truthaction.org :: View topic - Cab Driver Accused of 9/11 Complicity

truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Cab Driver Accused of 9/11 Complicity
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

truthaction.org Forum Index -> News and Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Arcterus

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 698
Location: New York

Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 3:38 am Post subject:

element, you have no idea how hard it is for me to not rip you apart with your blatant inaccuracies.

But I won't for the reasons cited above.

...Just a couple things (though just so I won't be tempted I won't be making direct responses, more like presented observations for the whole forum)

Quote:

I noticed that you said "recalls a plane hitting the building", but not "recalls SEEING a plane hitting the building". Nice use of tricky wording. Erik, of course, did not see the plane at all.

I want to point this out to all readers. Notice how he immediately suspects and asserts an intentional deception with semantics(which is humorously ironic, if you think about it). This is quite consistent with the paranoia that CIT followers experience towards those who disagree with them.

Quote:

Besides the fact that your arrogant tone is completely unwarranted here

Please note the blatant hypocrisy here. This is the same person who just earlier, when asking speculative questions, asserted that each and every one was "no", because the thought of him being wrong is a bit too much to imagine.

Quote:

there is no need to swear.

For fuck's sake, don't turn this into a friggin after-school special.

Aaaaaaannnddd...I'm done. Have a nice day.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com

element

Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 32

Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:06 am Post subject:

Arcterus wrote:

element, you have no idea how hard it is for me to not rip you apart with your blatant inaccuracies.

Unlike you I've already documented numerous blatantly false claims (if not outright lies) made by you right out of the gate in this thread. If I'm so blatantly inaccurate about things go ahead and call me out on it, and be specific. Otherwise quit bluffing and grandstanding.

Quote:

Notice how he immediately suspects and asserts an intentional deception with semantics(which is humorously ironic, if you think about it). This is quite consistent with the paranoia that CIT followers experience towards those who disagree with them.

Again, I've already documented numerous blatantly false statements by you. Am I to believe that none of them were deliberate lies, and you were just mistaken over and over. Did you not know that Erik Dihle did not see the plane? If you did, did you not think that your statement would lead readers to believe that he did see it?

Quote:

Besides the fact that your arrogant tone is completely unwarranted here

I assert that the answer is "no" to each of these questions because it is conclusively proven beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that this is the case. It has nothing to do with not liking "the thought of me being wrong". I didn't even have an opinion on the matter until I carefully and thoroughly viewed the evidence.

Also, your arrogant tone *was* unwarranted because you had just made two fallacious statements, as I pointed out.

Last edited by element on Mon May 18, 2009 5:10 am; edited 2 times in total

kameelyun

Joined: 30 Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Location: Ohio

Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:44 am Post subject: Re: I stand by CIT's work

Midnighter wrote:

kameelyun wrote:

I would also like to remind everybody that DRG has referenced CIT's work in two book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and "New Pearl Harbor Revisited." This lays waste to the charge that "no serious 9/11 researcher takes CIT's work seriously." Unless, of course, you'lre now going to nitpick at DRG's credibility, just as you have done with Craig, Aldo, and every one of their witnesses.

Well, since you bring it up... DRG also references Morgan Reynolds and several holocaust deniers. He pushes cell phone fakery and advocates for world government. Sure, his material is generally pretty good but he, in himself, is not a litmus test for credibility.

Well, I bring this up because over at 911blogger, one of the angry anti-CIT comments asserted that no serious or credible 9/11 researcher took any of CIT's work seriously. DRG is one of the movement's most respected spokesmen, there's no way around that.

Morgan Reynolds and the "holocaust deniers" DRG references didn't begin their disruptive conduct until well AFTER they had gained the trust of the 9/11 truth community, in particular Eric Hufschmid. Indeed, I believe only DRG's first book even has Eric Hufschmid's name in the index. And the kind of "world government" he advocates is a far more peaceful and freedom - oriented vision than AJ's NWO. Griffin might be totally misguided on that - or not - but those who have known him as a professor for decades, including those who have chaired with him on jury committees, can personally attest to the laser-sharp quality of his skills at assessing data and critical thinking.

