Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

Ruby gray

King Mob wrote: »

But the issue is that you are suggesting that the government was manipulating him for the express purpose of getting him to say the plane was in one place when it wasn't.
There's no reason why the government would do this..

It makes sense to me. There is every reason for the government to sacrifice what are to them a few wage slaves for the ulterior motive of world domination. After all, the ultimate goal is depopulation by about 6.5 billion souls, according to the Georgia Guidestones and other manifestos (and Bill Gates is working hard on a "peaceful", "humanitarian" way of achieving this as we know). A little collateral damage was required to sell the "War on Terror" to the cannon fodder.

Lloyde England never did say he was on the bridge when it happened, and he vehemently denied that the lightpole next to his cab was the one that did the damage.

It was the Corporal Jason Ingersoll photo series, plus other photos and videos of Lloyde's cab on the bridge, plus the carefully controlled 5 minutes of permitting southbound traffic to file past the tableau, which told the government story.

After that damning circumstantial photographic evidence was imprinted in the collective consciousness, it mattered not a whit what Lloyde said. He could be outright dismissed as a devious lying accomplice to the evil plot, or patronised as a likeable but confused, forgetful elderly victim. Even though he was exactly the same age as the 2IC of the country, Donald Rumsfeld.

Both tactics were played to the fullest by both sides because of those photos, without reference to the facts of where Lloyde and his cab actually were.

The FBI, when it reluctantly released some of the confiscated videos, had no idea of the damning images contained within them, and nobody in the truth movement ever thought to analyze them for this.

Until I began a couple of years ago, and discovered a treasure trove of evidence proving the lie of 9/11 at the Pentagon..

King Mob

Ruby gray wrote: »

It makes sense to me. There is every reason for the government to sacrifice what are to them a few wage slaves for the ulterior motive of world domination. ..

Ok.
So then why did they go to the effort to manipulate a rando taxi driver? Why did they say that the plane went one way when it actually went another?

If the theory makes sense to you then you should be able to answer that question pretty easily.
If you can't answer that question then how can the theory make sense, when you can't actually make sense of it?

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

Let's get down to that empirical argument.

* Where did the plane fly, according to the 9/11 Commission?

* Where did the plane fly, according to ALL the confirmed, genuine eyewitnesses, and according to the eyewitness, physical, video and photo evidence of Lloyde England and his taxi cab?

We know the approximate flight-path of Flight 77 down to quite a degree of accuracy. It's corroborated by recovered FDR data, radar, ATC communications, consensus of eye-witnesses, camera footage, physical evidence, forensic evidence, etc. There is no mystery over this.

Unless you are claiming the plane took an alternative flight path completely, if so, could you please specify the details of that..

Ruby gray

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting that 9/11 happened as it did, i.e. terrorists flew an airliner into WTC 1, another set of terrorists flew another airliner into WTC 2, and a third set (indirectly) crashed their airliner into Shanksville PA (correct me if I am wrong with that)

But that "something else" happened at the Pentagon. What is this something else?

What do you mean "stagecraft", are you suggesting that this was staged, how? the hijackers who flew the planes to their deaths were "actors" or what exactly?

I thought I made it clear that 6 Arab terrorists were NOT the cause of the damage to the pentagon.

If the plane did not fly across the bridge on an acute angle to the western wall, but about 350 yards further north and almost perpendicular to the wall, and an estimated 50 -80 feet above the highway, "pivoting up to avoid the overhead signs", then what conclusions must be drawn?

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

I th9ught I made it clear that 6 Arab terrorists were NOT the cause of the damage to the pentagon.

If the plane did not fly across the bridge on an acute angle to the western wall, but about 350 yards further north and almost perpendicular to the wall, and an estimated 50 -80 feet above the highway, "pivoting up to avoid the overhead signs", then what cobclusions must be drawn?

Are you are claiming that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon? A simple answer to that will do

Ruby gray

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Are you are claiming that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon? A simple answer to that will do

Yes

The Nal

Ruby gray wrote: »

Yes

What happened to Flight 77 when it flew away?

Where did the passengers go?

Why not just crash 77 into it in the first place?

Ruby gray

The Nal wrote: »

What happened to Flight 77 when it flew away?

Where did the passengers go?

Why not just crash 77 into it in the first place?

