LLoyde England, 9/11 Pentagon attack taxi driver: 'It was planned.'

[Subdivisions]

"I'm not supposed to be in it...I'm in it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hRbXe3HWPk&feature

"One thing about you gotta understand something...When people do things and get a way with it...you...eventually it's going to come to me and when it comes to me it's going to be so big I can't do nothing about it."

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Yes, Lloyde is a conspiracy theorist himself.

He had a book from David Icke on the seat next to him when the light pole hit his cab. It would be funny how CIT has worked him "into the plot," except that their ongoing harassment and defamation of Lloyde is despicable and possible actionable.

[Subdivisions]

2. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but...

To some degree, I agree with you.

Now, I'm going to go throw up for agreeing with you on something. Even to an extent.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. You probably agree with me far more than you realize.

Not on 9/11 issues, of course. But if your politics are left, if you want single-payer on the table, if you find torture reprehensible, if you think Bush et al. committed war crimes (far and above fucking up our nation's legal system), if you think people who think government can work should be in charge of running government, then you really do agree with me far more than you know.

[Subdivisions]

4. I can only throw up so much. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Let's call it a stretch goal, shall we? n/t

[wildbilln864]

6. yet you spend so much time in this forum....

arguing with us about 911 but do nothing in the other frorums to fight for those issues you mention. Why is that?:shrug:

[AZCat]

7. What does posting in forums have to do with fighting for issues?

Real change happens away from the internet.

[NowHearThis]

8. Good question. Personally, I don't have a clue about why...

anyone would do something like that. Furthermore, I'm not gonna speculate. Sorry, Untruthers.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Yet you're happy to keep telling us that it's strange to you and how you're not going to speculate

over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

[NowHearThis]

12. You want speculation? I'll give you speculation.

People may rightly wonder why the Untruthers here haven't made any effort to refute what Lloyde England accidentally revealed which
proves that the downed light poles story is one of the lies which helps prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Why is that?

My speculation is that the Untruthers are having a hard time trying to cook up a "good" reason for why and how OSAMA put Lloyde up
to spilling the beans -- to try and frame BUSCHO for 9/11 and take the heat off of his cold, dead self.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. I don't think you have enough information about me and for what I fight available to you

Maybe you can call for an investigation of me with subpoena power and get to the bottom of it.

[wildbilln864]

13. a DU search is all that's needed. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

14. That could only be if DU was the sum total of my life

And that's simply not the case, wildbill. If you continue to insult me so, I will begin the alerts.

[Subdivisions]

15. My, my. Whenever do you find time for anything else to

fill in the sum total of your life considering you are here nearly your every waking hour?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Oh, I manage.

Now the same goes for you. Any further discussion of my person and my time and how I spend it will be considered an attack and alerts will be made. Your choice.

[Subdivisions]

17. Welp! Now you've gone and scared the shit out of me. See ya. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

18. My intent is not to scare anything out of you.

My intent is only to ensure that you back off of something that is none of your business.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. comparing post-count rates and rolling my eyes n/t

[wildbilln864]

20. I am not insulting you.

You mis-interpret. I'm only referring to your DU activity. I don't see you speaking up in other forums here to support any other issues except here. Of course I know nothing of you from anything but here.

[jberryhill]

45. Posting On DU Is A Diversion - It Is Not "Activism" Or "Fighting" For Anything

Hence, my signature quote from AZCat....

[ThePentaCon]

63. Hi Subdivisions

BTW, Why do you agree?

[NowHearThis]

11. No. Lloyde was used by the conspirators.

It's really shameful that the perps would go to such lengths to compromise people like Llyode. He unintentionally spilled the
beans and for that, I don't really mind if Bushco paid him for his troubles.

Many of us have known almost from the beginning that the downed light poles story was one of the many lies told by the perps, but we still owe Lloyde England a debt of gratitude.

Progress comes slowly, by degrees.

[defendandprotect]

22. It's interesting imagining . . .

the scenario by which they actually did cause those lightpoles to fall -- and when?

Anyone forming any thoughts on that?

Hard to know where to even begin on that . . . might they have flown a drone thru there?

With American Airlines logo, of course!

They could have been pre-wired with some kind of a charge to fall . . . ???

I haven't made any rounds of the various 9/11 sites of investigation to see what's new

lately -- guess it's time to do that again.

[NowHearThis]

23. They just dismantled them the night before, then gingerly...

placed them in what was to be later claimed as being in the DIRECT path of non-existent AA FL 77. If you look closely at
photos, you can see that they obviously were NOT ripped from their base, as would have happened if they had come loose as
the result of an airplane hitting them.