Folks, as a sincere 9/11 truther with no agenda or interests to protect, and as someone who took the headfirst plunge into CIT's work rather recently, I have looked at all sides here. I've been in the movement since before anyone had heard of Loose Change. The reason I didn't bother to look at CIT's work until recently was because I figured the movement already had enough evidence on its side, so even more seemed almost redundant. However, curiosity bit. I have watched all of CIT's videos and I have seen the most prominent rebuttals, Arabesque and Frustrating Fraud. I'm sorry to say this, but while the length of those blog entries might be impressive, the content is not. I've articulated why over at the 911blogger thread which no doubt some on here have read.

A number of the CIT detractors insist that the 13 north side witnesses are mistaken because during such a confusing and traumatic event, the mind is bound to play tricks on the memory. They also insist that their credibility is in question because they were interviewed years after the attack. Jules (truthmover) for example has said: "I don't believe the witnesses are lying." However, Caustic Logic of the Frustrating Fraud blog (possibly CIT's no. 1 detractor) admitted, in a link posted above by me, admitted in a debate with Ranke (within the first couple minutes) that all 13 north side witnesses can't be wrong by accident. He then suggests that it's a very real possibility that the 13 witnesses, plus Craig and Aldo, are part of a massive disinfo campaign to make the movement look crazy. At the same time, CIT detractors inherently seem to take offense at the idea that one nice old, mild-mannered cab driver could possibly be part of a false witness psyop program. After all it's so uncomfortable, psychologically, to think that such a nice old man could be "in on it" even if he was forced at gunpoint to go along with the plan! So apparently, according to CIT's detractors, supporters play into the stereotype of the "crazy conspiracy theorist" by suggesting that England's account along with the light poles was staged. Yet some people, who also claim to be sincere truthers, have insinuated that THIRTEEN (and counting) eyewitnesses (all of whom seem to be very nice, ordinary people who have gained nothing from 9/11) are fake witnesses as a part of a psyop program, plus Craig and Aldo themselves, to make the movement look crazy. The "special pleading" charge Arabesque levels at CIT seems to really be taking place amongst CIT's detractors.

victronix01

Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1714

Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 5:20 am Post subject:

Quote:

all 13 north side witnesses can't be wrong by accident.

But of course, then, all those witnesses who saw the plane actually hit on the expected trajectory must all be wrong. Was that by accident? Different criteria are applied depending on what the witnesses saw.

Quote:

I've been in the movement since before anyone had heard of Loose Change.

So have I. Tell me about the witnesses that CIT did not interview. Explain to me how each one is fake or confused or wrong. Griffin basically avoids it all by saying they are all to be suspected, or were confused. Well, there were dozens. And they were interviewed by all different news organizations and their statements documented all over the internet, all different types of people. Who were they? Can you tell me anything about them? And explain for each one why they "don't count" as a witness.

Where will you go to read about them? On CIT's site? On the pilots forum?

What happened to Griffin when he listened to Gerard Holmgren, who believed that real planes never hit the WTC, that all the Pentagon eyewitnesses were fake, and who harassed anyone who disagreed with him (even threatening Steven Jones at one point)? Who told Griffin that Pentagon witnesses never existed because he couldn't find them on the internet? Do you remember? What happened because of that?

Here's what Chip Berlet says about Gerard Holmgren --

Quote:

Griffin relies heavily on Holmgren for his claims about a lack of credible witnesses. How credible is the research work of Holmgren? It is easy to demonstrate that Holmgren's research is inadequate and unreliable.

Not all relevant research data can be located by a superficial internet search. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of witnesses that saw a commercial jet aircraft hit the Pentagon. Many additional statements [not counted by Holmgren] can be located using fee-based searches of newspaper and magazine archives.

Holmgen even dismisses quotes he found on the web in a way that demonstrates his flawed logic and methodology. Here, for example, is Holmgren: discussing the eyewitness account of AP Radio reporter Dave Winslow (with typos corrected as a courtesy):

Holmgren: "Obviously, once this enigmatic quote was out there, other media just picked it up and repeated it, without question. It multiplied itself throughout the media like a computer virus, without anybody actually tracking down Winslow and asking him to verify, or elaborate. If Winslow actually saw the collision, surely there must be more to his account than this."

