where these “respected” members of the Truth Movement were going to try to convince the world that England was telling the truth and that he never said the long end of the pole hit his car (along with anything else they could twist to support a large plane impact at the Pentagon). I thought that needed to be exposed as a lie. Clearly you don’t feel that way.
Craig
for what it’s worth you have my support. I am amazed that you can find the time and energy to constantly bother to reply to your critics, but I’m pleased that you do.
Much respect.
Thank you, Dave. I appreciate it.
“On video, England disputes his location in the photo but points right at the pole that he claims hit his cab.” McKee
I have not seen a video where England points to the long piece, with the base, and says that was the part that went thru his windshield.
Please post the URL.
Also. There is no way that England’s sketch could be interpreted as the long part with the base.
Furthermore, he specifically said that it didn’t have an end on it.
First known accomplice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCnKLVwBsIY
6:28 England: See, this the long piece. See the end on it.
Ranke: Show him the end.
England:
IT DIDN’T HAVE A END ON …
Ranke interrupts England:
This end right here?
England
Yeah, this the BASE,
This the piece that was IN THE GROUND.
Ranke
Right. And that was in your cab?
06:40
England starts to say NO but Ranke quickly interrupts before he can finish the word.
Ranke: Sticking out of your cab?
England: It went thru
Mrs. England: The top part.
The fact that Ranke was able to manipulate England into saying things that made it sound like he was talking about the long piece with the base that went thru his windshield is testament to Ranke’s ability to manipulate a witness into saying what he wants as he did with Terry Morin.
CIT’s desire to call England a liar is scurrilous and nonsensical. England had no reason to lie about what part of the pole went thru his windshield.
We all agree that it could not have been the 25 to 30 foot piece of pole #1 that went thru the windshield.
Ranke confused England by constantly interrupting him and suggesting that it was the piece with the base that went thru his windshield. But England’s sketch clearly shows it was a 12 foot piece, not the 25 to 30 foot piece.
CIT left out critical responses by England and his wife in their transcript. That is fraud.
06:28
England: See? This is the long piece. See the end on it?
Pickering: That was sticking up.
Avery: “Show him the end.”
England:
It didn’t have an end on it
Ranke: (interrupts Lloyde)
This end right here?
England:
Yeah, this the base. This the piece that was in the ground.
Ranke: Right. And that was in your cab?
England: No
Ranke (interrupts again) Sticking out of your cab?
06:40
It went through …
England’s wife :
The top part.
England: It went through. This the part that went through. The bent part.
* * * * *
Both Pickering and England indicated with their hand how far the piece of the pole extended. (@ 16:10 in “The first Known Accomplice” and @ 48:21 in “Eye of the Storm” respectively) They both indicated the front of the hood.
There was no doubt a video so why does CIT release the audio?
If CIT had proof that England pointed to the 25 to 30 foot piece and said that was the piece that went thru his windshield then CIT would have released the video.
All this has been explained. If you are determined to misrepresent what England said then there is not much I can do to stop you. They asked him so many times and he was very clear. Some of it is on video, some on audio. Would I rather that they made it redundantly obvious on camera – even more than it already is? Of course. But maybe they didn’t grasp how far some who claim to care about the truth would go to twist what was said. I think what you are doing is dishonest. Others can make their own judgments.
Oh that is the very least you can say about Chris Sarns is that he is dishonest.
I will post this brief answer to test the waters, in the hopes that it may appear Craig.
Unlike the several detailed posts I made last week in response to your request, which vanished into the Great Invisible Beyond.
And a couple of posts from earlier which initially appeared but were then deleted.
Your insistence that Lloyde was 100% “honest” when (you merely suppose) he was “very clear” about a 30 to 40 foot pole (that DID NOT HAVE AN END ON IT, and extended only to the front bumper of his car) spearing his windshield, contrasted with your adamant statements that he was100% lying when he consistently stated maybe 100 times, that HE WAS NOT AT THE BRIDGE WHEN THIS HAPPENED, is one of the many mystifying logical impasses in your article.
Answer the above questions put to you.
“Answer Craig’s question: How could Lloyd not know it if his cab were loaded onto a tow truck and moved to a new location? How could he not know Ruby?
By the way do you have any other sock puppets Ruby? What 9/11 truth groups are you associated with? Who knows you personally that is a well known member of the truth movement? I would like to know if you have ever actually been in the truth movement at all. Lots of people know me personally, I use my real name, I participate in truth actions with other truthers, I can prove I have been involved for years. Can you prove your involvement with the truth movement? Can you use your real name? What videos are you in of truth actions? Who can vouch for you as a real truther? Can anyone? Does anyone know you? I double dog dare you to prove you have EVER been a truther.”