Llyod Englande was used by the Gov't and I hope he was well-paid for his participation and cooperation. He really earned
his pay when he inadvertently admitted that the government lied.

[defendandprotect]

24. That's possible . . .

but wouldn't there have been a lot of going to work traffic thru there earlier that

morning? I haven't looked that closely at the photos or thought about that ---

but pretty definitely if a plane had whacked them, they would be ripped from their base!!

I think the Lloyd Englande affair is astonishing. Terrific work by the investigators.

[NowHearThis]

25. 1 of the reasons why 9/11 "worked" is because it's easy to plant...

evidence if you're the government. The police do it every day and nearly always get away with it. No matter how outrageous, the
passive public will take the side of the "authorities" most of the time.

How many people do you think WEREN'T fooled by the doctored videos showing cartoon planes? How many people do you think WEREN'T
fooled when the man on TV told them that the WTC had collapsed as the result of plane crashes, fires, and gravity? The BBC TV
commentator stood in front of a televised image of WTC7 and told viewers that the building had collapsed. You can't get much more
outrageous than that! It almost seems that the more bizarre lies "they" tell the public, the easier it is to fool them.
Remember the anthrax BS?

The key, for the perps, is to get THEIR story out first. Once the public is told a lie, then anyone who challenges the lie has a
very tough row to hoe.

Once the TV images of Lloyd Englande's taxi were shown with that downed pole that was made to look like it crushed the windshield
of Lloyde's Lincoln, that powerful, emotion-provoking image was easy to sell as a lie.

That said, the government always has unlimited taxpayer funds to use to hire PR firms (and other assets) to help sell a lie and to attack and destroy the truth and all who attempt to expose and bear witness to it.

[ThePentaCon]

26. tsk tsk, Bolo

That doesn't make him a CT, it just makes you gullible.

It's amazing, Bolo doesn't see the slightest connection here.

A CT book about CT's written by a man who writes 9/11 CT's owned by a man at the center of what Bolo calls a CT.

Bolo, THE PLANE APPROACHED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO. THIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. THIS IMPLICATES LLOYD ENGLAND IN THE STAGING OF HIS CAB AND POLE. YOUR ATTEMPTS TO DISCTRACT EVERYONE AND FRAME HIM AS A CT DOES NOT CHANGE ANY OF THIS.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Yes, yes, very good. Would you like a cookie?

Sorry, all out of cookies.

[ThePentaCon]

30. I know, Bolo

U got nothing. I understand. That usually happens when CIT shows up.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NowHearThis]

28. Bolo's rebuttal (sic) doesn't inspire confidence in him or his...

billions and billions of attempts to sell and defend the impossible and bludgeon anyone who dares to differ with him.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Oh, my post doesn't inspire confidence in you. Awww.

Well, I don't give a fuck, so we're even.

[NowHearThis]

31. What it does is reassure me that you either don't know what...

really happened or else you do (which is more than likely, in my opinion) and yet you have a strange, compelling need to
try and defend the impossible by means of more tricks than Houdini had in HIS shows.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Let me know when you get to a part I care about. n/t

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. We're on a quota. n/t

[Subdivisions]

37. Obviously Y'ALL are. Everybody knows that. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Aw, poor pudding. I'm sorry I ran out of cookies before you came in. n/t

[Subdivisions]

40. Wouldn't it be more effective if you smoked it? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

41. And thus it is demonstrated exactly what you guys are all after here.

You aren't looking for an actual discussion, none of you.

But when I start joking around, suddenly you're like flies to vinegar, hovering around, taking as many licks as you can get in before the lock.

Go find another playmate, all of you.

[ThePentaCon]

42. Bolo

Are you going to contact the witnesses and explain how they didn't see the plane approach on the north side of the gas station?

I mean, obviously, you weren't there and all, and you don't have a bias or anything like that.

Perhaps you can instill some knowledge of how that plane really did approach. Maybe they will all fall to their knees and thank you for the correction.

We really need to get this rectified, don't you think?

[William Seger]

46. Have you contacted all your witnesses

... and "explained" to them how the plane flew over the Pentagon? Maybe they will all fall to their knees and thank you for the correction.

[NowHearThis]

47. William sounding more and more desperate

Have you contacted anyone to apologize for having been fooled so long by BUSHCO?

