The First Known Accomplice?, Interview with Lloyd England.

I don't know how it's possible. . . But we have an eye witness account that a pole came through the windshield; and since the witness hasn't been shown to be lying, how can we just dismiss his story as false?

Because the evidence proves it to be false and because his story is beyond implausible anyway.

I might be more inclined to understand your logic in attempting to dream up your own version of his story that could be possible IF this was a hypothetical discussion.

In other words if you remove it from the fact that this is KEY absolutely critical evidence in what we know was a world wide psychological operation of deception where we know the plane did not hit he building as reported.

But it's not hypothetical.

To make excuses for this proven blatantly staged scene that was merely the beginning of an elaborate operation of precision simulated destruction is like arguing from an intellectual vacuum.

Can you show how the evidence proves Lloyd's story false?

But how do you know the pole did not hit the Lincoln as reported, since we do have a witness stating that it did? After all, Lloyd was in a good position to see whether or not a pole smashed his windshield. . .

Unless I've missed it somewhere, you haven't proven that the pole did not spear through Lloyd's windshield. Just because we can't see how it's possible does not mean it didn't happen. . .

You see, I'm only objecting here to the conclusion CIT has come to: you say Lloyd is un-doubtedly lying -- even going so far as to make a video on it . . . but we don't -- to my knowledge -- have proof of it.

I don't think everyone will accept it as credible research to just call an eyewitness a liar without proving it to be the case.

Where did we say that he was "undoubtedly lying" or even call him a "liar"?

If the plane didn't hit the poles, which it didn't, they had to have been staged like all the other damage.

To assume they weren't with no evidence to the contrary while we have much evidence, including physical, demonstrating that they were is illogical.

You're right: you didn't use the words, "undoubtedly" or "lying."

But when you use the phrases, "Lloyd's story doesn't even hold up to scrutiny by itself, but is a proven farce. . ." as well as, "It is physically impossible for them [North-side and Lloyd's testimony] to be simultaneously true" (without showing why it's impossible), in addition to the rest of the video content, what other conclusion is there?

It certainly appears you're his saying his account is not true -- doesn't that mean he is lying?

I agree. But the manner in which they were staged has not been proven. In other words, perhaps they were placed there with a tractor, perhaps a truck came by and dropped them off, perhaps a rocket engine of some sort was attached inside the base and they were "launched". . .?

Therefore, Lloyd's story has not yet (to my knowledge) been proven false by the North-side testimony (he may think the plane hit the pole, but I don't think he says he saw the plane hit the pole).

It could very well mean that.

Or he has been mentally manipulated somehow and is not even aware.

We really don't know but yes....the evidence proves his story false.

Even you admit that.

Launched with a Rocket????

Perhaps space aliens put them there.

We are going of evidence, reason, and logic.....not wild speculation.

Whether or not he currently believes his claim his story most certainly has been proven false.

Since we have not accused Lloyd of being a liar you really aren't disagreeing with us at all.

Well, it does seem possible to "launch" a light pole with some sort of rocket engine -- i.e. throw it in the air to simulate it landing as if it had been struck with an airplane. It was just one example of how pre-fabricated poles could be randomly positioned to make it look sort of like an airplane hit them -- just like blocking the road and placing the poles, or planting the poles in the early morning hours, or mind-control are other possible explanations of the scene. Basically, we need more information to decide which possibility is more right than the others.

And how is the rocket-launching idea more speculative than mind manipulation?

Also, by definition, using the word, "accomplice" implies he knowingly took part in the crime.

First of all, I don't think I have admitted that: what I'm saying is that while his story contains many oddities that make it seem impossible, I cannot yet dismiss it as a "proven farce" because again, where does the evidence prove Lloyd's story absolutely false?

Inability to understand the exact details of the situation (e.g. how the pole managed not to scratch the hood) because of a lack of information does not prove Lloyd's account untrue.

What I am disagreeing with is the assertion that the evidence proves that Lloyd's story is false. CIT produced a video -- questioning Lloyd's honesty -- apparently based off that assertion; but I have yet to see how the evidence we have so far proves Lloyd is lying. . .