Craig,
You are misrepresenting what England meant. Although England did say that was the long piece, his sketch is obviously not the long piece. He could not have made such a huge error. The sketch is consistent with the piece from pole #2.
Ranke kept interrupting England and confused him. You have acknowledged that there is no video of England pointing to the long piece and identifying it as the piece that went thru his windshield.
As Coste astutely pointed out, it could not have been any part of pole #1 because England would have taken over 100 feet to bring his car to a stop.
Chris,
On video, England disputes his location in the photo but points right at the pole that he claims hit his cab. If you deny this, they you are not being honest. It’s disgusting watching you all look for little loopholes so you can claim there is doubt about what England meant. You should all be ashamed of your disregard for decency and truth seeking.
You reveal your bias when you describe two supposedly conflicting pieces of evidence and say he could not have made such a “huge error.” You make a huge assumption when you say the drawing shows what England REALLY meant. How do you know he drew that with any idea of it being to scale? Perhaps it was just to give a rough idea where the pole went and what the angle of it was. One could spin that drawing the other way by saying that the pole went beyond the front of the car and therefore could not be the 11.5-foot section Coste talks about. But I don’t do that because any reasonable person would acknowledge that this childish drawing can’t be relied on for anything.
But most importantly, you and your pals simply refuse to consider the possibility that England might have been untruthful. You and Coste and Chandler and the rest of your propaganda team take England’s inconsistent statements – which point to him not telling the truth – and you pick the part you like. The part that supports your beloved 757 impact.
How many sock puppets do you use Chris?
Mr. Ruff
First and foremost, there are no “official” qualifications for being a 9/11 truther other than expressing a disbelief in the government’s story of 9/11. Just because the people you’re speaking to might not necessarily be known to the 9/11 truth movement generally doesn’t mean that they are not, in fact, truthers. There are many hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the 9/11 truth movement who are not known to other members of the 9/11 truth movement, It doesn’t mean that they are not truthers.
Secondly, I must say that you do yourself, as well as the entire 9/11 truth movement, a tremendous disservice by employing this strident, frothing-at-the-mouth approach to defending your chosen theory. You come off more as a crazed zealot than a dispassionate, truth-seeking, investigator and, I must tell you, that it is quite jarring and off-putting to see from a readers perspective.
COR
Touche, and I thank you!
“COR” of course also means “heart”.
Carter thank you for your input. I agree that there are no set qualifications for being a truther other than one. I disagree with you about what the “one” qualification is though.
In my book a real truther seeks and tells the truth and it is really as simple as that. When a real truther is shown to be wrong they change their stance on that particular issue so it comports with the “new” correct information they were previously unaware of. They admit they were wrong, they change their approach accordingly, and they move on. DRG has corrected errors like that in the past and I commend him for it. He admitted his mistakes, corrected them, and moved on.
Simply “expressing a disbelief in the government’s story of 9/11” is not enough to be a real truther. You can promote an entirely new line of disinformation while still “expressing a disbelief in the government’s story of 9/11”. For example you can promote hologram plane disinformation, you can promote Judy Wood DEW disinformation, and you can promote the plane hitting the pentagon disinformation while still “expressing a disbelief in the government’s story of 9/11”. So your foundational premise I disagree with right off the bat.
As to my “jarring and off-putting” approach and “crazed zealotry” I can only say this: I know the pentagon evidence VERY well and therefore I can tell when someone is promoting incorrect information about it. I can tell for example that Chris Sarns, Wayne Coste, David Chandler, and a few others are promoting a false version of events at the pentagon. That in and of itself calls in to question whether or not they are actually “truthers” in the first place. If they are doing so out of ignorance of the facts and evidence then it is misinformation they are promoting (unintentionally) and they can be forgiven for that and still considered to be truthers once they discover the truthful information they have missed and correct their stance. Misinformation is forgivable.
It is when a so called “truther” is given the correct information and the best evidence and they still fail to correct their errors that we have a problem. That is where we are at with Coste, Chandler, and Sarns. They have been given the best evidence and the most truthful information and they have chosen to reject it anyway and continue promoting their incorrect material. At that point we move from them promoting misinformation to them promoting disinformation.
Disinformation is intentional and when you engage in disinformation you are not a truther. In fact when you knowingly and intentionally promote bad information you are the polar opposite of a truther. At that point you are working for the other side against the truth movement. At that point you are a scumbag in my book.
Chandler, Coste, and Sarns long ago proved themselves to be intentionally promoting disinformation. They are NOT truthers they are liars. I have no sympathy for them, they have had numerous opportunities to correct themselves and they have chosen not to.