Please address the topic of this thread.


To refresh your memories :


Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event



It wandered off into pointless speculation 2 years ago, and nobody seems to want to have a serious discussion about the subject, so I wonder why so many are here at all.

Ruby gray

"THIS is where I was"

Lloyde had perfect recollection of exactly where he was at 9:37:46 a.m. om 9/11/2001.

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

Yes

Okay, this viewpoint opens the following questions (in fact it opens up a Pandora's box of questions but I'll limit them for now)

1. If Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon, where did it go, what happened to the plane? (and this requires evidence)

2. What occurred at the Pentagon to cause the damage? (also requires evidence)

3. Of all the people on the highway and around the Pentagon that day, how did they control what everyone in the entire area saw?

4. There was a large-scale forensic investigation which took place at the Pentagon after the attack, it identified all but 5 individuals from the 64 passengers, crew and hijackers and the 125 ground fatalities, how does your theory explain this?
https://www.newsweek.com/terror-remains-911-hijackers-78327

5. How do you explain the physical evidence of Flight 77 found inside and outside the Pentagon? did someone run and place all that heavy equipment inside after a massive explosion?

There are a lot more glaring questions for this theory, but will limit it to these for now

Also, if you maintain there were "actors" involved in the Pentagon attack, then what is your theory on the other attacks, did the planes hit their targets and the hijackers died? were they real attacks?

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

Please address the topic of this thread.


To refresh your memories :


Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event



It wandered off into pointless speculation 2 years ago, and nobody seems to want to have a serious discussion about the subject, so I wonder why so many are here at all.

Lloyd England is one witness out of many. He could have dementia, he might have forgotten, he could be mental, he could change his mind, he could be claiming anything - there can always be issues with individuals witnesses, their statements, the veracity of information on their whereabouts, etc, etc which is why investigators always look at the consensus of witnesses

In the case of Flight 77 and the Pentagon, over 100 witnesses claim to have seen the airliner strike the Pentagon. They would have had different views and angles. To give a summary from this source

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

Please note the bolded part. Note the discrepancies with some witnesses (some saw what they thought was a corporate jet, which is perfectly plausible considering how quickly the event happened) Zero saw the plane fly away. Yet this is what you are claiming.

Ruby gray

I am here to discuss the topic of THIS THREAD, not to run off chasing every possible dissembling objection.


The Official Story depends on this image to identify the 757 jet, N644AA.

Ruby gray

Conversely, Lloyde's story is supported by numerous videos and photos taken from different viewpoints over about 20 minutes from the explosion.


Here is just a single one of the many frames from a video taken at the cemetery retaining wall, the location which Lloyde identified to Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor, above.

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

The Official Story depends on this image to identify the 757 jet, N644AA.

This is incorrect, it doesn't depend on that

The established version of events is based on independent pillars of evidence which corroborate each other, chiefly:

* Consensus of eyewitnesses
* The FDR data
* Radar data
* ATC communications
* The physical evidence
* The conclusions of the crime scene investigation
* The conclusions of the forensic investigation
* The conclusions of the FBI investigation and air-crash investigation

All of which point to the airliner striking the Pentagon.

You appear to be taking a handful of perceived issues or contradictions with individual witnesses to claim something you have virtually no other credible evidence for.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

We know the approximate flight-path of Flight 77 down to quite a degree of accuracy. It's corroborated by recovered FDR data, radar, ATC communications, consensus of eye-witnesses, camera footage, physical evidence, forensic evidence, etc. There is no mystery over this.

Unless you are claiming the plane took an alternative flight path completely, if so, could you please specify the details of that..

The FDR CSR/ Data runthrough does not ever support the US government official story of events.

FDR shows a commercial sized plane ( presumed to be flight 77) lining up to take off at the airport. Plane takes off from the runway, the flying time captured by the FDR.

Interest to this discussion, the final minutes/seconds, the plane dropping altitude and descending across Washington DC on its way to the Pentagon building
Flight 77 in the final seconds of flight is heading northeast and will be hitting the Pentagon from a completely opposing direction and side, claimed to have occurred here in the 9/11 commission report!


FDR Jet heading Northeast between the span of ther bridge and the two ring roads below it. The plane levelling off coming in at this angle. Have you watched planes arriving to land on the tarmac at airports? That’s the shape/angle the plane was at here seconds before it hit the wall at the Pentagon. At that angle heading Northeast, both wings likely folded up and disintegrated, on both sides, when the plane hit the facade?