[William Seger]

48. LOL, as usual, you're looking at the world upside-down

... and ass-backwards. PentaCON is the one who is desperate -- desperate to hand-wave away all the phyiscal evidence and the witnesses. That's because he's desperate to save his dreams of fame and fortune as a "truth movement hero," i.e. to sell a few more DVDs to gullible fools.

But I'm not surprised that it doesn't occur to you that what I'm suggesting would be an interesting and perhaps enlightening experiment. In fact, I already know how Lagasse, at least, would likely respond, and so does PentaCON: Lagasse is 100% certain that he saw the plane hit the light poles and the generator trailer before plowing into the side of the building, twisting slightly to the side as it did so. According to the CIT super-sleuths/psy-ops experts, he didn't really see all those details; he added them to his memory later, after hearing about them. That's possibly true -- I don't claim to know -- but Ranke can't quite figure out that that hypothesis completely undermines his claim that Lagasse's memory of the flight path is incredibly credible. There's no reason that it can't also be a "reconstructed memory" based on a later assumption about where the plane came from. Lagasse was even wrong about where he was standing when the plane went over, as proved by the Citgo security cam video. But fortunately, we don't need Lagasse's memory to figure out what the hell happened to AA77.

Oh, and BTW, BUSHCO didn't tell me the plane flew into the building. You know that, of course, but you keep pretending otherwise because you're desperate to protect your delusions and your ass-backwards "logic" from reality.

[ThePentaCon]

50. LOL and once again, you are looking at it downside up.

... and ass-backwards. PentaCON is the one who is desperate -- desperate to hand-wave away all the phyiscal evidence and the witnesses.

I've asked you to stop lying and misrepresnting us, William. Why do you insists on doing that? Are you paid to do it or something? Sheesh...

"Physical evidence" exists in "physical form". You have photos, the very photos that drove us out there in the first place, since we doubted the integrity/validity of said object interacting with a 757.

Witnesses, as I said, many times, covered and NOT ingored right here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82



That's because he's desperate to save his dreams of fame and fortune as a "truth movement hero," i.e. to sell a few more DVDs to gullible fools.


Stop trying to character assassinate.

-We put the videos online for free before and after DVD release.
-We raise a minimal amount of funds for research
-People asked us to put it on DVD.
-People want to donate and support our cause.

But I'm not surprised that it doesn't occur to you that what I'm suggesting would be an interesting and perhaps enlightening experiment. In fact, I already know how Lagasse, at least, would likely respond, and so does PentaCON: Lagasse is 100% certain that he saw the plane hit the light poles and the generator trailer before plowing into the side of the building, twisting slightly to the side as it did so.

William, you are such a misleading person. What drives you?

Lagasse DEDUCED these things. He admitted that and he can't see the light poles and you certainly can't see the generator trailer from where he was at. Most importantly, he is 100% positive that the approached on the north side of the Citgo which means it can't hit these things in the first place!!!!

You are so disgusting that in one breath you will accuse his memory of being faulty regarding the NoC approach, but will use his DEDUCTION to claim he "witnessed" this. You are deplorable.



According to the CIT super-sleuths/psy-ops experts, he didn't really see all those details; he added them to his memory later, after hearing about them. That's possibly true -- I don't claim to know --



Wow.


but Ranke can't quite figure out that that hypothesis completely undermines his claim that Lagasse's memory of the flight path is incredibly credible. There's no reason that it can't also be a "reconstructed memory" based on a later assumption about where the plane came from.

Yes there is a reason. 13 reasons. He is CORROBORATED. Stop trying to simple separate him and minimize his importance.


Lagasse was even wrong about where he was standing when the plane went over, as proved by the Citgo security cam video.


He wasn't wrong!!!! He was just there to do a quick interview, not recreate every single detail. He pulled up to the front pump so we people could pull in behind him. He was not trying to remember exactly where he was parked, he was trying to give a quick interview regarding what he saw. His memory started come back before Craig even said anything!!!

Do you remember exactly which bar stool or chair or couch you were sitting at while you were having your AM drink on 9/11 while watching the news reports??


But fortunately, we don't need Lagasse's memory to figure out what the hell happened to AA77.


That's right, we have 12 other people to let us know AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

[William Seger]

51. Oh, you only care about CORROBORATED witnesses?

And of course the vastly larger number of witnesses who not only corroborate each other but also the massive physical (yes, phyisical) evidence and the documentary evidence such as the photos, radar track, and FDR path data -- well, they're not really "witnesses" at all in your tiny little world of delusion and circular logic, because the plane didn't hit the building, right? That's what you set out on your "research project" to prove, and this bullshit is simply the best you could come up with, so that's what you've put on the 9/11 bullshit market.