You are obviously unaware of the many opportunities these scoundrels have had to correct their errors. You are also obviously unaware of the depth and breadth of the pentagon evidence we have at our disposal. That is understandable and forgivable considering there really is a vast amount of research and evidence to take in concerning the pentagon. However since you are not aware of much of the compelling evidence we have uncovered over the years you still think of this as just a clash of “theories”. It isn’t a clash of theories between myself and the Chandler/Coste cabal. I know for a fact a plane didn’t hit the pentagon just as surely as I know for a fact the towers and building 7 were taken down in a controlled demolition. So I don’t have a “theory” about the pentagon I have a big bag of facts that prove it wasn’t hit by a plane.
I know for a fact Chandler and Coste are liars. Intentional spreaders of disinformation. I also know that the reason they are not called on the carpet by all truthers for their lies is because very few truthers have really done their homework concerning the pentagon. If you knew what I know there wouldn’t be a doubt in your mind. You don’t know the facts though and that is what these liars depend on for their continued existence. They depend on you being ignorant enough of the real evidence that their lies are considered credible. If the whole truth movement got up and spent the time necessary to know the evidence it would all be over for Chandler/Coste and the cabal.
The bottom line is that until you spend the time and do the real in depth research you need to do you will remain duped into the false idea that this is just two competing “theories” about the pentagon. No sir. One side of this argument is telling the truth and one side is telling lies. I make no apologies for being a zealot for the truth. Perhaps you should become a little LESS dispassionate and start really digging up the truth, following its implications, and then doing something about it. If you can’t get passionate about 9/11 then you have the problem, not me.
I am seriously dumbfounded, I really am. Beyond incredulous, slightly hysterical, you name it. I think it’s so funny how people refer to 9/11 as a psyop but think things happened for real (in one way or another) when it would make absolutely no sense for them to happen for real and all the sense in the world – not to mention a piece of cake – to fake it.
People, the FOUR PLANE CRASHES WERE ALL FAKED just as DEATH AND INJURY WERE STAGED. They love to have everyone running round like headless chooks debating this, that and the other. They were all fake and no one died. And it matters not if some aeronautical machine did fly past, over, around the Pentagon in any case – it wasn’t Flight 77 and it didn’t have people in it. They are the only two things of import. Stick to the important facts:
— Controlled demolition (makes no difference if thermite, DEW, whatever)
— No one died in a plane
— Buildings were evacuated before collapse (probably had virtually no one in them to start with) thus all death and injury staged
They had a massive propaganda campaign targeted at the anticipated truthers to make us believe in the big death and injury lie just like the believers of the 19-terrorists-armed-with-boxcutters story. The massive propaganda they put into perpetuating that lie only underlines how important it is. That’s the thing you should be focused on, not all this bullshit about a plane at the Pentagon. For goodness’ sake, wake up!
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/911.html
Petra no plane theories have been debunked numerous times including by me. The building were only partially evacuated before they were brought down. William Rodriguez among MANY others will confirm this to be true.
So right off the bat first time I have ever seen a post of yours you start with two separate lines of “misinformation”. I will be generous and assume you are not aware of the evidence which proves these theories of yours to be wrong so I will call it misinformation for now.
In a nut shell neither hollograms or video fakery were even technically possible to achieve in this circumstance. As to the total evacuation concept you are pushing here there are dozens of eye witnesses and numerous videos proving that to that to be completely false.
I swear to God Craig you must be right on target for there to be so many purveyors of (mis) and (dis)information on your blog constantly.
I just saw your comment now, Adam. William Rodriguez is controlled opposition and, in fact, it was my puzzlement over the anomalous facts that he indicated the incriminating controlled demolition with his claims about an explosion(s?) in the basement and yet received bravery awards for rescuing “hundreds” from the North tower that finally woke me up to staged death and injury. Simon Shack has said for more than a decade that death and injury were staged and I thought he had something but I believed in Bob McIlvaine and the Jersey Widows and this hampered my perceiving of the truth.
If you believe that planes really crashed (seriously??????) here is a $5,000 10-point Occam’s Razor challenge for you to come up with 10 points that favour real plane crashes. I present 10 points that favour fake.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
Craig, You have also removed the reply option on Adam Ruff’s posts. (at least for me)
Adam Ruff
May 28, 2019 at 8:17 am
“I know the pentagon evidence VERY well and therefore I can tell when someone is promoting incorrect information about it. I can tell for example that Chris Sarns Wayne Coste David Chandler, and a few others (I would add Christopher Gruener, Simon Falkner, Ken Jenkins, Dwain Deets & Ken Doc II -ES) are promoting a false version of events at the pentagon. … They have been given the best evidence and the most truthful information and they have chosen to reject it anyway and continue promoting their incorrect material.”