The official story, this plane angled to the side, heading Southwest, the plane left wing spread out across the grass lawn and the right wing of the plane touching the edge of the wall on the right side.

You will have two unique sets of damage at the Pentagon here. The Southwest/ Plane supposedly is what caused that C hole ring/wedge damage at the Pentagon?

If wrong? The Northeast plane crashed here at the Pentagon? Did it cause that C hole damage?

Ruby on the otherhand supposes the plane never left the airport, and supposes it flew over the Pentagon and he also supposes the cab was switched here He also believes the plane was further northeast that i think it was. He has the plane at the Cementry wall closer to the heliport.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Ruby on the otherhand supposes the plane never left the airport, and supposes it flew over the Pentagon and he also supposes the cab was switched here He also believes the plane was further northeast that i think it was. He has the plane at the Cementry wall closer to the heliport.

You maintain that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, this other poster maintains it didn't.

Which is it?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You maintain that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, this other poster maintains it didn't.

Which is it?

The NTSB and FBI says its the FDR they turned up at the Pentagon after the impact/blast. We assume here it was a commercial airliner that left the airport with 58 people onboard?
FDR would have to be fake, when Ruby believes here no plane left the airport?

The FDR has some issues that make no sense here though. The plane is in the right location to knock down 5 light poles ( even heading northeast)

The FDR shows a jet too high to do so. The plane 180 feet above the bridge. That high plane will go over the top of the Pentagon and not crash! Could be a error, missing data, the FDR fake, the FDR is another plane, we just don’t know NTSB never clarified the issue here,.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The NTSB says its the FDR they turned up at the Pentagon after the impact/blast. We assume here it was a commercial airliner that left the airport with 58 people onboard?
FDR would have to be fake, when Ruby believes here no plane left the airport?

The FDR has some issues that make no sense here though. The plane is in the right location to knock down 5 light poles ( even heading northeast)

The FDR shows a jet too high to do so. The plane 180 feet above the bridge. That high plane will go over the top of the Pentagon and not crash! Could be a error, missing data, the FDR fake, the FDR is another plane, we just don’t know NTSB never clarified the issue here,.

You think there is any chance the Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

Or you 100% maintain that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You can always change your mind, you've done it before.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You think there is any chance the Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?

Or you 100% maintain that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You can always change your mind, you've done it before.

The FBI claims the FDR belongs to flight 77. While it does appear in the right location, the FDR Jet flying over the building and can’t hit the Pentagon.
What hit the building then?
FDR is what causing most of the problems here. The FDR is not supporting the official story here. The plane in the wrong position (northeast not southwest) Jet too high above the stone highway bridge to knock over lightpoles therefore Ruby point the lightpole event was staged prior to the attack does not seem that crazy!
The FDR most have problems errors and issues, for the official story to be accurate!

King Mob

Ruby gray wrote: »

Conversely, Lloyde's story is supported by numerous videos and photos taken from different viewpoints over about 20 minutes from the explosion.

Ok.
So why did the government specifically go out of their way to manipulate him to say what he said and how does that benefit their conspiracy?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The FBI claims the FDR belongs to flight 77. While it does appear in the right location, the FDR Jet flying over the building and can’t hit the Pentagon.
What hit the building then?
FDR is what causing most of the problems here. The FDR is not supporting the official story here. The plane in the wrong position (northeast not southwest) Jet too high above the stone highway bridge to knock over lightpoles therefore Ruby point the lightpole event was staged prior to the attack does not seem that crazy!
The FDR most have problems errors and issues, for the official story to be accurate!

So once again, cheerful has flip flopped back to claiming that flight 77 didn't hit the building.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe

FAA radar animation has the plane going over the top of the Navy Annex heading northeast.

Jet flying over the Navy Annex


The official story, their jet travelling along the green line to the Pentagon.

I red dotted the Navy Annex building here for people who don't know where it is.. No jet is flying over the top of the Navy Annex here!!!

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The FBI claims the FDR belongs to flight 77. While it does appear in the right location, the FDR Jet flying over the building and can’t hit the Pentagon.