You asked in a different post how it was possible for a plane to come from the north side of the Citgo and cause that clear path of destruction from the light poles to that hole in the C ring. There isn't any polite way to say that I very firmly believe that anyone who can't solve that "mystery" in about two seconds is simply not very bright. Either that, or they have some obsession with an agenda that strongly resembles mental illness. If you wanted to assume that the NoC path is correct, just for the sake of argument, and see where that leads, then add maybe another 10 seconds to realize that you arrive at conclusions that are absurd, e.g. the impossibility of faking all that physical evidence right in front of hundreds of witnesses and the zero-percent chance of your idiotic "fireball magic trick" working. When you spend nearly three years "investigating" and still don't realize that those absurd conclusions are not supported by a shred of evidence or any credible eyewitness account, then it seems to me that either you have a serious mental problem or you are deliberately trying to scam people who are too dumb to figure it out. Which is it, PentaCON?

You come back with, oh, but Roberts is a "flyover" witness! But all anyone has to do is listen to his account to realize that it's impossible to even figure out a coherent time line, much less match any part of his account to any other witness, including your own. He says the "second plane" did a U-turn and flew back to the southwest, right past those same witnesses you claim were fooled by the "magic trick" of the plane flying into the fireball! And as I'll point out again, just because you obviously have nothing but a ridiculous answer, if it took him 5 to 10 seconds to get out on the loading dock, there is no way he could have seen your claimed "flyover" plane anywhere over the south parking lot, so there is simply no way he could corroborate your fantasy, regardless of what he says.

And as you well know, but others may not, even other "truthers" don't buy this idiotic bullshit, for (just one) example:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-and.html

And I don't think I ever congratulated you for producing the video other "truthers" voted as being the one they would least likely recommend to other "truthers." Great job.

I looked for a few minutes for some of the stuff Russell Pickering had to say about your "conclusion based on the evidence" and some of his insights into that initial trip to DC with you guys and Avery, but didn't find it right away. But go ahead and post your circular reasoning one more time while I look for it. Which reminds me: Besides Pickering and John Farmer, are there any other researchers that you guys have convinced to quit the "truth movement?"

[ThePentaCon]

54. The definition of insanity....

Is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

You aren't even trying to listen are you William? Perhaps you ARE paid to do this.


And of course the vastly larger number of witnesses who not only corroborate each other but also the massive physical (yes, phyisical) evidence and the documentary evidence such as the photos, radar track, and FDR path data -- well, they're not really "witnesses" at all in your tiny little world of delusion and circular logic, because the plane didn't hit the building, right? That's what you set out on your "research project" to prove, and this bullshit is simply the best you could come up with, so that's what you've put on the 9/11 bullshit market.

Tsk tsk, William. You shouldn't get so angry. Especially over something you are so clearly wrong on.

There is no physical evidence. Physical evidence exists in physical form. Physical evidence would afford you the ability to test the pole to see if it made contact with a 757 wing or if the base made contact with a plasma torch or not.

Secondly, what you don't seem to get is that static online media accounts and blurbs do not constitute counter evidence. You need to verify the person exists, contact them, speak with them, determine their PoV, determine if can even see what they claim they are seeing. They need to be independently verified. I gave you the link to our witness thread...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

Take Susan Carroll for instance...

“I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon.”<127>

-Susan Carroll



How did she see the plane hit from there? She didn't. She deduced it. This happened with many witnesses. Then there are the paid liars. Also, there aren't any witnesses that "corroborate" the "radar track, and FDR path data". I dare you to cite one.

Then there is the problem with the FDR itself and the fact that the plane cannot even fly the official flight path due to the topography!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Don't be afraid to click the links, William. You will actually learn something, I promise.



You asked in a different post how it was possible for a plane to come from the north side of the Citgo and cause that clear path of destruction from the light poles to that hole in the C ring. There isn't any polite way to say that I very firmly believe that anyone who can't solve that "mystery" in about two seconds is simply not very bright. Either that, or they have some obsession with an agenda that strongly resembles mental illness. If you wanted to assume that the NoC path is correct, just for the sake of argument, and see where that leads, then add maybe another 10 seconds to realize that you arrive at conclusions that are absurd, e.g. the impossibility of faking all that physical evidence right in front of hundreds of witnesses and the zero-percent chance of your idiotic "fireball magic trick" working. When you spend nearly three years "investigating" and still don't realize that those absurd conclusions are not supported by a shred of evidence or any credible eyewitness account, then it seems to me that either you have a serious mental problem or you are deliberately trying to scam people who are too dumb to figure it out. Which is it, PentaCON?