What evidence? You have zero evidence. Please post some actual evidence, not speculation and conjecture.
Chris, you continue to get details wrong. I have not removed anything. But don’t let me stop you from making one stupid comment after another about “zero evidence.” You’re a fool and I have no respect for you.
Craig,
You did not respond to the proof that England did NOT identify the long piece with the base as the piece that went thru his windshield.
There is no way that England’s sketch could be interpreted as the long part with the base.
Furthermore, he specifically said that it didn’t have an end on it and the piece with the base was not the piece that went thru his windshield.
6:28 England: See, this the long piece. See the end on it.
Unidentified voice: Show him the end.
England:
IT DIDN’T HAVE A END ON …
Ranke interrupts England: This end right here?
England: Yeah, this the BASE, This the piece that was in the ground.
Ranke: Right. And that was in your cab?
England: NO
Ranke quickly interrupts: Sticking out of your cab?
England: It went thru
England is slow to answer but Ranke is very quick to interrupt and confuse England. The fact that Ranke was able to manipulate England into saying things that made it sound like he was talking about the long piece with the base that went thru his windshield is testament to Ranke’s ability to manipulate a witness into saying what he wants as he did with Terry Morin.
Chris,
I can hardly believe you would try to spin this so dishonestly. First of all, you claim I haven’t responded to the “proof” that England did not identify the long piece. This is absurd. There is no such proof. And he clearly did identify the long end. You’ve quoted him doing just that. (England says: “See, this the long piece. See the end on it.”) To pretend he didn’t say this is not honest.
Second, THE DRAWING PROVES NOTHING!!!!! You can’t conclude that England was trying to create a drawing to scale. Imagine taking this drawing into a courtroom and claiming it as evidence of which piece of the pole he was talking about. If you have any honesty at all, you will stop claiming this as evidence of ANYTHING!
Third, he DID NOT say the pole didn’t have an end on it! He said the opposite. “See the end on it?” He does start a later sentence with “It didn’t have an end on…” but it is NOT clear what he was referring to. And you can’t claim you know what he was referring to. He could have been pointing to the top of the mast rather than the bottom. You are grasping at straws.
And your most egregious and deceptive comment is that England said “No” when Ranke said, “And this was in your cab?” He mumbled something but there is no way to conclude that it was “no.” It is really unethical of you to claim this. (And putting the word in all caps just reinforces your deception by falsely implying that England gave emphasis to the word when he did no such thing. Don’t you realize that you have to tell readers that the emphasis has been added by you?) It is clear that England is saying the base of the pole ended up outside the windshield and the tapered bent top “stopped in the back seat.”
A childish drawing and a mumble and you claim England was talking about a piece of pole that would just happen to benefit the official story? Is this “the scientific method”? Is this you being a “scientist”? And you’re now an expert on “manipulation”? Embarrassing.
England said the long piece of the pole numerous times. He said it was between 30 and 40 feet. And you claim it was 12 feet because of a mumble? How did Ranke manipulate England into giving the length of the pole? And did Jeff Hill also manipulate him two years later when England told HIM that it was 40 feet long?
If you continue to misrepresent the England evidence then I will have no alternative to conclude that you are a dishonest person who wants to mislead people reading your comments. We already know your group (including David Chandler and Wayne Coste) are lying about what England said. I guess that’s the playbook you are all following.
“THE DRAWING PROVES NOTHING!!!!!”
Bullshit!!!!! You choose to ignore that which proves England meant the 12 foot piece.
“You can’t conclude that England was trying to create a drawing to scale.”
It’s not a matter of scale, it’s the difference between the piece ending just past the front of the taxi and a piece that extends 20 feet beyond the taxi – longer than the taxi itself. There is no chance that he was that far off.
You incessantly attack my honesty. That is not an adult way to debate a subject.
Dishonest is the claim that this conversation was “pre-interview” and there is no video. That is a blatant lie! They are interviewing him! The camera was most certainly rolling.
Your fanatic desire to paint England as a liar makes no sense. England had no reason to lie about which piece of the pole was in his Taxi.
I am trying to understand how you could say what you say and not be deceptive. If you’re not, you are otherwise separated from reality. It literally doesn’t matter what I say or what the evidence proves, you have your narrative and you won’t budge.
Do you see any irony in telling me that it is not “adult” of me to question your honesty and then calling me a blatant liar in the next paragraph? Do you actually think about what you write before you write it? It seems not.