Before you maintained that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon

What is your belief now:

a) It hit the Pentagon
b) It didn't hit the Pentagon

Ruby gray

King Mob wrote: »

Ok.
So why did the government specifically go out of their way to manipulate him to say what he said and how does that benefit their conspiracy?

I do not see how you can claim this! In what way did the government "go out of their way to manipulate him to say what he said"?

Lloyde never endorsed the government story.

He denied that downed light pole #1 hit his cab.

He denied being on the bridge.

He said the plane flew across the road at the level of the heliport.

He said he was north of the Columbia Pike exit road overhead sign when a piece of pole came through his windshield, and another piece landed on the road in front of his cab.

He said the hole he saw in the Pentagon was only big enough for him to drive his truck through.

He questioned how a massive airliner could have hit the building without leaving massive amounts of recognisable debris, wings, tail, engines etc on the lawn.

He thought it was possible that the plane flew over the building, although he did not see what happened as he was busy trying to stop his car.

Lloyde never supported the government story at all.

He said he did not know where the pole came from before it hit. He did not see it until it came through the windshield, although it came down from a height, which a lightpole could not have done.

He did however repeat what he was told, that the pole was part of a lightpole.
But this cannot have been true, as no part of a lightpole has dimensions matching the pole which he identified, and the physical damage to his cab.

Nor could the lightpole downed on the bridge, possibly have travelled 400 yards up the road to hit Lloyde's cab.

Ruby gray

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is incorrect, it doesn't depend on that

The established version of events is based on independent pillars of evidence which corroborate each other, chiefly:

* Consensus of eyewitnesses
* The FDR data
* Radar data
* ATC communications
* The physical evidence
* The conclusions of the crime scene investigation
* The conclusions of the forensic investigation
* The conclusions of the FBI investigation and air-crash investigation

All of which point to the airliner striking the Pentagon.

You appear to be taking a handful of perceived issues or contradictions with individual witnesses to claim something you have virtually no other credible evidence for.

Wrong.

Insofar as images of the plane alleged to have hit the Pentagon, the official story DOES depend on this image, which proves nothing.

You have twisted the context of my statement.

And as I have pointed out, there is a huge bank of imagery supporting the statements of Lloyde England.

Who was clearly NOT in any way mentally unfit to recall where he was when the pole hit his cab.

This was confirmed by Craig Ranke after interviewing him in 2008 at the age of 75.

Jeff Hill interviewed Lloyde by phone in 2011 at the age of 78, when he was still getting up at 4 a.m. seven days a week to drive his cab, and he was perfectly lucid then too. He must have had all his faculties in good order to be able to drive a cab around Washington. Had he been confused, forgetful or suffered from dementia, he would not have still been working.

Since THIS THREAD IS ABOUT LLOYDE ENGLAND, it is perfectly appropriate that I should concentrate on his testimony as it relates to the pentagon event.

Lloyde's cab is physical evidence of what happened there that morning.

Discussions of other queries belong in other threads.

However, I can and will discuss other witness testimony in the context of its relationship to Lloyde's evidence. The other witnesses agree with Lloyde on the flightpath.

When CIT was canvassing for witnesses in Arlington, they could not find a single person who supported the official flightpath, and nor could anyone else.

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

Wrong.

Insofar as images of the plane alleged to have hit the Pentagon, the official story DOES depend on this image, which proves nothing.

It doesn't.

And as I have pointed out, there is a huge bank of imagery supporting the statements of Lloyde England.

He's one witness. The evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon the way it did is, to put it mildly, overwhelming. Conversely there is no credible evidence the plane "missed the Pentagon" or did anything else for that matter

Who was clearly NOT in any way mentally unfit to recall where he was when the pole hit his cab.

Again, he is one witness out of over 100 which gave statements.

Again, one witness can change their story, say anything, perhaps he liked all the attention he was getting from 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It means nothing because there were many other witnesses.

Ruby gray

Ruby gray wrote: »

Conversely, Lloyde's story is supported by numerous videos and photos taken from different viewpoints over about 20 minutes from the explosion.

Here is just a single one of the many frames from a video taken at the cemetery retaining wall, the location which Lloyde identified to Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor, above.

Can anyone please explain why, of the 3 images I included in posts last night, which appeared perfectly then, I can now see only the first one?