"A search for 'Dave Winslow' found 13 newspaper reports, all for Sept 11 or 12 and all with the identical quote, similarly unverified and unquestioned, with no elaboration, although some omitted 'there is billowing black smoke.' No-one claims to have interviewed Winslow and I couldn't find any transcript of a broadcast by him. Determined to get to the bottom of this, I did a search with unrestricted dates for every possible type of media, for anything to do with Dave Winslow at any time."

"I found 36 matches, 16 of them repeating identically the aforementioned quote. None of these made any reference whatsoever to Winslow apart from the quote. The rest were nothing to do with Dave Winslow, the AP reporter. They concerned Dave Winslow the musician, Dave Winslow the police officer, Dave Winslow the airforce pilot, Dave Winslow the insurance spokesman etc. Not a single match for AP reporter Dave Winslow in any context except his alleged quote. In any kind of media at any time."

"I searched over 100 Yahoo matches with the Keywords "Dave Winslow AP " with the same result. Has Dave Winslow ever filed a radio report? Has he ever interviewed anyone? Does he exist? I have found no evidence that he does. If anyone (including Mr. Winslow himself) can come forward with evidence other than that quote, that an AP radio reporter named Dave Winslow exists, I will willingly retract the statement, but up until then, I am treating this account as a fabrication. At very best, it is almost certainly second hand, and in it's present form is too enigmatic to have much meaning. It definitely does not qualify as a verifiable eyewitness account of a large jet hitting the Pentagon."
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html

Here's part of a 2005 interview with Holmgren, a person Griffin relied on originally to help do away with the Pentagon witnesses --

Quote:

Q — What did you discover about flight AA11 regarding which aeroplane was used, and what happened to it? Please give references to your source material.

Holmgren -- According to official flight logs, no such flight existed on Sept 11, 2001.

The Bureau of Transportation logs every domestic flight ever scheduled from a US airport, conducted by a carrier accounting for more than 1% of domestic air traffic. All scheduled flights, whether actually completed or not must by law be reported to this database, unless the flight is cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.

No such flight appears in the records.

Therefore there are three possibilities.

1. No such flight was ever scheduled
2. Such a flight was scheduled but was cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.
3. If such a flight was scheduled and not cancelled more than 7 days prior, then the database has been illegally manipulated or tampered with in some way, which of course raises new questions.

In summary, the situation is that *according to official records* no such flight ever took place.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren_interview.htm

Quote:

At the same time, CIT detractors inherently seem to take offense at the idea that one nice old, mild-mannered cab driver could possibly be part of a false witness psyop program.

Because there's no actual evidence that he is lying. None.

Arabesque

Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 6:25 am Post subject:

If you want to believe what PentaCon are selling you, that's your loss.

If you want to take eyewitness testimony seriously, you don't tell me that 100 statements of an impact don't count (including statements of an impact by people interviewed by CIT---they don't count either apparently) and hand wave the fact that no one credible witnessed a flyover despite highways on all sides of the Pentagon. That is called cherry-picking, I would even call it "make-believe", and anyone can cherry pick their facts to make up their own conclusions.

Quote:

“Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING.”

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html

To understand just how absurd the arguments of CIT are, you have to understand that the flyover theory is actually endorsing mass hallucination as a plausible explanation for 100's of witnesses claiming to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon.

Quote:

Ranke... claims that the plane approaching the Pentagon was “used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion.” So much for not believing in mass hallucination!

... While CIT admits that corroborating facts are an important basis for evaluating evidence, they “have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.”

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-and.html

Again, who believes in mass hallucination here? Please don't raise your hands all at once. It is completely baffling to me the number of people duped by this ridiculous line of "reasoning".

Lloyd the taxi cab driver, like many others (the Pentagon didn't plant every single person on the nearby highways, I presume) drove his car on the morning of 9/11. What CIT is basically advocating, is that Lloyd (in reality, a random person like everyone else in all likelyhood), managed to drive his car PERFECTLY so that it timed EXACTLY with the downing of light poles at the time of the Pentagon attack. A completely brilliant "conspiracy plan" if there ever was one. All they had to do was to tell Lloyd to start driving (in a traffic jam no less!) at the right time so that his car would be right beside the down light poles and even apparently get struck by one.