So you have called me a liar because I said the part of the England interview in question was just audio and wasn’t done on camera. Fine, then prove me wrong. Where do I watch this part of the interview? If you can’t provide this, then I am going to demand you retract this accusation or leave.
I believe what I am saying so I am not lying.
I didn’t call you a liar, I called CIT liars. I don’t doubt that you believe what you are saying so I don’t think you are lying.
Your request is silly. How can I show you what no one but CIT has?
CIT was clearly interviewing England so the claim that this was “pre-interview” is patently absurd and false. If you can’t see that then you are so fanatically loyal to CIT that you can’t see the obvious.
You say CIT are lying about the interview being on camera but then you admit you have no evidence whatsoever for this. If anything is silly, it is this accusation. And if anyone is fanatical it is you – about hating everything about CIT.
I’m going on the fact that it was not a “pre-interview”. They were asking questions and England was responding. That’ an interview.
However, going back over this thread I found this:
“This 2006 CIT video begins with an audio interview with Lloyde, taken while they were setting up the cameras.”
That is a possibility so I retract my accusation that CIT was lying.
Getting back to Lloyde saying that it was the “long piece”. Yes, he said that many times.
We agree that it could not have been the long piece with the base, correct?
Chris, it could not have been any pole. I’m glad you admit that England said it was the long piece.
So a normal and honest person would then question whether England was telling the truth. But you don’t for some reason.
“it could not have been any pole”
Wrong! It could have been the 12 foot piece from pole #2 and most likely was.
“So a normal and honest person would then question whether England was telling the truth.”
NO, a normal and honest person would think he was confused. He had NO REASON to lie about what part of the pole it was so assuming that he was lying makes no sense.
Only a person with an agenda would call him a liar and an accomplice.
Chris, it is painful watching you flail around trying to put the occasional idea together. And I will soon stop engaging you because you have nothing remotely rational or intelligent to say. Your bias is beyond extreme. How do you rationalize the “12-foot pole” with the supposed internal damage in the cab? Take us through that, won’t you?
As for England, this is even more painful. A “normal and honest person” would evaluate the statements made England and compare them with the evidence. But not you. You need him to be honest to support your claim of a 757 impact. So you come up with this nonsense that he was confused. He said over and over that it was the long end of the pole. He says he and another man removed the pole. How could he be confused about which pole it was? Why would he say it was 40 feet to Jeff Hill? Why would he point to it in a photo and say, “This shows the pole here…”? Why would he say so many times that it was the long piece, the piece attached to the ground?
You’re the one with the agenda.
I would like to demonstrate Ranke’s skills at getting a witness to say what he wants them to say. As a telemarketer, he is very skilled at manipulating people.
Ranke interviewed Morin 6 years after 9/11/01. He ignored Morin’s original statement that he was “Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5” and by planting the suggestion, got Morin to say that he was between the wings.
4:30 Ranke: I was hoping to have a few words with you.
Morin: Unfortunately I’ve got a company policy and I can’t talk to, you know, journalism guys and whatnot.
A superb salesman, Ranke gets Morin to talk anyway.
6:39 Morin: It flew eight over the top of me.
Ranke plants the suggestion.
6:42 Ranke: Were you between the wings of the Navy Annex or out . . .
Terry: I was right at the edge of being on the outer portion. When the plane went over the top of me I was within 10 feet of the edge of the Naval. . .
Right so far.
Ranke plants the suggestion again.
Craig: You were kinda between them, or were you [unintelligible] outside of the edge
Terry: I was inside. It flew right over the top of me. . . . . I immediately ran to the outside. That’s when I watched the airplane. I moved into a position where I could see it.
Bingo! Ranke got what he wanted.
How do you know Ranke is a telemarketer? Where do you get that? You and Chandler keep saying this as if it’s true, and significant. Since you’re all about “the evidence,” tell us how you know that Ranke is a telemarketer.
Also, tell us how he has the hypnotic power to make someone change their account by “planting” an idea. It sounds very impressive.
Morin said that he was “Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5” in an interview in September 2001. Ranke knew that. It has been archived by the Wayback Machine since November of 2005.
https://web.archive.org/web/20051105091255/http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
So why did Ranke twice plant the suggestion that Morin was between the wings when he knew that Morin was 10 steps out from between the wings?
You, of course, deny that Ranke manipulated Morin by planting suggestions but there really is no other explanation for Morin changing his story.
In any case, CIT, knowing that Morin was not between the wings of the building when he first saw the plane, said that he was between the wings when he first saw the plane in their video “Over The Navy Annex (Featuring Terry Morin)”. That is a baldfaced lie.