Blah blah blah. Just more denial from the 9/11 Denier. In other words you can't explain it, because you undedrstand the implications. This is why you won't believe it. But you know what William? People are watching the presentations in droves. The new Lloyd short is nearing 30K views happening over a 5 day period. More and more people watch all those fingers and hands point to the north side, more and more people see it as fact after watching it, because well, it obviously is fact.

You come back with, oh, but Roberts is a "flyover" witness! But all anyone has to do is listen to his account to realize that it's impossible to even figure out a coherent time line, much less match any part of his account to any other witness, including your own.

Maybe it's impossible to you because you are an incoherent individual. The timeline is clear, explosion(s)...7 steps out to the edge of the dock...sees the plane.


He says the "second plane" did a U-turn and flew back to the southwest, right past those same witnesses you claim were fooled by the "magic trick" of the plane flying into the fireball!

The plane may not have flown through the fireball, Mr Incredulity. Also if it was flying away in the distance on the other side of the Pentagon, they wouldn't have seen it. They would have uncovering themselves. Lifting their heads, staring at a gaping hole with smoke pouring out of it.


And as I'll point out again, just because you obviously have nothing but a ridiculous answer, if it took him 5 to 10 seconds to get out on the loading dock, there is no way he could have seen your claimed "flyover" plane anywhere over the south parking lot, so there is simply no way he could corroborate your fantasy, regardless of what he says.

You're not listening, William. You can't keep shouting me down pretending you aren't reading what I am telling you. He had time. I explained how if the explosions were set off internally, seconds before the plane reached the building, he would have time to run to the edge of a dock that is 7 steps away and see that plane.

He certainly didn't see the C-130. So are you calling him a liar? Mr. Anonymous, with your anonymous parents and their anonymous imaginary neighbor who is an imaginary witness to the imaginary impact.

And as you well know, but others may not, even other "truthers" don't buy this idiotic bullshit, for (just one) example:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-revie...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-rank...

Well I am glad you used quotation marks. Because Arabesque isn't even a truther. He isn't even a real person. He, like you, is an anonymous internet persona. He is a grade A, certified shill. He is disinfo. He has been challenged many times to remove his deceitful blog. He doesn't apply the same level of validation we do, he just spams "quantity" to fool and overwhelm the reader trying to convince them every single person he lists is an actual witness proving an impact. I mean he lists people who aren't even witnesses, who weren't even there, as witnesses to the attack. Like Lee Evey, Tom Hovis, and Don Fortunato. He has been corrected on this and many others, but he leaves it up. He will not change it. That is willing disinfo. Here is more on him:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=21

And I don't think I ever congratulated you for producing the video other "truthers" voted as being the one they would least likely recommend to other "truthers." Great job.

haha who voted? WHO CARES? It's amazing that you are using truthers as your gauge. You are appealing to authority with truthers. That is astonishing considering you think they are idiots.

You're just angry. We got you. We won. You can't debunk it and it just doesn't seem to be going away (unlike your defunct CIT site haha).

I looked for a few minutes for some of the stuff Russell Pickering had to say about your "conclusion based on the evidence" and some of his insights into that initial trip to DC with you guys and Avery, but didn't find it right away. But go ahead and post your circular reasoning one more time while I look for it. Which reminds me: Besides Pickering and John Farmer, are there any other researchers that you guys have convinced to quit the "truth movement?"

OMG, the other two gigantic glaringly obvious spooks. Russell lied before, during, and after that trip. We have mountains of evidence of contradictory, illogical, SUBVERSIVE behavior and the documentation to prove it. He left because he outgrew his effectiveness and we called him out as an op/infiltrator. IOW, his cover was blown.


Farmer? hahaha, that guy is a joke. We have had him pegged and he like Pickering displayed the most bizarre illogical behavior and clearly has simply been a conduit for disinformation. Here ya go...
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=474
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=515
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=476
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=158
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=147

This one is a hoot:
Farmer claims citgo video supports north side!
funny how things change
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=113

haha enjoy.

K, are you done with your character assassination/disinformation campaign yet, William?

[SDuderstadt]

55. Nobody believes your goofy theories, dude....

People have wised up to the PentaCon.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

57. 28K views on YouTube?

Hmmm, since no one knows exactly what the video says until they watch it, are you claiming those views are now your supporters? Funny, when a "truther organization" was polled as to their preferred "9/11 truth" supplier, you came in dead last. I wouldn't go around boasting if I were you.