And how the heck did those light poles get knocked down again? Oh right, just like the flyover... guess what, no one saw anyone planting those either. How convenient.
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Stefan

Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:51 am Post subject:

Quote:

Tell me about the witnesses that CIT did not interview. Explain to me how each one is fake or confused or wrong. Griffin basically avoids it all by saying they are all to be suspected, or were confused. Well, there were dozens. And they were interviewed by all different news organizations and their statements documented all over the internet, all different types of people. Who were they? Can you tell me anything about them? And explain for each one why they "don't count" as a witness.

Who says they "don't count" as witnesses? The question is over what this collection of one liners is actually supposed to demonstrate.

It's perfectly valid to say that all we have of most these people is a single line, referring to the impact of the plane, out of what must have been a much longer interview. There is little to determine about the flight path from these tiny fragments of testimoney, they cannot be questioned, placed at the scene or asked to draw a predicted flight path on a map. I hope CIT eventually manage to get interviews with every last one of them, for all we know 99% percent of these witnesses full testimoney would contain details confirming the North of Citgo flight path. I would fully expect them too, since there is such a large degree of corroboration between all the witnesses that CIT have managed to interview so far.

The quotes that those who oppose the North side flight path use are cherry picked but not by the 9/11 researchers who copy and paste them, and not with any intent to cover up a conspiracy. It is simply journalism. The person was interviewed and no doubt gave a full account of what they saw, the only part the journalist and editor was interested in was the "money shot" - the plane hitting the building and so most of the quotes offer little more detail than that.

The thing is, this does not in anyway contradict the CIT witnesses, who also believe a plane hit the building.

This indeed is the key point and the reason that the "snippet list" which is generally bought up as "proof" CIT are wrong is actually a red herring. This is because the key point of CITs research is the flight path, not the flyover theory. The accusation has been made before that CIT started with a flyover theory and looked for witnesses to prove it. In truth it is the only solution they have been able to think of within the scenario that the North of Citgo flight path is correct and although I concede it is possible there is another, I have not managed to think of one either.

The accusation that these guys woke up and decided off the top of their heads to create a theory where the plane flew over the Pentagon is a smear as there is no proof of it, much like the smear that they are "cherry picking".

To say CIT are cherry picking suggests usually one of two things, first that they have actaully interviewed a lot more people than they admit to, yet only show the ones who confirm their theory, or that they reject interviewees if they feel they might contradict their theory. CIT claim they have interviewed everyone who agreed and published all of the interviews with all of the witnesses they have managed to get time with. Others claim this is not true. There is no way they can know this, and no way CIT could disprove it. It is quite simply an empty claim, and a serious accusation to be making with no evidence in support.

The second side of the cherry picking claim is that they ignore the snippet list wholesale. This is an argument designed to win over people who have not looked at their work, rather than to convince those who have to reject CITs work. Anyone who has actually watched their vidoes and read their articles knows first hand they do not ignore the other witnesses, on the contrary they look at them and analyse them with much more depth than their opponents. As one example I would cite how, they show in detail by driving around all of the surrounding highways, how few spots the impact point of the plane on the Pentagon would actually be visible from.

Yet the argument continues to be circulated by people who think an adequete level of research on an issue is to read a rebuttle of the work and never attend to the source first hand, or their responses to that rebuttle. Very much like JREFers who have read every page of the "Debunking 9/11 Myths" website and not a page of "The New Pearl Harbour" or "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".

Last edited by Stefan on Tue May 19, 2009 12:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Stefan

Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:22 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Again, who believes in mass hallucination here? Please don't raise your hands all at once. It is completely baffling to me the number of people duped by this ridiculous line of "reasoning".

Arabesque, you know well that is being presented as a theory is not mass-hallucination but optical illusion or sleight of hand. Are you proposing when a magician performs a trick in front of an audience of hundreds that what occurs is "mass hallucination"? If you want to propose CIT's sleight of hand argument as being outside the bounds of reality, perhaps you think that magicians really are performing sorcery? Perhaps you believe David Blane can levitate? If not, then surely you are proposing "mass hallucination" which would be ridiculous...

I propose that you are using the term inappropriately because it better suits your intention - to ridicule the theory in the hope people will not take it seriously, and not look at the evidence, and hence protect the PR of the movement. It's the same reason you put "reasoning" in inverted commars, and regualry do the same with "research" when discussing CIT. Very cheap argument techniques.