Chris, what you are saying makes no sense. You think that Ranke saying: “You were kinda between them, or were you [unintelligible] outside of the edge” is such a powerful suggestion that Morin would be powerless to simply state exactly where he was? Ranke mentions both possibilities and Morin says: “I was inside. It flew right over the top of me. . . . . I immediately ran to the outside. That’s when I watched the airplane. I moved into a position where I could see it.”
This is absolutely clear and specific. He was inside the wings of the building and he ran outside to follow the plane. What is not clear about this? Are you actually stating that he said the opposite of what he did and where he was because of a “planted” suggestion? This is a crazy comment from someone who simply cares more about attacking CIT than he does the truth about 9/11. Morin is clearly a north path witness. And that has nothing to do with a few steps one way or the other.
You know nothing about interviewing. I do. I have done thousands of interviews. You can’t get someone to change their account by “planting” an idea in a question. If there is an inconsistency in someone’s account, you have to figure out what they were saying. You don’t do what you do, which is to pick the statement you like and ignore anything to the contrary.
You really need to stop calling them liars. You backed down on a previous accusation and then you make another. You just hurt your own credibility. And I am still waiting to hear how you know Ranke is a telemarketer or a salesman. Once again, back it up or retract it. Or leave.
Just to help everybody out here.
In his video
“CIT vs The Frustrating Fraud (Pentagon attack debate)”
published on his Lytetrip YT channel in April 2017, here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbH7fBQQ4ms
Craig Ranke is asked by Adam Larson (who worked in a Call Centre),
“What do you do for a living?”
Craig replies at 1:10:17,
“Aldo and I work for a software company … sales”.
So what? Who cares whether someone works in sales?
I did some research at your request and it turns out that Aldo was the telemarketer. I’m always ready to admit when I am wrong but you are not.
“Ranke, a 39-year-old software engineer and part-time drummer for the reggae band the Stemz”
“Marquis never attended college. After graduating with honors from Carson High School, he went straight into sales and telemarketing. He is Ranke’s co-worker twice over. As co-founders of the Citizen Investigation Team , they collaborate in their efforts to prove military deception about the Pentagon attack, but they also work together as software engineers in Mission Viejo.”
https://ocweekly.com/do-you-believe-a-passenger-jet-hit-the-pentagon-on-9-11-these-men-say-youve-been-pentaconned-6415021/
Literally worthless. Every word.
“You really need to stop calling them liars.”
I call them liars when I point out a blatant lie.
For instance: CIT, knowing that Morin was not between the wings of the building when he first saw the plane, said that he was between the wings when he first saw the plane in their video “Over The Navy Annex (Featuring Terry Morin)”. That is a baldfaced lie.
Actually, Chris, this makes you a liar because you know that Morin described being between the wings and running out. Even if he made another comment that could be taken differently, he still made the first comment. So how can you call CIT quoting him, from their interview, a lie? You are quite the hypocrite in how you get offended when I call you dishonest while you call CIT liars at every turn.
Maybe you don’t care how ridiculous you sound.
“This is absolutely clear and specific. He was inside the wings of the building and he ran outside to follow the plane. What is not clear about this?”
The part where he said that he was “Approximately 10 steps >out< from between Wings 4 and 5” in an interview in September 2001.
That part just didn’t register with you.
“That has nothing to do with a few steps one way or the other.”
Wrong!!! Those few steps made the difference between Morin seeing the plane for only a second and seeing it approach, and then fly (south of the Citgo station) into the Pentagon.
CIT falsely claims that Morin could only see the plane for a second because he was between the wings if the Navel Annex. That is a lie. From his vantage point, 10 steps OUT from between the wings of the Naval Annex. Morin could see the plane approaching and watch it as it dropped below the tree line. He could still see the top of the tail when the plane hit the building.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
Why do you simply take one comment from Morin and ignore the other? You accuse me of doing this and then you do it yourself?
Either way, the flight path of the plane was irreconcilable with the official path. Period.
Morin had no view whatsoever of the west face of the Pentagon, even if he was 10 steps south of the south wall of the Navy Annex.
We have 2 photos taken 8 minutes post impact by Jason Ingersoll from this exact position, showing Morin’s view, which proves that he could not have seen any of this. DSC_0404, 0405, taken at 9:45 a.m.
There was a chain link fence and trees obscuring the view to the east, and the only part of the Pentagon visible was a thin strip along the top of the south-west face.
There was no line of sight to the west face. This is confirmed by reference to any overhead image of the area.
Nor could Morin have seen the tail of the plane descending. The height of the Navy Annex blocked out the view of the sky through which the plane flew.