I didn't say I believe in mind manipulation.

Point being is we don't outright accuse him of lying even though that it the most logical conclusion.

The physical damage to the poles is 100% inconsistent to rocket engine propelling. They were literally "pinched" at the top and the bottom of at least one of the poles shows signs of it being removed with a torch.





No rocket engine, explosives, vortex etc could have caused this.

Lloyd says the plane knocked the pole in his car. You agree this can not be true.

Whether or not he is aware of how his car was damaged we both agree that Lloyd's story is false.

Furthermore I do not believe there is even a hypothetical scenario that would allow for his description of the HEAVY and LONGER end of the pole sticking out of the windshield after he allegedly came to a stop to be physically possible. You agree that it SEEMS impossible. Given the nature of the crime and the proven fact that all other destruction had to have been simulated I don't find it very logical to dismiss the obvious implications of all the evidence in favor of embracing a scenario that "seems" impossible.

Fair enough.

Obviously you must understand the notion that he may have lied is certainly a possibility.

You now have acknowledged how we did not accuse him of lying so really all we have asserted is that this is a possibility yet Lloyd's belief that the plane knocked the pole into his cab has been proven false.

We really aren't interested in proving whether or not Lloyd is a liar.

It's clearly the most logical choice but we have never asserted that this has been proven.

It's perfectly within your right to refuse to accept the most logical choice in favor of an unlikely and/or implausible scenario.

We don't mind if you do that but it is also perfectly within our right to suggest that the most logical choice is a possibility which is all we have done.

First of all, exactly how do you know that all the damage is inconsistent with rocket engine propelling? And just because they were pinched at the top does not mean that they were not launched after they were damaged like that. . . Also, isn't it possible that only one or two were propelled in such a manner, and the rest were just placed there. . .?

That's right, if we start from the standpoint that the plane was on the North side of the Citgo (which we have reason to believe it was). But we must also consider that Lagasse (and Brooks?) said that the plane hit the Pentagon. . .

Let me try to be clear here: I think we both agree that Lloyd's explanation for why the pole speared his windshield cannot be true (if we accept the Citgo witness testimony as true). This does not prove that the rest of his story is untrue. The evidence I've seen has not yet proved it false. It looks unlikely, but this alone is not enough to render the story false -- I simply don't have enough information about the situation to make this conclusion. Do you?

Here's a scenario: suppose the top part of the pole was somehow jammed into/under the back seat in such a way as to keep the base from falling onto the hood. Lloyd does say that the interior of the car held up the pole, I believe. . .

I don't find it very logical to dismiss the testimony of an eyewitness just because you can't see how it is possible. Where's the information that proves Lloyd's story is impossible? Do we have any reason to believe he is trying to deceive anyone?

It just looks like we need more information before we can come to a solid conclusion.

Yes it is a possibility.

I would say the video does more than just suggest that Lloyd is not telling the truth.

And Sgt. Lagasse's belief that the plane hit the building has been proven unlikely as well, right?

Wait. Haven't you been saying that Lloyd's account has been proven false? It seems to me if it is false, then he must be lying.

The unlikely scenario as told by the one eyewitness we have, has not been proven false. Just because it is unlikely does not prove it is impossible.

You know, if that was all you did, I would agree; because it definitely looks like it is a possibility to me, too. But by presenting his story the way CIT has ("The First Known Accomplice?"), it looks to me as though you have "indicated, or suggested without [it] being directly or explicitly stated" that Lloyd is lying. In other words, it implies he is not being honest. And because the video does not back up this claim with proof, why should the viewer accept it as true?

Stinkey,

We have NEVER claimed that Lloyd has been "proven" a liar.

You are arguing in circles because you admit that this is the case but then insist on ignoring this fact that you previously admitted while continuing to argue as if we HAVE made this claim.

You have admitted that you believe the plane was on the north side proving a military deception and that Lloyd's stated belief about the plane spearing the light pole into his car is false.