The opposition to CIT, I further propose, is based on a PR descision and not on evidence or a desire to find the truth. You feel that people will call you crazy if you refer to the North side evidence, because it suggests a flyover. Therefore regardless of whether or not there was a North side flight path (as is almost certain there was) you will fight against the evidence of it, because you want to protect the movement from the conclusion and the ridicule you feel it would bring..

Of course a more logical approach would be to welcome 9/11 research while agreeing to only promote in your public campaigning those areas you feel are most easily grasped by an uninitiated mind. Once the person has realised the official story is a sham, they will naturally make their own minds up on the fine points, and are not going to be helped from people within the movement trying to marshall everyone else's beliefs into what they consider a PR friendly area.

PR only has any relevance when getting people to reject the official story. Once past that point the two concerns should be to get more people to reject it too (in which the same rules apply) and also to get the greatest understanding of what did happen from the available evidence as possible in the hope that enough evidence will be unearthed to make it impossible for anyone to support the official story. This needs more freedom that these increasingly regular witch hunts allow.

Imagine if we had decided, with the WTC complex, that WTC7 was quite enough and people suggesting un-proved theories - like the use of a form of thermite - were muddying the waters. Imagine if the witch hunt had descended on Jones, Ryan, Harritt et al and we had never found the iron rich microspheres or chips of unignited nano-thermite which now stand as proof to all but the least rational that those buildings were destroyed by nano-thermite?

Within reasonable bounds that I do not believe CIT has crossed, there should be no closed gates when it comes to research, and the keepers of those gates should consider how much good in the long time their crazed PR protectionism is doing for this campaign.

Last edited by Stefan on Tue May 19, 2009 8:31 pm; edited 1 time in total

Stefan

Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:38 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Because there's no actual evidence that he is lying. None.

Evidence someone is lying is hard to come by, since discerning somone's intentions is always going to be a judgement call. Evidence that what they are saying is untrue is relatively simple. Since that is all that is really relevant when it comes to Lloyde England, I prefer to focus on this second issue rather than whether he is decpetive or senile.

A contradiction or a change of story or course proves an untruth. If you have one person saying two different things about the same incident on two occassions, then of course one of those versions if not both of them must be untrue, there is no way around that.

With this in mind, I would recommend the film "Eye of the Strom" by CIT.

victronix01

Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1714

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 4:30 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Evidence someone is lying is hard to come by

Which is why we don't usually speculate that someone is lying unless we have some pretty good evidence that they are. Otherwise, speculation, nothing more.

Quote:

Evidence that what they are saying is untrue is relatively simple.

Actually with the Pentagon, it's not very simple at all. That's why it's 2009 and there is still no significant or strong evidence that AA77 could not have hit there.

Some witnesses count, some don't. People need to think about that.

Stefan

Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject:

victronix01 wrote:

Quote:

Evidence someone is lying is hard to come by

Which is why we don't usually speculate that someone is lying unless we have some pretty good evidence that they are. Otherwise, speculation, nothing more.

I'd agree with that, but to be fair to CIT in the video they do say several times that he could have been tricked himself, and be a victim, but they do put emphasis on the notion that he is lying.

Can I ask you seriously if you have watched the eye of the storm? it is disturbing to say the least.

http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm

When someone's story changes so dramatically, and both stories are implausible to differing extents, I'm not convinced it's utterly unfounded. I would rather they expressed more caution though. As I said before they never say outright he is complicit, but since it is a serious accusation to make and simply providing the video footage they got with him and letting others make their own mind up would have been wiser.

We're all only human though eh?

But for balance I'd also point out that not many people here have expressed such humanity at CIT themselves being labelled not just liars but also hoaxers and disinfo agents. Both accusations obviously equal complicity.

Quote:

Evidence that what they are saying is untrue is relatively simple.

Actually with the Pentagon, it's not very simple at all. That's why it's 2009 and there is still no significant or strong evidence that AA77 could not have hit there.

I think it is simple in the case of Lloyde England. He changed his story and not just in a small way. This means at the very least that one version is untrue, it does not rule out both being untrue.

It does remove him from the equation as a credible witness though, which is the point.