There was no possible way that he could have seen any flash from light poles being hit. The light poles were far below his vantage point, below the chain link fence, and north of his line of sight.
I have no doubt that Morin did see a ‘flash’, but this was produced by something altogether different from light poles being hit by the plane.
Morin’s initial testimony states that he saw stripes down the side of the plane “which identified it to me as American Airlines, and I so reported to the authorities.”
However, in his verbal testimony to Craig Ranke, he stated on tape that he could not identify the plane because it flew directly over his head, therefore he was unable to see any markings on the side.
This suggests that his first testimony had been manipulated in line with the Official Fairy Story.
A verbal testimony from Morin’s own mouth trumps a written report taken down by another party on behalf of the perpetrators.
Craig,
Why so hostile? I was merely pointing out where Craig Ranke himself said he worked. In software sales. Since Chris seemed to have the wrong idea, which he got from David Chandler
Perhaps you should have made it clear why you posted this. I have no problem with someone pointing out Ranke’s job (even if he were a telemarketer!), but without an explanation, the impression is left that someone being in sales supports the idea that he’s fast-talking and manipulative.
McKee: “Why do you simply take one comment from Morin and ignore the other?”
The comment he made shortly after the event is most likely the correct one. The memory was fresh in his mind. The comment he made 5 years later was the result of his memory of the event fading (and having the suggestion planted).
Do you really think the statement made 5 years later is the right one and the one he made shortly after 9/11 is wrong?
I don’t know about that. We hear him say, in his own voice, that he saw the belly of the plane as it went directly over him, and that he could not see stripes on the side to identify it.
All we have of his earlier testimony is a written piece, which may or may not have been genuinely his words.
Many witnesses’ accounts were heavily edited and coloured by journalists and interviewers immediately after the event.
McKee “Actually, Chris, this makes you a liar because you know that Morin described being between the wings and running out. Even if he made another comment that could be taken differently, he still made the first comment.
To say that the other comment “could be taken differently” is fraudulent. The statement is perfectly clear. “I was approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5.”
Further, implying that what Morin said to Ranke is the first comment is also fraudulent.
I am tired of this ridiculous exchange. You must have Ranke’s face on a dart board in your basement.
McKee “I am tired of this ridiculous exchange.”
You are tired of this because I just showed that you misrepresented the facts while wrongfully accusing me of lying.
Morin said he was NOT between the wings in his 2001 interview. Ranke knew that when he asked Morin “Were you between the wings of the Navy Annex or out ?” 5 years later. There was no legitimate reason to ask that question. He was phishing for a different answer.
If the person being asked a question is being honest and forthcoming, it shouldn’t matter how many times they are asked. In fact, any decent journalist would have asked this. There is nothing wrong with asking something that might have been covered elsewhere. Only you would see this as a devious thing.
It’s time to stop this because you are not someone who can go more than a couple of sentences without saying something outrageously false. I did not misrepresent anything. As far as I’m concerned, you’re a complete lunatic.
Craig,
“Might have been covered elsewhere” ??? You are playing with words. Ranke had to have read Morin’s original interview to know that he was a witness. Ranke knew that Morin said he was 10 feet OUT from between the wings.
No decent journalist would have asked if he was between the wings. There was no reason for Ranke to doubt that Morin was telling the truth about his location. That question makes no sense.
Please forgo the ad hominem attacks. They have no place in an adult debate.
Chris, I have been a journalist for more than 30 years, and I have done many thousands of interviews. I know a great deal about the subject and you clearly do not. You have proved this with this latest comment. Journalists do not avoid bringing up a subject that someone has made a previous statement on. If anything, if they want to confirm first hand that comments previously attributed to someone are accurate, they will indeed ask them again. To suggest that it is bad journalistic form to ask someone a question that someone else has already asked is absurd.
And to suggest that someone in a later comment would forget where they were or that they would forget what they already said is unfounded. If there is an inconsistency in statements made years apart you cannot assume the earlier statement is the more accurate one. You should really investigate further to establish the truth. But you don’t care about the truth; you only care about attacking CIT and propping up the official crash scenario.
The bottom line is that Morin contradicts the official flight path. He is a north path witness.
Craig,
I am not so foolish as to imagine that this post will see the light of day, but it does contain information you have previously requested, which is pertinent to your articles.
Lloyde denies Pole #1 hit the cab
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165884@N02/48018884228/in/dateposted-public/
Lloyde says Pole #1 DOES NOT SHOW IT
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148165884@N02/48018964722/in/dateposted-public/
Ruby, if I had any doubts about what you are up to, they are gone now. I can see that you are a con artist. Your claim that England was denying it was the long part of pole 1 is nothing short of a lie. Anyone who watches the video can see that England is disputing WHERE he and his cab were, not which pole it was. When he says, “This does not show it,” he is talking about his location. He points right at pole 1 and says, “This shows the pole here.” Then he points to the side of the Pentagon, referring to WHERE the pole was.