When I go into Edit, the links are still there in the post, but no images show here on my tablet. I was using a computer last night to which I have no access right now.

Ruby gray

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It doesn't.

He's one witness. The evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon the way it did is, to put it mildly, overwhelming. Conversely there is no credible evidence the plane "missed the Pentagon" or did anything else for that matter

Again, he is one witness out of over 100 which gave statements.

Again, one witness can change their story, say anything, perhaps he liked all the attention he was getting from 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It means nothing because there were many other witnesses.

Again, the other witness statements SUPPORT Lloyde England's account.

I have studied that list you posted many times, and things are not so simple as you suppose.

Many of those statements were nothing more than journalists taking poetic licence in third-person accounts. Not actual witness statements at all.
Some were anonymous, therefore no proof they existed.
Some did not see the impact at all, although they imagined they did.
Or other people imagined they did, then added their names to the infamous impact witness list.
E.g.
JOEL SUCHERMAN, who thought he saw the impact.
But the video of him on the bridge proves that he was much further away than he estimated, and clearly shows that his view of the western face of the Pentagon was completely obscured by trees.
What he did see was a plane that flew, apparently quite slowly as he demonstrated, from left to right across his windshield, then a fireball that rose above the trees. So the plane was quite far from him, and about perpendicular to the wall.
He did NOT see a plane flying from behind him, diagonally across the bridge.
He did NOT see any poles hit by the plane.

ALLAN WALLACE, firefighter.
That list claims WALLACE as an impact witness, and says he was working on his fire truck when he saw the plane.

But Wallace said different. He said he had finished with the truck, and was walking out from between the truck and the fire station onto the lawn. He stated that he did NOT see the impact.
He thought the plane was blue and orange (which would not be American Airlines).
He said he saw the plane approaching from over the Navy Annex, therefore NOT across the bridge.
He drew a sketch of where he saw the plane crossing the highway.
It flew over the north side of the northwest cloverleaf, which agrees with many eyewitness testimonies.

STEVE RISKUS stated that the plane "hit lightpoles".
But we know from his first photograph taken about 1 minute after the explosion, that RISKUS was about 100 yards north of the Columbia Pike exit road overhead sign when he saw the plane, which he erroneously estimated to be about 100 feet away.

There is no way he could have seen poles being hit on the bridge, from ~ 450 yards north.
And he stated, when asked, that he DID NOT see the poles being hit.
He SAW THEM ON THE GROUND LATER, possibly on TV.
He confirmed that the plane he saw flew perpendicular to the Pentagon, not diagonally across the bridge, and at a sufficient height to clear the trees on the cemetery bank.
Therefore the plane could not have hit the ground floor of the Pentagon, on that acute angle.

We know that RISKUS was driving on Lloyde England's tail, yet he never mentioned him.
He took a series of photos from both north and south of Lloyde's taxi, and deliberately framed it out of shot, giving the impression that there was nobody at that location.
But videos prove otherwise. Riskus excluded also the detective's car, and the Mysterious White Van.
What was Riskus hiding? His testimony is useful, and supports the North of Citgo flightpath.

The entire list of witnesses can be analysed similarly, and this tells a very different story from "104 witnesses saw the plane hit the pentagon".
The evidence for that scenario is distinctly underwhelming.

Pick any witnesses you choose, and we can study them one by one.

Dohnjoe

Ruby gray wrote: »

Again, the other witness statements SUPPORT Lloyde England's account.

The consensus of witness statements is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

How many witnesses saw the plane fly over the Pentagon?

Ruby gray

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The consensus of witness statements is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

How many witnesses saw the plane fly over the Pentagon?

Many more than you think.
Many more than ever were given the opportunity to tell their stories.
Many more than were ever permitted to speak publicly again or to have their accounts published.

For instance, study the testimony of MICHAEL KELLY, who was interviewed within about 10 minutes of the explosion.
Get a map and plot his position on it.
Take note of the chronological order of events he witnessed.
Then wonder why this eyewitness was never interviewed again.

Ditto DON SCOTT.

Ditto HARRIET ANDERSON.

Ditto KAT GAINES.

Ditto DR BRANDON GOFF.

Ditto "SKARLET".

Etc etc etc.

I do have a substantial list of people whose accounts only make sense in the context of having seen a flyover plane.