You have admitted that Lloyd's story about the pole spearing his windshield by ANY means is unlikely and that you have no logical or likely explanation for his account.

Yet you continue to insist on making the point that he has not been proven to be a liar even though we have never made the claim that he was.

You better believe we do not shy away from the strong POSSIBILITY that Lloyd is lying (without ever accusing him) since this is the most logical and realistic explanation given the evidence.

I'm sorry you don't like that we have chosen to present the data within context of the most logical and realistic explanation.

Feel free to download the footage of his interview and make your own presentation within the context of your rocket theory as your favorite explanation for his account.

Frankly we don't care either way because no matter how you slice it, as you seem to agree, we have proof that 9/11 was an inside job and therefore that A LOT of people had to have lied about their experience on that day.

Undercover operatives, mercenaries, dupes, and patsies had to have been involved in an operation of this magnitude Stink.

They weren't all men in black with sunglasses and earpieces.

Actually no for a multitude of reasons.

1. It has been proven that the aircraft approaching the Pentagon actually flew too far north to physically contact the #1 and #2 light poles. Light poles should have been still standing



2. It has been proven that a theoretical 757 aircraft diving down the hill at 530 mph could not have pulled up to a level flight path across the lawn after striking all 5 light poles, because of too high G forces encountered and a physical time limit for pilot reaction and controls and elevator reaction.



3. From the FDR data, the theoretical 757 aircraft must dive a direct -5 degree 530 mph flight descent into the Pentagon 1st floor negating any difficult high G pull up; thereby bypassing all 5 light poles.




4. Contact with the 5 heavy gauge aluminum light poles would have caused extreme damage to the aircraft aluminum wings and thin aluminum aerodynamic surface causing an immediate decline of aerodynamic lift for the elevators to rotate against, and a subsequent crash upon the lawn.

5. The kinetic and directional force against the #1 light pole would have been eastward and the impact from the angled right wing southeastward and the alleged taxicab a minimum of several hundred feet northeastward at the alleged time of windshield impact and on the opposite side of the engines and fuselage and driving south at 45 mph.

Approximate locations of where light poles allegedly ended up. Red dot is base location.


6. It is foolishness to believe that an object struck in such a manner would deviate at such an unreasonable angle and against all logic fly through the huge slipstream of an alleged 530 mph aircraft like a javelin and pierce the windshield of a 45 mph auto driving south.

8. It is even greater foolishness to believe that this 220 lb object, hurled somehow like a javelin with enough force to overcome unopposed the slipstream and other forces of a 530 mph aircraft fuselage and wings and engines, could somehow impact this vehicle without killing the driver and destroying the vehicle.

9. In order for this 32 foot long 220 lb pole sticking out over 20 feet in front of the windshield of the vehicle to withstand the sudden change of the momentum of the sideways skid of the vehicle without ever touching the hood or ripping off the roof, one end would need to be buried firmly in the car structure. How could an old man with his imaginary friend pull that 220 lb pole out?

Therefore it is not possible for a pre-fabricated pole to spear through Lloyd's windshield, and by pre-fabricated I assume you mean that beautiful curve pre-fabricated into the pole. There we do agree.

- - Beautiful Pre-fabricated Pole

The video states that Lloyd's story is a "proven farce." Since CIT does not define which portion of Lloyd's story is a proven farce, it sounds as if you're saying his story is false, meaning he is lying. Now you seem to be saying that all you meant in the video is that Lloyd's story of the plane impacting the pole is a proven farce in light of the testimony from the Citgo witnesses -- the rest of his story (though it sounds unlikely) has yet to be proven impossible/false/lie, etc.

But to show that I didn't just make it all up, take a look at these quotes from some of your previous posts in this thread [emphasis added]:

So if all CIT meant in the, "The First Known Accomplice?" presentation is that Lloyd's story about the airplane hitting the pole is false, then I would say it could have been stated more clearly.

After all, the statement, "Lagasse's account is a proven farce in light of the damage at the Pentagon," makes it sound as if I'm saying Lagasse's north-side testimony is not believable, doesn't it?