[ThePentaCon]

59. Please,

Everyone has since long forgotten whatever silly little poll youa referring to. Hell it was probably when there were only 4 witnesses.

Go read the comments, the support is there. We get it all day.

You let me know when you accept the plane approached on the north side of the gas station? Mkay?

Go watch it, then watch it again. Then watch it one more time. Everytime someone watches the witnesses they walk away realizing the plane approached on the north side of the gas station. How does that make you feel?

Realize this. You are nobody. You don't count. You don't matter and you never will.

It's over.

[SDuderstadt]

75. "Go read the comments"

Let me make sure I get this straight. You state you have 20K views. There are 72 comments, a number of them multiple comments from a handful of people. Man, what an overwhelming response.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Maybe you could send it into "America's Funniest Home Videos"....

that would probably really, as they say, "put you on the map".

[Old and In the Way]

58. Witnesses only count if they support the OCT.

Your witnesses, while documented and credible, obviously don't. Sure would love to see those confiscated tapes from the gas station...bet they've been lost permanently.

[ThePentaCon]

60. Video from the gas station has been out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

Proof The Citgo Security Video Was Manipulated:
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Every one of CIT's witnesses say the plane crashed into the building.

The tape from the gas station has been released. They didn't have a camera pointing at the Pentagon.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThePentaCon]

64. How?

How did they see it crash into the Pentagon after approaching on the north side of the Citgo?

[Bolo Boffin]

65. They watched it fly toward the Pentagon.

They watched the explosion.

They watched nothing fly away.

The Pentagon is surrounded by highways. People moving in all directions. No one saw a plane fly away. Not one single person saw the airplane swooping over the building and flying away.

Add that to all of the other evidence of Flight 77 crashing there -- the ability to track Flight 77 from takeoff to crashing on primary radar recordings, the airplane parts (including the FDR), the bodies of the passengers, the phone calls from the aircraft (Olson AND Renee May).

[NowHearThis]

68. Were they expecting to see a plane fly over the Pentagon?

You are trying to make it sound like they were looking but they just didn't see the flyover.

"They watched nothing fly away."

[Bolo Boffin]

70. People looking at the Pentagon as a plane flies toward it

would be expected to see it if the plane flies over and away from it.

Somebody would have seen it happen. CIT's got nobody.

[ThePentaCon]

77. His name is Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

Why are you in denial Bolo?

Roosevelt Roberts stands by what he saw? Wouldn't that make you a traitor if you are calling him a liar?

What about Erik Dihle's co-workers? Dewitt Roseborough?

Bolo, a plane approaching from the north side of the gas station can only NOT hit the building.

I know, it sucks.

[ThePentaCon]

76. Bolo come now!

They watched the explosion. They watched nothing fly away.

Really? Where did you learn this? Who are you even talking about?

Don't you disgust yourself at all with this mindless circular logic you present?

One more time,

A PLANE APPROACHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO CANNOT HIT THE LIGHT POLES OR THE PENTAGON!
A PLANE APPROACHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO CANNOT HIT THE LIGHT POLES OR THE PENTAGON!
A PLANE APPROACHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO CANNOT HIT THE LIGHT POLES OR THE PENTAGON!
A PLANE APPROACHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO CANNOT HIT THE LIGHT POLES OR THE PENTAGON!
A PLANE APPROACHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO CANNOT HIT THE LIGHT POLES OR THE PENTAGON!
A PLANE APPROACHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITGO CANNOT HIT THE LIGHT POLES OR THE PENTAGON!

And again,

Sgt Lagasse flinched, jumped into his car and admitted that the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane actually did.
Sgt Lagasse flinched, jumped into his car and admitted that the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane actually did.
Sgt Lagasse flinched, jumped into his car and admitted that the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane actually did.
Sgt Lagasse flinched, jumped into his car and admitted that the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane actually did.
Sgt Lagasse flinched, jumped into his car and admitted that the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane actually did.

And once more...

Sgt Brooks said our movie was an "eye-opener" and that "anything is possible when it comes to hime being fooled.
Sgt Brooks said our movie was an "eye-opener" and that "anything is possible when it comes to hime being fooled.
Sgt Brooks said our movie was an "eye-opener" and that "anything is possible when it comes to hime being fooled.
Sgt Brooks said our movie was an "eye-opener" and that "anything is possible when it comes to hime being fooled.
Sgt Brooks said our movie was an "eye-opener" and that "anything is possible when it comes to hime being fooled.