HE DOES NOT POINT TO THE PIECE OF POLE 2 AND SAY “THIS SHOWS THE POLE HERE.” He simply doesn’t. You are not authentic or honest. Go peddle you disinformation somewhere else.
Ruby and Sarns are just flooding your blog with bullshit because it will discourage people to wade through it all.
Craig,
You did not answer this question:
Do you really think the statement made 5 years later is the right one and the one he made shortly after 9/11 is wrong?
I covered this in my other answer. You and your pals have been distorting this issue for many years now.
Craig,
Yes, you “covered it” by making an idiotic assertion that a statement made 5 years after the event is more accurate than one made within a few weeks of the event. That is bullshit and you know it.
Chris, you don’t like being called a lunatic. But then you make a comment like this. The only alternative is to call you grossly deceptive. Would that be better? Where did I say that a statement five years after the event would be more accurate? Please quote that for me.
I said nothing of the kind, which any rational person could see. Read my comment again and show me where I said that. Or show some character and retract it. So tiresome dealing with your crap.
McKee “Where did I say that a statement five years after the event would be more accurate?”
Here: “This is absolutely clear and specific. He was inside the wings of the building and he ran outside to follow the plane.”
Chris, it’s impossible to discuss anything with you on this subject. You distort things so badly that it’s like we’re speaking different languages. You just pick a piece of what someone said that suits you and then ignore the rest. I give up trying to reason with you.
Craig, I have not distorted anything. You stated that Morin was between the wings of the Naval Annex as a fact. That is, in effect, stating that what Morin said 5 years after 9/11/01 is accurate and what he said a few weeks after 9/11/01 is false.
It’s abundantly clear that you will never admit that you are wrong, even when it is crystal clear that you are. When I catch you in a lie, you feign indigence and accuse me of distorting the facts.
.
Show me the quote where I stated it was a fact that Morin was between the wings. Show it or take it back. Show me where I said the earlier comment was false. I DID NOT!!!! BUT YOU DON’T CARE WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID. YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT YOUR OBSESSION WITH SUPPORTING MOST OF THE PENTAGON OFFICIAL STORY.
I correctly said that Morin SAID he was between the wings. I also acknowledged that there was an inconsistency between his comments. Your convenient assertion that someone would be less likely to be right five years later is unfounded. No one would forget an experience like that.
Is it possible you don’t even know when you are twisting someone’s words beyond recognition? Or are you doing it on purpose? Are you a con artist who is having a big laugh at the expense of the readers of this blog? You are your crew are being exposed for that they are.
McKee “Show me the quote where I stated it was a fact that Morin was between the wings.”
I just did. Here it is again:
McKee “This is absolutely clear and specific. He was inside the wings of the building and he ran outside to follow the plane. What is not clear about this?”
That is a statement of fact. Further, it is in effect, saying that Morin’s original statement was false because both statements cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive.
McKee “I correctly said that Morin SAID he was between the wings.
You did say that Morin said he was inside the wings of the building.
McKee “Morin says: “I was inside. It flew right over the top of me. . . . . I immediately ran to the outside. That’s when I watched the airplane. I moved into a position where I could see it.”
I also acknowledged that there was an inconsistency between his comments.”
No, you did not! Here is another lie in an attempt to deny the first lie. You did not mention Morin’s original statement or the inconsistency.
Here is another sentence where you assert that the statement Morin made 5 years later is the correct statement.
McKee “Your convenient assertion that someone would be less likely to be right five years later is unfounded. No one would forget an experience like that.”
If no one would forget an experience like that, then why did Morin “forget” where he was in his original statement in 2001? You are the one doing the twisting.
Chris,
I think this discussion has run its course. I’m tired of the games you play. You indignantly protest that you didn’t call me a liar, just CIT. Then you call me a liar a couple of comments later. I did make the statement you quote but it was in the context of addressing your claim that Ranke “planted” the suggestion by asking the question.
Your hatred and extreme bias make it impossible for you to see reason or fairness. I don’t want to discuss this with you anymore.
Well it’s 9/11 again and I’m still learning new things, like this false alarm and evacuation because of “a second plane” coming toward the Pentagon, one that never appeared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZBRXe52K1w
I guess the best way to convince all those people present that this really was a plane impact is to crank up the panic of another. Did anyone stop to wonder why there was zero military intercept?