Why Are There No Witnesses..., to the pole spearing Lloyd's windshield?

Of the alleged 16 "light pole witnesses"; none of their accounts have been confirmed as having actually seen the light poles get clipped by the plane.

Only Wanda Ramey and an "anonymous Navy Admiral" are quoted as saying that they "saw" the light poles get clipped. The anonymous dude doesn't count so that leaves one. She is allegedly a Pentagon police officer but we could not get a hold of her to confirm her account.


We have personally interviewed the most significant ones (McGraw, Sucherman, Walter, and Brooks) who ALL personally told us that they did NOT see the light poles get hit by the plane and merely deduced it after the fact.

This is particularly odd in the case of McGraw, Sucherman, and Walter who were all allegedly on route 27 with a PERFECT view of the poles but a not so perfect view of the alleged impact that they all suspiciously claim they saw in detail.

Here is the real life view of the confirmed position of Sucherman and Walter:



McGraw would have had the best view of the alleged impact but an even better view of poles 3, 4, and 5.

Here is his alleged real life view:




As if this isn't strange enough......out of ALL of the previously published accounts and out of everyone that we have spoken with and DESPITE the fact that traffic on route 27 going northbound was allegedly at a stand still:

THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS REPORT OF SEEING THE LIGHT POLE GET CLIPPED BY THE PLANE AND SPEAR LLOYD'S WINDSHIELD AS HE SPINS OUT SIDEWAYS AND STOPS WITHIN A FEW FEET!!!










So nobody is willing to claim they saw the plane hit the poles, the cab's windshield get speared by the pole, OR the alleged smoke trail.

That is because nobody did see the plane hit the poles, because the plane didn't hit the poles, because it was on the North side of the Citgo gas station so it could not have hit the poles as alleged.

But you knew that already right.

Even if somebody did say they saw the plane hit the poles it doesn't matter. It has been established that the plane was nowhere near them, so they can be easily dismissed as a liar, actor, asset, or operative.

I've looked at all the evidence. It is physically impossible for the cab scene with the pole to be real. It reads like contrived fiction from an over imaginative 5th grader. Lloyd England is an asset of the FBI. His wife works for the FBI, so he is an easy recruit. A likely scenario is that Lloyd was paid off to be a fake witness just like the "harley guy" fool at the World Trade Center.

Lloyd's wife is kind of a shady character from what I've gathered from the video. She tries to lie a couple times like when she said the FBI took in the car for more than 1 day, while Lloyd was telling her "no they didn't" while she was saying it. She then admitted to the fly over. She knows exactly what happened, and she knows what Lloyd's role was as well.

McGraw didn't see the plane hit the light poles, yet he saw it bounce off the ground. This is ridiculous, but it's hard to question the honesty of a priest.

Are there any other interviews with McGraw?

Nope.

Not on video anyway.

It's dead set easy to question the honesty of a priest.

They don't have much of a reputation when it comes to playing with altar boys in one particular faith...

Putting a collar around your throat and swearing an oath to an unproven deity does not exempt one from being dishonest.

It's dead set easy to question the honesty of a priest.

They don't have much of a reputation when it comes to playing with altar boys in one particular faith...

Putting a collar around your throat and swearing an oath to an unproven deity does not exempt one from being dishonest.

Actually, in Aldo´s interview with McGraw

He remembered this because other people said they saw it?

His original quote the day after was

He saw an explosion. His testimony grows with the followings weeks and months.

I would have NO problem questioning his honesty or at least his take on what he said he saw.

He was trying to stick to his lightpole testimony until Aldo cornered him on the issue.
It is also the same with CIT´s interview with Brooks. He admitted to not seeing the poles struck (hats off to him)
Penny Elgas saying in an interview ´that´s what THEY said´ on the media reports of debris landing in her car where in reality she had picked it off the road.
She also admitted not seeing the poles struck.
Witness testimony has been severely contaminated or totally made up..Henry Ticknor, James Cissell, Evey, to name but a few.

Truth is the truth no matter who or what you are.

I think you took his post opposite of what he meant.