Do I need to continue?

Bolo oh bolo my dearest, would you be a doll and let us contact you by phone so we can get an official Jrefugee debating their absurd position on recording? You know, just so we can make you realize how desperate, frightened of the implications, and silly you are.

[NowHearThis]

79. GREAT idea. Don't wimp out, bolo. Here's your big moment...

To show the world your debating and dramatic showmanship talents.

Why do I have a sinking feeling that bolo lacks the
courage to engage in a real debate where the rules of fairness apply to him as well as to his opponents?

Why do I have a sinking feeling that he is unwilling to engage in a debate where it will be obvious to one and all if he ducks
substantive issues or tries to change the subject thru the usual Untruther tactics of belittling, harassing, and
bullying those who have a different viewpoint than his - and where he won't be able to get away with one-liners followed
by an "nt" in response to substantive points and questions?

Be an Untruther hero, bolo. AGREE to a real debate.

[OnTheOtherHand]

84. "dramatic showmanship" is your objective?

Oh-kay. I like my chances of noticing who is ducking substantive issues just fine right here (naming no names, to be sure).

[OnTheOtherHand]

89. just in case you are confusing yourself here

First of all, it's common for eyewitnesses to have disparate and inaccurate memories of events that actually occurred. (A classic Psych 101 demonstration is to stage some sort of attack on the professor, then ask the students to describe it.) Anyone who knows this is bound to be skeptical about trusting your favored eyewitnesses in isolation.

Certainly you can impeach your own witnesses. Brooks thinks it is possible that he may have been fooled? OK. It doesn't really matter which of your witnesses did or didn't see the explosion. Many others would have been in a position to witness any flyover.

Elsewhere you mention Roosevelt Roberts. Unless you think that Roberts provides evidence that a commercial plane did a U-turn or almost a U-turn near the ground within about 15 seconds, I don't see the relevance. If you do think that, (1) I question whether it's possible, and (2) I certainly question why you can only find one witness who supports it (arguably, indirectly -- what Roberts said, as far as I know, is that there were two planes).

I don't think I've seen anyone dispute that a plane approaching on the north side of the Citgo can't plausibly have hit the light poles. For you, apparently, that counts as evidence that something else hit the light poles. For most of us, Occam's razor dictates that the plane wasn't on the north side of the Citgo.

[NowHearThis]

67. Were you trying to make a point?

"Every one of CIT's witnesses say the plane crashed into the building."

Then it MUST have happened. Who needs credible, non-planted evidence, and actual video images of a real plane crashing
head on (or whatever the latest Untruther angle is being sold these days) right into the very spot where it was supposed to?

[William Seger]

72. No, it's not at all a contest of witnesses

We'd know that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon even if there wasn't a single eyewitness! This is just one of the important points that PentaCON would really like to con you into ignoring. The next important point he'd like you to ignore is that witnesses who contradict a mountain of physical and documentary evidence automatically suffer a huge credibility disadvantage, and the only relief in sight is to come up with some plausible reason for disbelieving that physical and documentary evidence. But PentaCON doesn't do that; he turns logic on its head and asks you to just assume it must be true because his witnesses can't be wrong. That amounts to just assuming the very thing he's claiming he's going to prove. The basic PentaCON scam is sell you on the notion that his handful of witnesses' memories and perceptions are so infallibly infallible that they are incredibly more credible than the much larger number of people whose accounts are in perfect agreement with all that evidence, even though he can't begin to give you any plausible explanation for how all that evidence could have been faked right in front of hundreds of witnesses, or how all those other witnesses could be so wrong. Seriously, I can't see how anyone could buy that -- unless you just really, really want to buy it so badly that you don't really care that it doesn't make a lick of sense. That's your prerogative, of course, but then you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously by sensible folks.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NowHearThis]

80. wseger: read post #79 and substitute your name for "bolo"

Your idea for a phone debate is an excellent idea, ThePentaCon. Let's hope that they don't BOTH wimp out, but I'm not holding
my breath.

[William Seger]

81. Of course not, and neither would any other sane person

In the first place, it would be hard to think of a worse venue for any kind of debate, but it's especially unsuitable for debating complex matters of fact. On the Web, you can present your case with all the details you need, with links to supporting references, diagrams, large amounts of info, etc. You can also state your full argument without interruption, and you can take as long as you need to express your argument as clearly and correctly as you can. Then, you can rebuttal your opponents arguments with the same focus and attention to detail. If your opponent tries to dodge important issues, you can keep pointing to them until it's clear that your opponent has no good response. And finally, anyone actually interested in the subject matter of the debate, rather than the sport of personal conflict, can take as long as they need to digest the arguments and the information.