Actually, the reason it seems like it's going in circles is because you HAVE made statements to the effect of, "Lloyd's story has been proven false" (I posted some of them above). I've asked for proof that Lloyd's story of a pole hitting his car (etc.) is a lie, but it doesn't look like there is any. . . As I think I've mentioned before, we don't yet have enough information to prove that his whole story (pole hits cab, etc.) is impossible.

You appear to be saying now that all CIT ever claimed was that his explanation of what knocked down the pole has been proven false. Since Lloyd didn't necessarily see what caused the pole to hit his car, he hasn't been proven to be intentionally lying.

That's fine, but neither the video nor some of your posts here make it clear that CIT is only presenting a possibility.

Actually no for a multitude of reasons.

1. It has been proven that the aircraft approaching the Pentagon actually flew too far north to physically contact the #1 and #2 light poles. Light poles should have been still standing

2. It has been proven that a theoretical 757 aircraft diving down the hill at 530 mph could not have pulled up to a level flight path across the lawn after striking all 5 light poles, because of too high G forces encountered and a physical time limit for pilot reaction and controls and elevator reaction.

3. From the FDR data, the theoretical 757 aircraft must dive a direct -5 degree 530 mph flight descent into the Pentagon 1st floor negating any difficult high G pull up; thereby bypassing all 5 light poles.

4. Contact with the 5 heavy gauge aluminum light poles would have caused extreme damage to the aircraft aluminum wings and thin aluminum aerodynamic surface causing an immediate decline of aerodynamic lift for the elevators to rotate against, and a subsequent crash upon the lawn.

5. The kinetic and directional force against the #1 light pole would have been eastward and the impact from the angled right wing southeastward and the alleged taxicab a minimum of several hundred feet northeastward at the alleged time of windshield impact and on the opposite side of the engines and fuselage and driving south at 45 mph.

Approximate locations of where light poles allegedly ended up. Red dot is base location.

6. It is foolishness to believe that an object struck in such a manner would deviate at such an unreasonable angle and against all logic fly through the huge slipstream of an alleged 530 mph aircraft like a javelin and pierce the windshield of a 45 mph auto driving south.

8. It is even greater foolishness to believe that this 220 lb object, hurled somehow like a javelin with enough force to overcome unopposed the slipstream and other forces of a 530 mph aircraft fuselage and wings and engines, could somehow impact this vehicle without killing the driver and destroying the vehicle.

9. In order for this 32 foot long 220 lb pole sticking out over 20 feet in front of the windshield of the vehicle to withstand the sudden change of the momentum of the sideways skid of the vehicle without ever touching the hood or ripping off the roof, one end would need to be buried firmly in the car structure. How could an old man with his imaginary friend pull that 220 lb pole out?

Therefore it is not possible for a pre-fabricated pole to spear through Lloyd's windshield, and by pre-fabricated I assume you mean that beautiful curve pre-fabricated into the pole. There we do agree.

None of that proves that the following scenario -- just speculation -- is not possible: a pre-fabricated pole (straight, with some of the top chopped off) is somehow propelled, causing it to impact the taxi's windshield and become jammed into the back of the car; the bend occurs due to the longer base "sticking out across the hood" being quite heavy and some part of the interior of the car acting as a fulcrum. . . When Lloyd and the stranger remove the pole, they place it more or less across the lanes; it is later moved, causing the scratch in the pavement. . .

What proof is there that such a proposition is not possible?

Lloyd's story most certainly has been proven false as you have admitted.

We merely pose the obvious and perfectly logical question of whether or not he is the first known willing accomplice of which we do not claim to know the answer for sure.

You can choose to accept the most logical and likely answer due to the evidence or search for a less logical or likely answer all you want.

That is your right.

Yes, when the North-side testimony is taken into account, Lloyd's explanation for why the pole hit is car is not possible.

But he could be mistaken about that and still be a genuine witness.

I understand this is your point.

You have a right to keep that unlikely scenario open as a possibility in your mind.

The implications of what we present do not change either way.