Quote:

Some witnesses count, some don't. People need to think about that.

I agree, and I have thought about it, and I do think this witness is extremely relevant and does certainly count.

If his testimony (either version) is true, then the official story of the plane knocking down the lightpoles and hitting the Pentagon is correct.

Given that all of the other witnesses CIT have tracked down drastically contradict this, it is well worth doing just what CIT did and ask him to explain his story in detail.

When he tries to it falls apart.

The whole story of the plane hitting the Pentagon really does fall apart when you properly watch all of the CIT witnesses testimony. I'm not saying I agree with every little thing they say, but I think they have done what you claim has never been done - to provide "significant or strong evidence that AA77 could not have hit there". Wink

element

Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 32

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 7:34 pm Post subject:

victronix01 wrote:

Quote:

all 13 north side witnesses can't be wrong by accident.

Who are "all those witnesses" that you speak of who allegedly saw the plane specifically on the expected trajectory/official flight path? Who explicitly claims to have seen the plane fly south of the Navy Annex and Columbia Pike and/or south of the Citgo station? If any such witness(es) actually exist please tell us their name(s), and provide an audio or video interview recorded with them by you or anyone else confirming these details, and in which their exactly location is established. CIT has now provided detailed interviews recorded directly with eyewitnesses Sgt. William Lagasse, Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, Robert Turcios, Edward Paik, Terry Morin, William Middleton Sr., Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Darrell Stafford, Sean Boger, Maria De La Cerda, and George Aman doing just that. All of them are confirmed to have been in various excellent positions to be able to judge the plane's flight path in relation to the Annex and/or Citgo station. All of them unanimously and independently insist that the plane on the north side flight path -- north of Columbia Pike, over the Navy Annex and/or on the north side of the Citgo station. None of them say the plane was on the south side of the gas station, Columba Pike, or the Navy Annex..

CIT has also spoken directly with Levi Stephens, who has confirmed that plane was on the Arlington Cemetary side, or north side of the gas station, coorborating all of the others.

This is the criteria applied to all witnesses by CIT, contrary to your claims of different criteria for different witnesses. The accuracy of media reports is not taken from granted unless the details can be independently confirmed directly with the witness themselves since they are subject to misrepresentation, embelishment, or downright fabrication by the reporter ("middle man"). The prudence of this standard has been demonstrated repeatedly by CIT, since many times it has turned out that the witnesses accounts were misleadingly or inaccurately represented by the media. Ironically, Dave Winslow, who you brought up, is an example of this. The bottom line with Winslow is that he did *not* see the plane hit the Pentagon as many have implied or outright stated. Please see here for more info on this. Another example are the numerous witnesses who were alleged to have seen the light poles get struck, but when they were contacted directly by CIT it turned out that they *deduced* that they must have been hit after the fact, and that even the people on the highway did not see this happen.

You are the one claiming that it is "by accident", or by coincidence, that all of these people saw the plane on the north side flight path, despite the fact that some are so adamant about it that they say they are "100 percent" certain, would "bet [their] life on it", that there is "no frippin way" that it was on the required official south side flight path, that it was so clearly on the north side that anyone who would claim that (please tell me who that is, if anyone) must not have seen it.

You are also implicitly claiming that it is just a coincidence that someone (Roosevelt Roberts Jr.) has been on record since 2001 as having seen large commercial airliner no more than 100 feet off the ground flying away from the Pentagon seconds after the explosion. This is something that he absolutely would not have seen if the plane hit the building, but jives completely with the overwhelming evidence that the plane flew north of the gas station and thus did not hit the building.

Quote:

You imply that all of the witnesses that CIT did not interview somehow contradict the north side flight path. This is not the case at all. Please provide the names of *any* eyewitnesses who explicitly place the plane south of the Navy Annex, Columbia Pike, and/or south of the Citgo station. They most certainly would "count" if they existed, and if someone confirmed their POV's and where they saw the plane with them directly.

Quote:

Where will you go to read about them? On CIT's site? On the pilots forum?