The obvious reason that Capn'n Bob keeps trying to sucker someone into a "phone debate" is because on the Web, he gets his ass kicked, every time, so he's looking for a venue where his hit-and-run, distort-and-distract, bullshit-and-intimidate "debating" tactics might work better -- at least for the Short Attention Span Theater target audience that he has in mind when he puts the "debate" on a DVD to sell.

In the second place, I'm quite serious when I say that I do believe that you CIT boyz and Cap'n Bob are mentally ill. Getting into a shouting match over the phone with crazy people does not sound like a particularly productive evening, regardless of any entertainment value. Cap'n Bob's proposal was always that someone give him their phone number so he could call for the debate -- definitely not a wise thing to do, IMO, with someone who seems to be unstable and who thinks death threats are a good debating tactic. So, no, I'm not interested in any contact with any of you whackjobs beyond the Web.

And the most important reason: You really haven't yet come up with anything that's really debatable. Your entire argument amounts to saying that your handful of witnesses cannot possibly be mistaken about the NoC fligh path, so we are forced to conclude that a much larger number of witnesses must be either mistaken or involved in the plot, that somehow a 757 was made to completely disappear, and that all that physical evidence must have been faked right in front of hundreds of witnesses and by some completely unexplained means. And by implication, we must assume that the plotters were incredibly stupid to plan such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hair-brained stunt with the expectation of getting away with it, but they were incredibly lucky that they somehow did -- nobody saw what "really" happened. In short, there isn't any real debate here because your argument is A) illogical and irrational since it's based on a logical fallacy called "assuming the consequent" or simply assuming the very thing you're supposed to be proving, and B) your argument is not supported by anything whatsoever except anecdotes that can easily be explained as misperceptions or incorrect memories of your handful of witnesses. We might as well "debate" the Loch Ness Monster, except that those anecdotes are actually far more credible since they aren't directly refuted by established facts. How many times does someone have to say this before it sinks in? With you guys, the answer is that it never will, whether it's said on the Web or on the phone.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. go ahead, step up and address Seger's substantive points

I'm running out of irony meters over here.

[William Seger]

66. "Then there are the paid liars"

LOL, and some people think you're paid to make the "truth movement" look like a bunch of batshit-crazy jackasses. I don't think that; I think you're a volunteer.

But yep, I'm finished with you and your impenetrable circular logic, for now anyway. Doesn't all that spinning make you dizzy?

[NowHearThis]

69. On behalf of all of us here, THANKS, seger.

Buh bye. Write if you get work and hang by your thumbs, you hear me?

[William Seger]

73. I didn't say I was finished with YOU

Since you don't have the integrity to apologize, I'm just getting started with you, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246042&mesg_id=247067">Mr. Credibility.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Why would you expect NowHearThis to have integrity...

let alone proof of any of his goofy claims or despicable false accusations?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

87. Why would a telephone debate be superior? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

88. No, dude...

to start with, how would anyone be able to tell who the debaters actually are? What's to stop you or the "Pentacon" from "debating" each other, then claiming one of the debaters was me?

I'd be more than glad to debate you on the JFK assassination anytime right here. But you won't. You'll fold just like when you did when challenged to provide evidence for your claim that Seger ever claimed to be a pilot.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThePentaCon]

49. Have you contacted all our witnesses...

and "explained" how they saw a plane approach from the north side of the Pentagon THEN hit the five light poles, show up low and level across the lawn, and hit the Pentagon causing the directional damage leading to the C ring hole?

[William Seger]

52. I take that to mean...

... that you don't intend to share your "conclusions based on the evidence" with any of those witnesses. A wise decision, IMO.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

43. This is an internet forum. As such, I will respond as I see fit. If that is

something you can't handle, I suggest that you be the one to "go find another playmate".

[Subdivisions]

36. Going off the deep end, are we? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Might as well. The shallow end is all taken up by CIT. n/t

[defendandprotect]

21. That's phenomenal . . . I hand't see that part of their investigation before . . .

tho I did have a sense that they had already come close to proving that Lloyde was

lying and involved -- even if distantly. The interview is amazing!!

So unlike questions that Arlen Specter would have asked!!!

"It was planned." Couldn't be clearer -- !!!

And thank you, Subdivisions --!!!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

44. yes it was planned