Aaah, gotcha lol.

onesliceshort... I've seen the McGraw interview. He did not state that he saw the light pole hit the taxi, which is all that was needed to strike him off the list as a 'witness'.

I wouldn't believe a priest over any other person in society.

Bouncing planes... yeah right.

So if the plane really bounced of the lawn as the priest claims it did
the where are the photos of where the underside of the plane impacted
the lawn?

I find it hard to believe that even if the plane did hit the lawn with
it's underside that it could just magically bounce of the lawn and hit the
south wall of the pentagon like a rubber ball skipping or bouncing off the ground after being throw or kick and then hitting a solid wall of a building.

What an absolute load of rubbish there should be photo's of missing grass
and the dirt where the under side of the plane hit the lawn, but in the photo's taken outside of the pentagon after the alledged flight 77 impacted the south
side of the pentagon wall we see no such damage done to the lawn.

As seen here note no scrap marks or scuff marks or trenches dug into the pentagon lawn by the impact of the underside of large commercial airliner.




So it already looks like our priest who has claimed to witness the impossible
is just another proven liar shill, there is absolutely no evidence to support
any theory of a plane having hit the pentagon lawn and bounced into the south face of the pentagon.

I believe i have already provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the
priest is lying when he says he saw the plane hit the lawn and bounce of it
and hit the pentagon wall.

The fact is there was no plane that hit the south face of the front pentagon wall
on 9/11 another plane not identified as A.A 77 as seen by the 14 north side approach witness along with the lack of physical evidence of plane crash at the pentagon and the other obvious signs that no plane hit the pentagon
the 14 north side witnesses prove that there was no south side approach
and lend credibilty to the theory that it was a north side flyover timed with
the explosion of a fireball to make it look like the plane actually hit the pentagon.

Oh yeah and another thing i just noticed about this photo, why does it look
like the top off one of the light poles has been picked up and deliberatly placed neatly longways along the top of the guard rail?

Just looking at the top of one of the lighpoles sitting along the top of the guard rail like that is making me very suspicious that maybe someone deliberatly left it there like that so it could be planted later or something along the lines of that?

Or am i mistaken and is the lightpole just sitting on the grass, sitting just behing the guard rail giving the impress from the viewing angle that it actaully is sitting longways along the top of the guard rail?

Has anyone noticed this before?

huh?

Yeah I was trying to figure out his real position (if he was there at all when the explosion happened) from his interview here.
No way could he see the cab. Both because of his positioning and because the cab saga is ridiculous from start to finish. NOW Lloyd admits it was all planned. Imagine WE were arguing Lloyd´s case to the debunkers..

Another dubious witness who was on the same lanes as Lloyd was Daryl Donley.

How does this compare to Lloyd..

Donley´s testimony is frustrating in that he says the ´plane flew next to me´..
I mean, wtf sort of description is that?? Leaving himself wriggle room. Has to be.

But the pic you show above is one of his. Notice the south and west corner of the building can be seen.



Now look at one of photos of the cab scene (south facade)



And note where the overhead sign is in relation to the cab.





Donley´s shot (top) shows lightpole 5.
Look at lightpole 5 in this shot from a different angle from the lawn to the motorway. In Donley´s shot it appears to be level but it is actually at an angle.

pole5 ***


(Either way ridiculous to think a plane was supposed to have smashed it to the ground so short a distance)
It appears level because of Donley´s perspective.
Look at the overhead sign in the background where Lloyd is (but a bit further down.)
Donley´s shot, given the perspective is further up towards the cab taking photos.

Sooo, (bear with me lol) this guy Donley allegedly saw the plane approach. Didn´t see the lightpoles being struck. Didn´t see a cab with a bigass pole in the windscreen, skidding on the road ahead of him, in ´the worst traffic´. Didn´t mention Lloyd being helped by the ´silent stranger´.

I raise the bullshit flag on the whole scenario.
I´m a bit green on perspective and photo effects from zoom, etc. so maybe I´m off a bit but Donley was in a position to see this area. Definitely.