Actually, having spent a lot of time on CIT's site I can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of witnesses are discussed in the forums section. Pick a witness and search for their name. CIT is not hiding from any witness accounts. They have interviewed as many as they have been able to reach, and I have seen them say repeatedly that they will be glad to interview any others that you can get them in touch with. Of course it doesn't have to be CIT who interviews them though -- anyone can do it. They just have to ask specific questions to determine where they were and what they saw; most importantly where they saw the plane.

Here is a comprehensive breakdown of all of the witnesses, including some that CIT has not been able to reach.

Quote:

At the same time, CIT detractors inherently seem to take offense at the idea that one nice old, mild-mannered cab driver could possibly be part of a false witness psyop program.

Because there's no actual evidence that he is lying. None.

To claim that the evidence is not conclusive is one thing (albeit an untenable position). However to claim that there is no evidence whatsoever that he is lying is an unbelievably outrageous statement. All of the aforementioned accounts independently and unanimously placing the place on the north side most certainly do quaify as evidence that he is lying. If the plane was on the north side (and it is a fact conclusively established with "actual evidence" that it was), light pole #1 was not struck, and Lloyde's story is a complete fabrication.

In addition, in the very video that this thread is about, Lloyde tries to claim that he was north of even the north side flight path -- a claim which is conclusively proven to be false by numerous photographs that show him at the southern end of the bridge over which the plane would have flew on the south side flight path. In the same video an audio recording is provided from the preinterview in which Lloyde admits that he knew that he was "up on the bridge". It was once the cameras started rolling that he changed his story and insisted that he was nowhere near the bridge, despite extremely clear photographic evidence to the contrary which was shown directly to him. He was not confused; he was lying.

Last edited by element on Tue May 19, 2009 9:31 pm; edited 3 times in total

element

Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 32

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject:

Arabesque wrote:

First of all, many of these "hundreds" do not claim to have *seen* the plane hit the building. Many of them *assumed* that it must have hit after seeing or hearing the plane, and then hearing the explosion and/or seeing the fire ball seconds later.

In addition, many of those account in which an eyewitness claims to have seen the plane hit are unconfirmed media reports, which are, as I just said in my last post, and as CIT has repeatedly demonstrated, subject to misrepresentation, embelishment, or outright fabrication.

Witnesses who do genuinely believe that they saw the plane hit the building are not ignored or "not counted". They are either (1) correct, and all thirteen of the north side witnesses literally had the same hallucination of the plane on the north side flight path and Roosevelt Roberts Jr. hallucinated seeing the plane "as clear as day" in flight less than a hundred feet off the ground seconds after the explosion (2) incorrect and fooled by a *deliberate deception*, a scenario which, contrary to your absurd claims to the contrary, and unlike scenario #1, which you advocate, does *not* require mass hallucination on the part of all of the independently verified witnesses who were able to judge the planes position in relation to the Annex and Citgo and who unanimously insist that it flew on the north side.

Quote:

“Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING.”

Yes. Fortunately CIT does not pretend that this "contrary evidence" does not exist. They acknowledge it, and correctly state that they were fooled by a deliberate deception considering that the mass hallucination theory of all of the witnesses who saw the plane fly on the north side flight path is not a reasonable consideration.

Quote:

Ranke... claims that the plane approaching the Pentagon was “used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion.”

Exactly. That is not mass hallucination at all. It is you who thinks that there was mass hallucinations going on that day, insisting that all of these people and more were drastically wrong in the same way about where the plane flew.

Quote:

... While CIT admits that corroborating facts are an important basis for evaluating evidence, they “have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.”

Yes. Two mutually exclusive things are corroborated over and over. One is that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo station (while banking). The other is that the plane hit the building. Both cannot be simultaneously true. The former implies deliberate deception on the part of the perpetrators -- the same perpetrators who used deliberate deception at the world trade center to convince millions or billions of on lookers (in person or watching on TV) that the towers collapsed when in fact they were demolished. The latter requires mass hallucination on the part of all of the independently confirmed witnesses (over a dozen) who claim that the plane flew on the north side flight path, as well as Roosevelt Roberts Jr., who saw the plane still in flight flying away seconds after the explosion.

Quote:

Again, who believes in mass hallucination here?

Again: you, as any honest person who has viewed the evidence can plainly see.

Quote:

What CIT is basically advocating, is that Lloyd (in reality, a random person like everyone else in all likelyhood), managed to drive his car PERFECTLY so that it timed EXACTLY with the downing of light poles at the time of the Pentagon attack. A completely brilliant "conspiracy plan" if there ever was one. All they had to do was to tell Lloyd to start driving (in a traffic jam no less!) at the right time so that his car would be right beside the down light poles and even apparently get struck by one.

Why are you being dishonest? This is not what they are advocating at all, and there is no way on earth you can possibly believe that they have ever advocated that notion. As you know, but are choosing to lie about (even though you acknowledge that what you are saying here is false in your next breath -- see below), CIT has always maintained that the light poles were staged in advance.

They also have never claimed that Lloyde's car was actually struck by the light pole if that's what you are implying. As you know they have claimed the opposite ever since they obtained conclusive evidence that the plane flew nowhere near the light pole that allegedly speared his car.

Quote:

And how the heck did those light poles get knocked down again? Oh right, just like the flyover... guess what, no one saw anyone planting those either. How convenient.

See? Here you are acknowledging CIT's true assertion on the matter, which is that the light poles were planted in advance, NOT that the light poles were actually knocked down in real time.

Again, please see:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=25

See also:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=464

Also, what's harder to do without being noticed... planting light poles in your own back yard (three of which were in inconspicuous locations), or successfully rigging both world trade center buildings with explosives?

"Conveniently" (1) no one saw the pole in Lloyde's car (2) no one photographed the pole and Lloyde's car, and allegedly he had already removed it within minutes of the attack when his scene was photographed (3) there is a scratch in the road indicating that the pole was moved from the direction of the Pentagon/the middle of the road (4) there was no damage to Lloyde's hood when this giant pole allegedly speared his windshield after being struck by a 757 going in the opposite direction of his car at over 500mph (5) there was no damage to Lloyde's hood when him and an allegedly silent alleged strager allegedly removed it, nor when he he fell to the ground while still allegedly holding on to the pole, allegedly unhelped by the allegedly silent alleged strager (6) all thirteen independently confirmed witnesses who were in a position to tell place the plane nowhere near the light poles, and farthest from pole #1, the one that allegedly speared Lloyde's windshield...

etc etc etc

Stefan

Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:16 pm Post subject:

I want to clarify a bit, and maybe go further than I have so far. Lloyde is lying. There you go. I said it. Sorry Lloyde if you aren't but that is my opinion based on logical deduction. I'll explain what I mean in a minute, for those of you who haven't seen the film, but I would like to point out I don't think Lloyd is complicit. Not in the sense that he deserves anything but sympathy. He clearly never wanted to be involved in any of this. Lloyde says that the cab got hit by the light pole, he mentions someone took a photo on the bridge, which they did. This is before filming proper had started but the camera was recording. The fact that he was in the place he initially indicates is not even in question - there are both photos and video of it and it has long been considered established fact. It is a key part of the official story. Now the camera gets set up and the interview starts and CIT tell him that a lot of people they have interviewed say the plane is here, whereas his taxi was here (pointing to a map).. Simple statement of fact. What would you do if someone said that to you and you were right and they were wrong? Say that the other people were wrong obviously. You know where you were and you know what happened. What does Lloyde do? In a split second he flips and says that he was over here, pointing to the rough area the CIT witnesses had said the plane was. Now what does any rational person conclude? He is lying OK? Come on people end the "sweet old man" nonsense and look the facts in the face. This does not mean he is complicit in 9/11 in any meaningful way. I think he is scared to say what really happened for obvious reasons. CIT clearly have an idea about what happened and expressed it. I can think of several other options, and have a preferred scenario myself that differs from CIT, but to share it would be pointless as its just speculation. What is not speculating is that Lloyde is talking aboslute non-truth when he claims his taxi was nowhere near where it was photographed. What is actually pretty logical is that for whatever reason he is lying.

Col. Jenny Sparks

Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 2329

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject:

Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. Everything else leads to bollox. _________________ ___________________________________________________ http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

Stefan

Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject:

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

Nothing should have hit the Pentagon.

Everything else leads to bollox.

By the same rationale, WTC7 fell at free speed, and nano-thermite leads to bollocks?

Wink

Display posts from previous:

	truthaction.org Forum Index -> News and Discussion	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum